Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:653Hits:20077382Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
WINZOSKI, KAREN (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   105203


Opting out of the Iron triangle: the US chemical industry and US chemical weapons policy / Winzoski, Karen   Journal Article
Winzoski, Karen Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2011.
Summary/Abstract Between the 1960s and the 1990s, the US chemical industry went from lobbying against the Geneva Protocol and promoting increased funding for chemical warfare to refusing to produce binary chemical weapons and assisting with the negotiations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)-even though the treaty included provisions that could be costly to industry. What happened in those thirty years to make the US chemical industry reverse its position on chemical weapons? This article argues these changes were largely caused by the chemical industry's desire to reform the negative public image it had acquired due to its involvement in the Agent Orange scandal and other high-profile incidents during the 1970s and 1980s. The chemical industry's assistance with CWC negotiations may be explained after an examination of the US public policy literature, which argues that industry will support apparently costly regulations if doing so helps it repair a damaged public image and ensures greater profits in the long run.
        Export Export
2
ID:   079626


Unwarranted influence: the impact of the biotech-pharmaceutical industry on U.S. policy on the BWC verification protocol / Winzoski, Karen   Journal Article
Winzoski, Karen Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2007.
Summary/Abstract This article examines the effects that the U.S. biotech-pharmaceutical industry has had on U.S. government policy, specifically on the 2001 decision to reject the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention verification protocol. It concludes that the biotech-pharmaceutical industry's concerns for the protection of trade secrets contributed to the weakening of the proposed inspection regime, particularly through its demands for managed access. This added to doubts among U.S. policymakers regarding the protocol's effectiveness. However, this article cautions against blaming industry for the rejection of the verification protocol, when most of the responsibility lies with government. A poorly handled 1994 visit to a Pfizer facility coordinated by the State Department resulted in increased wariness of international inspections within industry. Furthermore, both the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency had reasons to object to the proposed regime because it could result in the exposure of their own secret biodefense research. Finally, though the biotech-pharmaceutical industry's lobbying efforts may have led to the rejection of the protocol, it should be expected that any industry will try to minimize regulation. It is the responsibility of government, not industry, to decide the best way to achieve national interests, whether through the enhancement of the biological weapons regime or through the continued support of favored industries. If government chooses poorly, then government ought to be criticized.
        Export Export