Summary Footnotes

1. Office of Homeland Security, 2002. The National Strategy for Homeland Security, p. 52, http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/index.html
2. http://www.house.gov/science/press/107/107-249.htm
3. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/events/security_symposium_2002/garyhart_speech.pdf
4. See, for instance, E. B. Skolnikoff, 1969. Science, Technology and American Foreign Policy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Quoted in N. Wade, 1977. Breziniski: Role of Science in Society and Foreign Policy, Science:195:966-968.
6. G. Kennan, (signed as X.) 1947. The Sources of Soviet Conduct, The Atlantic Monthly http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html
7. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nsc-68/nsc68-1.htm cites as U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: 1950, Volume I. See also P. Y Hammond, 1962. NSC-68: Prologue to Rearmament, pp. 267-378 in Warner R. Schilling, Paul Y. Hammond, and Glenn Snyder, Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets, Columbia University Press.
8. The Clinton-era policy of "enlargement" as described here is based on the remarks of Anthony Lake, 1993. From Containment to Enlargement, September 21, Johns Hopkins University, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html An excellent resource for period documents on U.S. foreign policy is the home page of professor Vincent Ferraro at Mount Holyoke College, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/feros-pg.htm
9. See, e.g., Science and Technology in U.S. International Affairs, 1992. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, New York, http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/science_tech/internat.txt and J. Watkins, 1997. Science and technology in foreign affairs, Science 277:650.
10. T. Wirth, 1997. Letter, Science 277:1185.
11. G. Hart and W. Rudman, 2002. America Still Unprepared - America Still in Danger, Report of an Independent task Force, Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations.
12. Hart and Rudman 2002.
13. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf Additional documentation on the national security policies of the Bush administration can be found at : http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/doctrine.htm
14. For an elaboration on this discussion see Sarewitz, D. R. A. Pielke, Jr, and M. Keykyah,. 2003 (in press). Vulnerability and Risk: Some Thoughts From A Political and Policy Perspective, Risk Analysis.
15. The Economist, 2002. A Survey of Digital Security, October 26.
16. Terrorism and Foreign Policy, text of remarks given before the German Council on Foreign Relations, Berlin Germany, July 2, 2002. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02070204.htm
17. C. Mann, 2002. Homeland Insecurity, The Atlantic Monthly, September http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm
18. Pielke, Jr., R.A., 1999: Who Decides? Forecasts and Responsibilities in the 1997 Red River Flood. American Behaviorial Science Review 7:83-101. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/hp_roger/pdf/1999.161.pdf
19. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/
20. For discussion, see R. Monastersky, 2002. Publish and perish, The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11, p. A16 ff.
21. For discussion see the articles in AAAS, 2003. Science and Technology in a Vulnerable World, Supplement to AAAS Science and Technology Yearbook 2003. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
22. Monastersky 2002.
23. Schema, D. J. 2002. Sept. 11 Strikes at Labs' Doors, New York Times, 13 August.
24. Schema, D. J. 2002. Sept. 11 Strikes at Labs' Doors, New York Times, 13 August.
25. Some argue that historical trends in terrorist attacks, 9/11 included, do not justify dramatic policy shifts, see, e.g., R. Congleton, 2002. Terrorism, Interest Group Politics, and Public Policy, The Independent Review, 7:47-67.
26. See, e.g., Lichtblau, E. Terror attacks on 'soft' targets complicates security, New Your Times, 30 November.
27. How to think about security, Bruce Schneier, Counterpane Internet Security, http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0204.html
28. The study referred to was co-chaired by L. Branscomb: National Research Council, 2002. Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism, p. 29, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
29. L. Branscomb, 2002. Thoughts on catatrophic terrorism in America, Ogmius: Newsletter of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Number 3, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ogmius/archives/
30. Hart and Rudman 2002.
31. National Research Council, 2002. Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism, p. 29, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
32. PCAST, 2002. Report on Maximizing the Contribution of Science and Technology Within the New Department of Homeland Security, 23 July, http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/DHSreport.html
33. Valelly, R. How political scientists can help fight the war on terrorism, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review 19 July, p. B10.
34. Perpich, J. G. 2002. The Recombinant-DNA Debate and Bioterrorism, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review 15 March, p. B20.
35. PCAST, 2002. Report on Maximizing the Contribution of Science and Technology Within the New Department of Homeland Security, 23 July, http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/DHSreport.html
36. Glantz, J. 2001. Sure, it's rocket science, but who needs scientists? New York Times 17 June.
37. http://www.house.gov/science/press/107/107-249.htm