Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In 2019-2021, he served as the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, executive secretary of the department's Commission on Unalienable Rights, and senior adviser to the...
President Trump has an opportunity both to defeat the novel coronavirus and to gain advantage for the United States in the competition with China for global influence, which predates both the coronavirus crisis and the Trump administration. It flared earlier in this presidency during trade negotiations. It resurfaced with Mr. Trump describing Covid-19 as the “Chinese virus.”
In August of 2001, President Bush announced his decision to limit federal funding of stem cell research to already established lines of embryonic stem cells, while forbidding funding for any research that required the destruction of additional human embryos. But his decision ended neither stem cell research nor the debate over the ethics of such research. How do we weigh the medical benefits of this research against the destruction of embryos? Where do we draw the line on research using human embryos and are we on a slippery slope toward even more controversial research?
Building America's electricity system was one of the great achievements of the twentieth century, providing inexpensive energy to homes and businesses throughout the country. But in the twenty-first century, two crises occurred. In 2001, California experienced massive electricity shortages, leading to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electrical bills. And in 2003, a blackout swept across eight states in the Midwest and Northeast, leaving tens of millions in the dark. Why did these problems arise now, after a century of progress? Were they the result of ill-advised attempts to deregulate the utility industry? Or is more deregulation actually the solution?
Be careful when one uses the superlative case—best, most, -est, etc.—or evokes end-of-the-world imagery...
In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced a plan for a manned mission to Mars in the first half of the twenty-first century. Is NASA up to the task? Given the recent failures of NASA's manned space program, from Space Shuttle disasters to the overbudget and barely functional International Space Station, should NASA even be running a manned space program? If so, what can be done to revitalize NASA and restore both its sense of purpose and the public's excitement for space exploration that has been missing for twenty years? Peter Robinson speaks with Sean O'Keefe.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush said, "Prosperity will mean little if we leave future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers and vanished forests." So after two years in office, how has President Bush done as the chief steward of our nation's air, water, and land? Is the Bush environmental record the disaster that critics contend? Or has the administration just done a poor job of articulating its vision for new ways of caring for the environment?
The space program used to mean one thing: the effort to put American astronauts on the moon. That effort is becoming ancient history. We haven't sent anyone to the moon in thirty years. So what is NASA's mission today? What sort of space exploration is worth pursuing today and tomorrow? And is NASA the right institution for the job?
In this wide-ranging discussion with Peter Robinson, Bjorn Lomborg analyzes the Biden administration’s plan to address climate change, lauds a slew of new clean energy technologies that are coming in the next decade, and discusses the upsides—and the downsides—of migrating the world from a carbon-based economy to one based on electricity generated by clean energy sources.
Cardinal Conversations: Reid Hoffman And Peter Thiel On "Technology And Politics" Moderated By Niall Ferguson
The Hoover Institution hosted "Cardinal Conversations: Reid Hoffman and Peter Thiel on 'Technology and Politics' moderated by Niall Ferguson" on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 from 7:00pm - 8:30pm PST.
Explaining why he is moving his influential investment firm from the Silicon Valley, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel says it’s one thing for a culture to be “quite liberal” and another for it to be “totalitarian.”
The Hoover Institution hosted its annual Board of Overseers’ summer meeting during July 9–11, 2013.
The program began on Tuesday evening with before-dinner remarks by Paul D. Clement, a partner at Bancroft PLLC. Clement served as the forty-third solicitor general of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008. He has argued more than sixty-five cases before the US Supreme Court. During Clement’s speech, titled “Federalism in the Roberts Court,” he talked about the revitalization of federalism in the Rehnquist court “imposing some limits on the federal government’s power vis-a-vis the states.”
A look at the 2019 Summer Policy Boot Camp.
Peter Berkowitz on Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry by the President’s Council on Bioethics
Why Peter Thiel thinks we should rethink the doctrine of American exceptionalism.
The News article by Catherine Shaffer in the December issue1 entitled “FDA recruits prominent critics” contends that the “the general response” to the appointment of anti-industry zealot Peter Lurie of Public Citizen “is positive, even among those who don't necessarily agree with Lurie's positions.”. . .
Will people one day pay for the digital content that today they receive for free? . . .
Steven Hayward scores the environmental records and policies of Bush and Obama...
Who’s winning on the Internet, the Left or the Right?...