Authors
Clifton B. Parker
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

When David Relman learned in April that he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he was humbled – and a bit surprised. 

Relman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Thomas C. and Joan M. Merigan Professor and a professor of medicine and of microbiology & immunology. AAA&S honors exceptional scholars, leaders, artists, and innovators engaged in advancing the public good. 

When he received notification, Relman went to the organization’s web site to check on the discipline area and specialty with which he was affiliated. 

“I looked at the areas and specialties that pertained to my background and expertise (medical sciences, microbiology and immunology, other aspects of the biological sciences), but I could not find my name,” he said. “I thought that maybe the notification was in error.” Then he looked more closely at AAA&S’s letter, and found that his nominators had proposed the “public affairs and public policy section.” 

Arguably that distinction truly reflects Relman’s wide-ranging and serious policy impact in biosecurity, as well as his groundbreaking career work on the nature of the human indigenous microbiota (microbiome). AAA&S’ section of 220 policy luminaries includes former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Indeed, Relman’s extensive knowledge in microbiology and immunology has played key roles on several critical U.S. and international policy fronts – most recently, the pandemic. 

 Boundless curiosity 

“When you consider the history of the academy and its origins in 1780 during the American Revolution by John Adams and John Hancock, it’s really quite awe-inspiring. You’re joining those who follow in that history,” said Relman, who received an S.B. (Biology) from MIT, M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and joined the faculty at Stanford in 1994. 

Relman’s scholarship is characterized by boundless curiosity – he asks the deeper questions about the pandemic, about human-microbial relationships – both beneficial and harmful, and what they portend for humanity and the future of life on Earth. With grace and diligence, he’s explored the assembly, diversity, stability, and resilience of human microbial communities, while collaborating with other scholars and policy makers on issues paramount to humanity. 

“When I step back and think about the pandemic, it’s clear that it is about much more than just the virus, but also about the social, political, and environmental factors that contribute to the emergence and impact of such pathogens,” said Relman, currently director of a Biosecurity and Global Health initiative at FSI. 

Why do pandemics and more localized outbreaks arise, and how do they uniquely manifest themselves, he ponders. 

“What are the factors that underlie these events, and can we anticipate them better? We much consider three categories of factors: One, is the microbes themselves – and microbes evolve and find ways to do new things. The second category is the hosts – humans, plants, and animals. And humans are undertaking new activities as individuals and as populations that tend to make us more vulnerable, such as immune suppressing ourselves to treat cancer and autoimmune disorders and crowding ourselves into megacities. The third is environmental, and that relates to climate change, and our changing use of land, such as deforestation, intrusion into previously isolated habitats, and other factors,” Relman said. 

Intrusion into new habitats, making contact with animal hosts such as bats that harbor potential disease-causing microbes and viruses, and then bringing these potential pathogens into a lab where we manipulate and alter these agents can lead to human error and accidents, not without grave consequence. “The choices we make in an effort to understand the world around us all come with risk,” he said. 

As far as the microbes and viruses go, “transmissibility is the key,” Relman said. The COVID pandemic reinforced this view for him. 

“When you see what happens when a virus can travel around the globe so quickly, transmissibility has to be viewed as the critical attribute. Viruses evolve and can outrun anything that we might throw in their way, even when we’re already prepared. So, we have to be agile, quick, and shrewd, and we desperately need a far better public health system across the globe that can respond and implement needed measures much more quickly.” 

It’s not just drugs and vaccines and science when it comes to tackling a pandemic. “It’s the social factors, the political factors, and the willingness of humans to work together, and trust, respect and believing in each other. We’ve learned the hard way that this is a tall order. Sometimes we really don’t work together very well,” he said. 

Long-view perspectives 

Relman quotes Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist and Stanford professor on this age-old war between humanity and viruses: 

“The future of humanity and microbes likely will unfold as episodes of a suspense thriller that could be titled, ‘Our Wits Versus Their Genes,’” Lederberg wrote in an essay, “Infectious History,” in 2000. 

That perspective inspires Relman, who considers this suspense thriller with open eyes and an open mind – digging deeply into complex scientific challenges while understanding long-view perspectives. 

“If you step back in time and consider the history of this planet,” he said, “realize the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. The earliest life forms we know of were microscopic organisms (microbes) that left signs of their presence in rocks at least 3.7 billion years ago. They have had literally billions of years to diversify, adapt, and secure niches – including on and in animals.” 

On the other hand, modern humans (homo sapiens) have been around for only 200,000 years. “So, we’ve basically been here for the last 3 or 4 seconds of a 24-hour period that started with the formation of Earth. Compare this to microbial life, which has been here for more than 19 hours of this 24-hour period, and will be continue to persist and evolve on this planet for far longer than humanity,” Relman said. 

Relman contemplates and studies the intricacies of the human-microbe relationship, and delves into the issue of how do “favorable” relationships become established, whose interests do they serve, and how can they be supported or restored? 

“This is fundamental to my laboratory work. And why do those relationships sometimes go off the rails? What causes an unusual turn of events such as pandemics? And in what ways and for what reasons do humans mess with these storylines and relationships with these microbes? Those are the puzzles and mysteries that intrigue me,” he said. 

Health equity is a major concern for Relman. Pandemics and public health crises invariably result in harsher consequences for underserved populations than more privileged ones. Many of these communities lack ready access to vaccines, treatments and safeguards, and suffer more disproportionate economic and social turmoil. This is true regardless of how a pandemic arises, including and especially those that might arise because of irresponsible or deliberately malevolent human activities. 

“Subsequent generations are going to be looking at how we’ve handled this pandemic across society, especially for the underserved,” Relman said. “We need to, and can do, much better on this front.” 

Relman was a long-time volunteer for the Rock Medicine program organized by the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, a free health care service provider serving more than 34,000 people who need access to quality medical care. He served as the chief medical officer for the program for more than a decade. In the 1990s he was featured on MTV for his work providing free medical care at concerts through the program. “Don’t get me started on the dangers of mosh pits,” he once said

Scientific truth-telling 

A pioneer in his field, Relman’s research paper on bacillary angiomatosis and a method for the discovery of new pathogens was selected as “one of the 50 most important publications of the 

past century” by the American Society for Microbiology. In other research, ecological theory and predictions are tested in clinical studies with multiple approaches for characterizing the human microbiome. His work has led to the development of molecular methods for identifying novel microbial pathogens, and the subsequent identification of several historically important microbial disease agents. He was one of the first to characterize microbial diversity in the human body using modern molecular methods. Relman is also the Chief of Infectious Diseases at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in Palo Alto, California, and served as science co-director at CISAC from 2013-2017. 

During the pandemic, scientific knowledge has been expressed in many ways – but political polarization in the U.S. has sometimes worked against crafting sound policy. 

Relman said, “All good scientists know what they’re good at. You need to be very mindful about what you know and what you don’t know. While people are pretty quick to say what they know, they’re not terribly quick to admit what they don’t know. This goes to the issue of ‘lanes’ and the roles of scientists in policy formulation.” 

Many scientists, he added, may think that scientific information alone determines the ultimate public policy. “But it’s only a piece of it. Lots of other factors go into policy, such as social, cultural, political, and economic considerations,” he said. 

National security policy 

Relman served as vice-chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee that reviewed the science performed as part of the FBI investigation of the 2001 “Anthrax Letters.” He’s also been a member of the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity, and was president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He is currently a member of the Intelligence Community Studies Board and the Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats, both at the National Academies of Science, as well as the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the Defense Science Board at the Pentagon. He received an NIH Pioneer Award, an NIH Transformative Research Award, and was elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine in 2011

He also chaired and led the work on the National Academies of Science 2020 report on “Havana syndrome,” cases of unexplained health disorders – aka, “anomalous health incidents” – among U.S. government personnel and their families at overseas embassies. Their findings pointed to a “plausible role of directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy,” though “no hypothesis has been proven, and the circumstances remain unclear.” 

Relman said, “I think that we’re going to be facing challenges like this one, that is, complex poorly-explained health problems at the interface of emerging science and national security, more frequently, and that’s what I’ve told our national leadership.” In the report, the scientists wrote, “We as a nation need to address these specific cases as well as the possibility of future cases with a concerted, coordinated, and comprehensive approach.” 

Megan Palmer, the executive director of the Bio Policy & Leadership Initiatives and Relman’s longtime colleague, said, “David is an exceptional scientist, mentor, colleague and friend. He is deeply thoughtful, especially about the role of science and scientists in society, and he is committed to work with integrity for the service of others. He is compelled to tackle the most difficult problems with great care, and he inspires others to follow suit. I am so grateful for his mentorship; he believes in and brings out the best in people.” 

All News button
1
Subtitle

When David Relman learned in April that he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he was humbled – and a bit surprised.

-

Image
image of Julie Owono and Phumzile Van Damme on blue background

Join us on Tuesday, May 31st from 12 PM - 1 PM PT for "A Former South African Politician’s Effort to Combat Misinformation in Elections" featuring Phumzile Van Damme, former Member of Parliament in South Africa, in conversation with Julie Owono of the Content Policy & Society Lab (CPSL). This weekly seminar series is jointly organized by the Cyber Policy Center’s Program on Democracy and the Internet and the Hewlett Foundation’s Cyber Initiative.

About the Seminar: 

Misinformation during elections is a serious concern for democratic systems around the world. This is particularly true in various African countries, cases of electoral violence have been linked to disruptions in the informational realm. Yet, the underinvestment by technology companies in initiatives to limit the existence and impact of disinformation in Africa remains a reality.

Local initiatives have attempted to mitigate this inequality. This week’s webinar will focus on the work of Former South African MP Phumzile Van Damme, who launched a project to tackle the spread of misinformation on social media platforms before and during the local government elections in November 2021. She will share on the methodology used, and results observed. The webinar will also discuss the challenges faced in ensuring that South African users and citizens have access to reliable information.
 

About the Speakers:

Phumzile Van Damme is an independent consultant on disinformation and digital rights. She is a member of the Real Facebook Oversight Board, the International Grand Committee on Disinformation, and an advisory council member of #ShePersisted. Van Damme’s work on misinformation was the subject of a documentary that premiered at Sundance Film Festival in 2020, “Influence.” 
 
A former Member of Parliament in South Africa, Van Damme served on the Communications and Digital Technologies committee as Shadow Minister. She played a pivotal role in holding social media platforms accountable for misinformation on their platforms and spearheaded the summoning of Facebook and other tech giants to Parliament. 
 
In September 2021, she helped found and coordinate South Africa’s first electoral disinformation monitoring project, the ‘Local Government Anti-Disinformation Project’. She has spoken on various platforms on the subject of disinformation including at the UNDP and the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Julie Owono is the Executive Director of the Content Policy & Society Lab (CPSL) and a fellow of the Program on Democracy and the Internet (PDI) at Stanford University. She is also the Executive Director of digital rights organization Internet Sans Frontières, one of the inaugural members of the Facebook Oversight Board, and an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. She holds a Master’s degree in International Law from la Sorbonne University in Paris, and practiced as a lawyer at the Paris Bar. 

With a fluency in five languages, a childhood spent in various countries, and an educational background at the Lyçée Français Alexandre Dumas in Moscow, Julie has a unique perspective to understand the challenges and opportunities of a global Internet. This background has shaped her belief that global and multi stakeholder collaborations can be instrumental in the emergence of rights-based content policies and regulations.

Phumzile Van Damme
Seminars
Authors
Siegfried S. Hecker
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

How has Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine upended the world nuclear order? 

Longtime Carnegie Corporation of New York grantee Siegfried Hecker, one of the world’s foremost nuclear security and policy experts, offers his perspective on how Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is as momentous for nuclear affairs as the dissolution of the Soviet Union in a recent interview with John Mecklin, editor-in-chief of Corporation grantee the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Read the rest at Carnegie Corporation of New York

All News button
1
Subtitle

Longtime Corporation grantee Siegfried Hecker, one of the world’s foremost nuclear security and policy experts, offers his perspective on how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is as momentous for nuclear affairs as the dissolution of the Soviet Union

-

For spring quarter 2022, CISAC will be hosting hybrid events. Many events will offer limited-capacity in-person attendance for Stanford faculty, staff, fellows, visiting scholars, and students in accordance with Stanford’s health and safety guidelines, and be open to the public online via Zoom. All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone. 

SEMINAR RECORDING

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to William J. Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person. 

Rose Gottemoeller
David Holloway
Scott Sagan
Seminars
Authors
Steven Pifer
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

The Russia-Ukraine war is entering its fourth month, with no end in sight.  The Kremlin seems intent on achieving a victory on the battlefield, while relations between the West and Russia plummet to new lows.  One casualty:  U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations.

Negotiated limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces seem far more important today than in 2010, when the two countries concluded the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and enjoyed warmer overall relations.  Keeping those limits in place, to say nothing of achieving new constraints, could prove difficult.

Prospects appeared brighter in 2021.  Immediately on taking office, President Biden agreed to extend New START until February 2026.  U.S. officials indicated a desire to engage Russia in a negotiation to limit all U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, a logical next step after New START.

Following the June 2021 Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, U.S. and Russian officials met in the strategic stability dialogue to discuss nuclear arms and related issues, such as missile defense.  Although the dialogue by the end of the year had not produced a mandate for negotiations, both sides characterized the discussions as constructive.

Then, on February 24, 2022, the Russia launched its brutal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine.  Washington wound down “business as usual” and suspended the strategic stability dialogue.

Resumption of those discussions almost certainly will have to wait until an end to the war, and likely for some time after that.  Arms control skeptics will seize on Russia’s attack to intensify their opposition to any attempt to negotiate with Moscow.

If U.S.-Russian discussions resume at some point, the delay will have an impact.  Persuading Moscow to negotiate limits on non-strategic nuclear weapons, which would bring in a host of complex questions, would have been difficult in any case.  Now, however, the sides would have little time to conclude a treaty, let alone for the Senate to discuss ratification, before the U.S. political season cranks up in 2024.

Setting aside the time factor, the Russia-Ukraine war almost certainly will make it harder to persuade Russian negotiators to put non-strategic nuclear weapons on the table.  The Russian military attaches great importance to such weapons, seeing them as one means to make up for U.S. and NATO conventional force advantages (to say nothing about China).

Given the abysmal performance by its military against a smaller and out-gunned foe, the Russian General Staff is likely to regard its non-strategic nuclear arsenal as more necessary than ever.

Of particular note, the Russian military has devoted significant efforts in recent years to adding to its arsenal precision-guided conventional weapons, including long-range strike systems such as the Kalibr cruise missile.  They demonstrated some of those weapons in Syria.

However, the war against Ukraine has revealed significant shortcomings.  First, the Russian weapons appear to have a high fail rate.  U.S. officials estimated that some Russian “smart” weapons miss targets as much as 60 percent of the time.  Second, the large number of Russian air sorties delivering dumb bombs (which require that aircraft fly lower, making them more vulnerable to Ukrainian surface-to-air missiles) suggests that the Russian stockpile of smart weapons may not be large.  Third, Western bans on the export of hi-tech products to Russia could hinder Russian production of new precision-guided conventional weapons.

This will make it harder to get non-strategic nuclear weapons in the negotiation.  At a minimum, the price that Russian negotiators will demand, such as limits on missile defense, will increase.

The Biden administration thus has no chance to get an ambitious agreement in its first term.  As for a second term, who knows what the American electorate will decide in November 2024?

A less ambitious approach would look at extending the limits that now apply to U.S. and Russian strategic offensive forces.  That could offer a sensible fallback.  The U.S. military values New START’s verification and transparency measures.  The Russians, like the Soviets before them, traditionally have sought constraints on U.S. strategic forces.

New START’s terms, however, do not permit extension beyond 2026.  If U.S. and Russian negotiators concluded a new treaty merely extending New START’s constraints, securing the two-thirds vote needed in the Senate for consent to ratification could prove difficult.  Among other things, opponents would point out that, when consenting to ratify New START in 2010, the Senate called on the administration to negotiate limits on non-strategic nuclear weapons.

The administration could seek to extend New START’s limits in an agreement that it would submit to both houses of Congress for approval by simple majorities.  (The Nixon administration handled the 1972 Interim Offensive Arms Agreement that way.)  Doing so, however, would require majorities in both the House and Senate—and no doubt would generate complaints about end-running the Senate.

Another approach would center on politically-binding agreements (not submitted to Capitol Hill) or parallel unilateral declarations.  These could extend the New START limits, but they likely would not continue the treaty’s verification measures.  The Russians have taken the position in the past that they cannot share information that their system regards as classified without a legally-binding agreement.  Washington would have little enthusiasm for continuing New START limits unaccompanied by verification measures.

Arms control offers a useful national security tool that can put guardrails on the adversarial aspects of the U.S.-Russian relationship.  As Washington and Moscow find themselves at the most contentious point in their relations since the early 1980s and perhaps since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, keeping such guardrails in place is more important than ever.  Unfortunately, the Russia-Ukraine war will make doing that more difficult than ever.

All News button
1
Subtitle

The Russia-Ukraine war is entering its fourth month, with no end in sight.  The Kremlin seems intent on achieving a victory on the battlefield, while relations between the West and Russia plummet to new lows.  One casualty:  U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations.

Authors
Suzanne Smalley
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Ukraine’s state communications agency said Friday that Russian forces had invaded a Kherson-based Internet company and disconnected all equipment, threatening to confiscate it if the company did not connect to Russian networks.

Read the rest at CyberScoop

Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle

Ukraine’s state communications agency said Friday that Russian forces had invaded a Kherson-based Internet company and disconnected all equipment, threatening to confiscate it if the company did not connect to Russian networks.

-

For spring quarter 2022, CISAC will be hosting hybrid events. Many events will offer limited-capacity in-person attendance for Stanford faculty, staff, fellows, visiting scholars, and students in accordance with Stanford’s health and safety guidelines, and be open to the public online via Zoom. All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone. 

SEMINAR RECORDING

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to William J Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person. 

Dean Winslow
Seminars
-

Image
image of jeff hancock on blue background with ryan moore and ross dahlke

Join us on Tuesday, May 17th from 12 PM - 1 PM PT for “Exposure to Untrustworthy Websites in the 2020 US Election” featuring Jeff Hancock, Ross Dahlke & Ryan Moore of the Social Media Lab. This weekly seminar series is jointly organized by the Cyber Policy Center’s Program on Democracy and the Internet and the Hewlett Foundation’s Cyber Initiative.

About The Seminar: 

Prior research has documented exposure to fake news and online misinformation using large-scale data on individuals’ media use, which has provided important information about the scope and nature of people’s exposure to misinformation online. However, most of this work has made use of data collected during the 2016 US election, and far fewer studies have examined how exposure to misinformation online has changed since 2016. In this paper, we examine exposure to untrustworthy websites in the lead up to the 2020 US election using a dataset of over 7.5 million passively tracked website visits from a nationally representative sample of American adults (N = 1,151). We find that a significantly smaller percentage of Americans were exposed to untrustworthy websites in 2020 compared to in 2016 (as calculated by Guess et al. [2020]). While exposure was concentrated among similar groups of people as it was in 2016, levels of exposure appear to be lower across the board. There were also differences in the role online platforms played in directing people to untrustworthy websites in 2020 compared to 2016. Our findings have implications for future research and practice around online misinformation.

About The Speakers:

Jeff Hancock is the founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab and is Harry and Norman Chandler Professor of Communication at Stanford University. Professor Hancock and his group work on understanding psychological and interpersonal processes in social media. The team specializes in using computational linguistics and experiments to understand how the words we use can reveal psychological and social dynamics, such as deception and trust, emotional dynamics, intimacy and relationships, and social support. Recently Professor Hancock has begun work on understanding the mental models people have about algorithms in social media, as well as working on the ethical issues associated with computational social science.

Ross Dahlke, from Westfield, Wisconsin, is pursuing a PhD in theory and research in the Stanford Social Media Lab at the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with bachelor’s degrees in journalism and political science. Ross’s research focuses on applying AI and computational techniques to understand how people interact with complex systems. Before graduate school, he was a data scientist at a marketing technology firm where he developed machine learning platforms that helped Fortune 500 companies optimize their digital marketing spend in order to drive sales. He has also consulted on dozens of state-wide and local political campaigns. In high school, Ross started a cheese distribution business which has sold more than $3 million in cheese.

Ryan Moore studies how features of new media platforms and technologies affect the consumption, processing, and sharing of information, especially information about politics and news. In addition, he is interested in the role that age plays in internet and technology use, particularly as it relates to encountering deceptive or misleading content.

Seminars
-
Image
two logos displayed on blue abstract background, Korea Foundation and Stanford's GTG program

Geopolitics of Technology in East Asia

 

WHEN: May 17 & May 18 
WHERE: Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center (IN PERSON) or Live Webcast


AGENDA: 

Day 1 of the workshop will focus on the strategic dimensions of industrial policy relating to digital goods and services. Key topics include national security reviews of inbound and outbound investments, export controls, and supply chain risks, with a view towards identifying areas that are ripe for multilateral alignment as well as points of friction and options for managing those points of friction. Elaborating the respective roles and responsibilities of government and private sector actors will be an important theme.

Day 2 of the workshop will focus on regulatory policy and workforce challenges and opportunities, especially AI and its ecosystem of supporting technologies. 
 

FULL AGENDA

Andrew Grotto

Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center or Live Webcast

Seminars
-

For spring quarter 2022, CISAC will be hosting hybrid events. Many events will offer limited-capacity in-person attendance for Stanford faculty, staff, fellows, visiting scholars, and students in accordance with Stanford’s health and safety guidelines, and be open to the public online via Zoom. All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone. 

SEMINAR RECORDING

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to William J. Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person. 

Frances Butcher
Sigrid Lupieri
Seminars
Subscribe to Russia and Eurasia