If you're interested in how the NIH governs science more generally -- and how it's done so for ~75 years -- check out my working paper, How Science Grantmakers Govern: https://t.co/RAKjRavkyq
I have a new essay up at @lawfare with @DoniBloomfield. We argue that current export control policy is in a worst-of-both-worlds trap: bad for protecting technology, and bad for U.S. innovation. But there is a solution, of course! https://t.co/lMISkWA8Ow.
Why is US export control policy so scattershot--ramping up controls one month, only to scale them back the next? Jeff Gordon and I argue in @lawfare that the coalition to support controls is unstable: developers no longer rely on US govt R&D, but many do count on exports
The White House's export policy has resulted in a paradoxical AI policy. @DoniBloomfield and Jeff Gordon explain why protecting the United States’ technological advantage has become more costly and what can be done to make export controls less self-destructive.
@statnews And we need US soft power more than ever to confront the biosecurity dangers posed by AI models, synthetic cells, the possibility of mirror life, and more. Full paper is here: https://t.co/RAKjRavkyq
New from me today in @statnews: why the Trump admin's attempt to politicize science grantmaking could not only hurt US science, but also make it harder to tackle pressing risks such as the biosecurity risks posed by AI https://t.co/MeAXbpWZZB
@statnews Others have persuasively argued that making grantmaking partisan will harm US science. History suggests an additional surprising result. Doing so will crush the connections between NIH and scientists, and erode the NIH's ability to pilot key regulations with expert input