About the Event: In the prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, American intelligence had concluded the impending Russian efforts would succeed. A Department of Defense official reportedly noted that the collapse of Ukraine “might take a few days longer” than the Russians expected, but not much longer. The Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) was expected to lead the Russian military assault, eliminating Ukraine’s air defense and paving the way for Russian troops to capture Kyiv. However, in hindsight, the expectations were inflated and misinformed. What explains the failure of VKS to acquire and hold air dominance over a much weaker Ukrainian Air Force? I explore three causal factors to understand the failures of the VKS—Ukrainian resolve and innovativeness, Russian culture and its impact on the doctrine and role of VKS in Russian national security, and the role of information and intelligence integration in airpower projection.

About the Speaker: Jaganath Sankaran is an assistant professor in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin and a non-resident fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. He works on problems at the intersection of international security and science & technology. He has published in International Security, Contemporary Security Policy, Journal of Strategic Studies, Journal of East Asian Studies, Asian Security, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Arms Control Today, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and other outlets. The RAND Corporation and the Stimson Center have also published his research. He has served on study groups of the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) and the American Physical Society (APS) Panel on Public Affairs examining missile defenses and strategic stability. 

 All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

About the Event: U.S. residents and international affairs elite surveyed for this project report significant reliance on news reporting for information on international affairs. They also acknowledge major gaps in international affairs coverage. Do these gaps predictably influence fundamental knowledge and perceptions of international affairs? We begin by analyzing tens of millions of recently published articles and find that 1) many major international issues receive minimal major news media attention, and 2) that many international issues, when they are reported on, are depicted in a manner that deviates from underlying empirical realities (e.g. reporting effectively stops even as crises continue). Through a series of surveys, we then analyze how these reporting patterns influence the knowledge and perceptions of international affairs of two distinct populations: 1) U.S. residents; and 2) international affairs professionals consisting of a) international relations faculty at colleges and universities across the United States, b) current and former senior U.S. government officials who collectively served across (at least) three presidential administrations on issues relating to U.S. trade, development, or national security, and c) international affairs-focused staffers at major U.S. think tanks. Results point to significant causal effects of news media reporting practices on respondents' knowledge and perceptions of international affairs. More broadly, we argue that the major news media’s role as an international affairs actor is omitted in  much international relations theorizing and empirical work.

About the Speakers: Andrew Shaver is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Merced. He is also the founding director of the Political Violence Lab. He previously completed postdoctoral research fellowships at Stanford University's Political Science Department and, separately, at Dartmouth College and earned his PhD in Public Affairs (security studies) from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. His research focuses broadly on contemporary sub-state conflict and appears in the American Political Science Review, American Economic Review, Annual Review of Sociology, International Organization, and Journal of Politics, amongst other outlets. Professor Shaver previously served in different foreign affairs/national security positions within the U.S. Government, including spending nearly one and a half years in Iraq during the U.S.-led war with the Pentagon. 

Professor Shaver will be joined by Shawn Robbins, an undergraduate at the University of California, Irvine and research intern with the Political Violence Lab.

 All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

About the Event: What is a better question than where did SARS-CoV-2 come from?  
Why can we routinely forbid research with live smallpox but not influenza or coronavirus?
Why do well-intentioned elected officials believe centralized DNA synthesis screening will improve biosecurity?
How can we create or strengthen trust in biotechnology-based operations, transactions, and offerings?
We live today within a collapsing biosecurity bubble, inflated by standing down the US offensive bioweapons program under Nixon but deflating since.
Can we responsibly steward development and deployment of 21st century biotechnologies, sufficient to enable planetary-scale flourishing, without veering into Hobbesian despair? 
What lessons can be learned from what the physics and policy communities did or did not accomplish in the 1930s?  
Or the internet leaders did or failed to do in the 1980s?  
Or the AI community failed to do in the 2010s?
Are there practical paths forward besides reacting to unilateral innovators and actors?

About the Speaker: Drew Endy is a bioengineer at Stanford University who studies and teaches synthetic biology. His goals are civilization-scale flourishing and a renewal of liberal democracy. Prof. Endy helped launch new undergraduate majors in bioengineering at both MIT and Stanford and also the iGEM — a global genetic-engineering “Olympics” enabling thousands of students annually. His past students lead companies like Ginkgo Bioworks and Octant. He is married to Christina Smolke CEO of Antheia the essential medicine company. Endy served on the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) the Committee on Science Technology & Law (CSTL) the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Synthetic Biology Task Force and, briefly, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board (DIB). He currently serves on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Advisory Committee on Variola Virus Research. Esquire magazine recognized Drew as one of the 75 most influential people of the 21st century.
 

 All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

About the Event: India and China have engaged in strategic competition of varying intensity for several decades, which sharpened after a border crisis beginning in 2020. Since that crisis, and contemporaneous events such as the COVID pandemic, India and China have struggled to find a new equilibrium. In this presentation, Ambassador Gokhale will share his views on the broad premises upon which China's India policy appears to be based, the reasons for the current impasse in bilateral relations after 2020, and how India's relations with China are likely to evolve over the next 10 years.

About the Speaker: Ambassador Vijay Gokhale retired in 2020 as India’s senior-most diplomat. In an Indian Foreign Service career spanning almost 40 years, he served in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Taipei, as well as several other posts across Asia, before becoming India's Ambassador to China (2016-2017) and Foreign Secretary (2018-2020). He is now a Distinguished Professor at Symbiosis, Pune, and a nonresident Senior Fellow at Carnegie India, and has written three books and several policy papers on India-China relations.
 

 All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

About the Event: Why are some foreign policy advisers more influential than others? A new wave of scholarship illuminates why advisers gain influence generally but says little about which advisers get their way. We argue that foreign policy decision-making can be viewed as a “battle of the advisers” and that individual dispositions and effort give some advisers advantages over others. To test our theory, we introduce an original dataset that systematically codes adviser recommendations across a random sample drawn from over 2,000 foreign policy deliberations with the U.S. president between 1947 and 1988. Our findings show that hawkish advisers enjoy greater influence and that advisers who expend more effort before meetings enjoy greater influence—but that these are non-overlapping sets of individuals. Hawks and hawkish messages win because they garner deference from others, especially conservative leaders inclined to venerate traits associated with hawkishness. Contrary to existing accounts, the findings suggest that more experience or social connections do not grant advisers heightened influence.

About the Speaker: Robert Schub is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University. His research addresses international security with an emphasis on (1) the senior officials who make decisions regarding war and peace and (2) the uncertainty they confront when making these decisions. His work studies how the information bureaucracies provide affects the assessments leaders form and how the counsel advisers offer shapes the decisions leaders make. In other work, he studies the individuals who bear the costs of war with a focus on racial dimensions of burden sharing and service-member attitudes toward conflict. His research has appeared in the American Political Science Review, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, and the Journal of Conflict Resolution among other outlets.

He was previously an Assistant Professor at the University of Nebraska, postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford, predoctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, and received a PhD in Government from Harvard University.  

 All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

About the Event: In the past, it was assumed that men, as good citizens, would serve in the armed forces in wartime. In the present, however, liberal democratic states increasingly rely on small, all-volunteer militaries deployed in distant wars of choice. While few people now serve in the armed forces, our cultural myths and narratives of warfare continue to reproduce a strong connection between military service, citizenship, and normative masculinity.

In Support the Troops, Katharine M. Millar provides an empirical overview of "support the troops" discourses in the US and UK during the early years of the global war on terror (2001-2010). As Millar argues, seemingly stable understandings of the relationship between military service, citizenship, and gender norms are being unsettled by changes in warfare. The effect is a sense of uneasiness about the meaning of what it means to be a "good" citizen, "good" person, and, crucially, a "good" man in a context where neither war nor military service easily align with existing cultural myths about wartime obligations and collective sacrifice. Instead we participate in the performance of supporting the troops, even when we oppose war—an act that appears not only patriotic and moral, but also apolitical. Failing to support the troops, either through active opposition or a lack of overt supportive actions, is perceived as not only offensive and inappropriately political, but disloyal and dangerous. Millar asserts that military support acts as a new form of military service, which serves to limit anti-war dissent, plays a crucial role in naturalizing the violence of the transnational liberal order, and recasts war as an internal issue of solidarity and loyalty. Rigorous and politically challenging, Millar provides the first work to systematically examine "support the troops" as a distinct social phenomenon and offers a novel reading of this discourse through a gendered lens that places it in historical and transnational context.

About the Speaker: Katharine Millar is an Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics.

Her broad research interests lie in examining the gendered cultural narratives underlying political violence and the modern collective use of force.  Her on-going research examines gender, race, sexuality and the transnational politics of death; gender and cybersecurity; and the politics of hypocrisy. Dr Millar is also researching the relationship between grief, mass death, and social order in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr Millar has also published on female combatants, gendered representations of violent death, military and civilian masculinity, and critical conceptions of militarism.

Dr Millar's recent book, Support the Troops: Military Obligation, Gender, and the Making of Political Community, was published in 2022 by Oxford University Press. The book examines the relationship between support the troops discourses and gendered, normative citizenship in the US and UK during the early years of the so-called Global War on Terror. It outlines a theory connecting gendered notions of political obligation with the transformation of civil-military relations, and the normative use of violence, in contemporary liberal democracies.

Dr Millar is an Associate Editor at the journal Security Dialogue and an associated researcher with the Centre for Women, Peace and Security (formerly the Steering Committee) at the London School of Economics. She has participated in consultation processes regarding the UN's Women, Peace, and Security Agenda for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the NATO Defense College and the NATO Defence Education Enhancement Project (DEEP). She also does policywork with various international organisations and international non-governmental organisations on gendered elements of cybersecurity and cybersecurity governance.

Dr Millar has frequently been recognised for Inspiring Teaching in the LSE Students' Union student-nominated teaching awards.

Previously, Dr Millar was at the University of Oxford, where she held a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada doctoral fellowship at Somerville College, and lectured in Politics at St. Anne's College. Before entering the academy, Dr Millar worked as a policy researcher for a major Canadian political party. She holds a Masters of International Studies from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland, and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

 All CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

Image

Dan Zeltzer is currently a Koret Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics and SIEPR, Stanford University (2023-2024), and a Senior Lecturer with tenure at The Berglas School of Economics, Tel Aviv University. Zeltzer's research explores the intersections of Health Economics, Networks, and Machine Learning. His scholarly contributions include telemedicine, digital health technologies, end-of-life spending, and physician networks as moderators of technology diffusion and gender homophily in patient referrals. Zeltzer received his BSc in Mathematics from Tel Aviv University and completed his PhD in Economics at Princeton University.

Talk Abstract: This seminar will feature three papers examining the impacts of enhanced access to health care through telemedicine and urgent care centers. Utilizing Israeli data, the first two papers explore how the adoption of telemedicine and its augmentation with digital devices affect healthcare utilization and cost. The third paper investigates how the entry of urgent care centers into local markets influences primary care utilization and antibiotics prescribing for Medicare beneficiaries. Together, these studies provide insights into the impacts of healthcare delivery innovations on care provision, utilization, and costs.

Here are links to the first two papers (the third paper, Urgent Care Center Entry and Antibiotics Prescribing is still in draft:

The Impact of Increased Access to Telemedicine

Adoption and Utilization of Device-Assisted Telemedicine