I chose Natural Security because I want to become a "jack of all trades" who has the skills and acumen to perform the duties of a trustworthy liaison between the scientific and the lay society.
Over the last year I have realized that it is very challenging for "hard science" scientists and "social science" scientists to come together and develop a work that represents and satisfies both disciplines accurately. I have noticed that the more emotionally charged an issue is, the higher the number of ideological and moral discrepancies among the disciplines become. Usually, the two parties develop different views about what the cause of the issue was, what the best way to handle and advise the general public about the issue is, and what the most efficient way to maintain surveillance of the issue before it turns into conflict will be.
In this country, one of the touchiest subjects is National Security and Defense Against Terrorism so I am eager to read how "paleobiologists, anthropologists, psychologists, ecologists, and national security experts" used the concepts we are learning in class right now to interpret and predict human behavior regarding national security assessment and surveillance and public policy implementation and ensuing reactions.
Aparna, I think you're right to suggest that the most important issues are often the most emotionally sensitive, and I'll be interested to hear if you think the authors of this book can effectively address security issues in an objective AND useful way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete