Economic security has become a top priority for the West following the disruptions caused by COVID-19, the Ukraine War, and the growing threat of near-peer competitors. In a recent report, “From Markets to Minds: The Role of Brain Capital in Economic Security,” we explained how investing in brain capital (i.e., an individual’s cognitive, emotional, and social brain resources) could help build more resilient economies. In this paper, we emphasize the importance of brain capital in optimizing national security. Specifically, we explore the dangerous potential of neuroweapons, the need for a “Neuroshield” to protect democracies from the risks of mis- and disinformation, the implications of neural enhancement via brain-computer interfaces, and other innovative research agendas related to national security and brain health. We argue that it is critical for policymakers to develop clear guidelines and policies to protect brain capital and recognize how it can be utilized to enhance national security. In order to develop novel data and solutions in this area, we also propose the creation of an action group on brain capital for national security, hosted by the Brain Capital Alliance and the Baker Institute for Public Policy.
Protecting Brain Capital Against the Use of Neuroweapons
One key national security concern is the potential use of neuroweapons by hostile actors. Neuroweapons encompass biological agents, chemical weapons, and even directed energy targeted at the brains and central nervous systems of enemy combatants. According to some observers, neuroweapons have the potential to disrupt everything — from individual cells in a body to societies and geopolitics.
Neuroweapons aren’t a new phenomenon. In the 1980s, the U.S. Army explored alpha-2 adrenergic receptor antagonists as incapacitating agents; these same drugs are now prescribed in lower doses to treat Tourette’s Syndrome. In 2002, Russian special forces used an unidentified gas (later named a derivative of the anesthetic fentanyl) to end a hostage crisis in a Moscow theater. And some medical doctors suggest that Havana Syndrome — a set of unexplained medical symptoms first experienced by U.S. State Department personnel stationed in Cuba in 2016 — may have been the product of a neuroweapon. Even now, calmatives — agents that render individuals calm and compliant — are seen as potentially useful for riot control and counterinsurgencies.
Understandably, there are serious ethical concerns about the use of neuroweapons and what could happen if they got into the wrong hands. For example, in 2021, U.S. officials accused China of using emerging biotechnologies to try to develop “brain-control technologies” through military applications that included gene editing, human performance enhancement, and brain-machine interfaces.
Even the U.S. Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Project, launched in 2013, has gone in some questionable directions. The BRAIN Project was initially presented to the public as having the potential to produce research with vast beneficial health implications. However, much of the funding went through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — a military organization. When science and military are mixed through dual-use research, the priorities of the latter often dominate the trajectory of the former. In 2013, the U.S. National Institutes of Health reported that the BRAIN Project was looking to develop electromagnetic modulation as a new technology for brain circuit manipulation, heralding a shift in research from drug research to brain circuit research. Specifically, the project intended to explore optogenetics, which involves injecting neurons with a benign virus that contains genetic information for light-sensitive proteins. The brain cells then become light sensitive themselves, and their activity can be controlled with millisecond flashes of light sent through embedded fiber optic cables. This kind of research has alarming implications, and the development of these kinds of technologies should be heavily regulated.
To advance brain science and ensure neuroweapons of this type are not developed or used, it is essential that major players in the Americas, Asia, and Europe collaborate as they each have comparative advantages and have focused their research in a coordinated and coherent way in the past. The recently launched China Brain Project (CBP) could offer opportunities for international cooperation with researchers at the U.S. Brain Initiative and the EU Human Brain Project. The CBP seeks to understand the neural basis of cognitive functions, diagnose and treat brain disorders, and conduct brain-inspired computing — research that could complement the work being done in the U.S. and EU.
Above all, it is crucial that brain science is used to improve brain health and is not used for harmful purposes. International treaties banning the development and use of neuroweapons should be strictly adhered to.
Designing a ‘Neuroshield’ to Safeguard Brain Capital From Mis- and Disinformation
Beyond banning the use of neuroweapons, defending our intellectual resources from the dangers of social media — where mis- and dis-information can spread rapidly — will be crucial to protect the national security interests of Western nations.
The term “brainwashing,” loosely defined, emerged in 1950. It captured various concerns about the future uses of psychology in warfare and domestic life, and the potential for new technologies to control and manipulate human minds. The phrase “battle for men’s minds” was reportedly first used by one of the founding members of the CIA, and popularized by President Dwight Eisenhower. Killen (2023) outlines some of the ingenious and sometimes transgressive experimental methods for studying and proposing countermeasures against Soviet efforts at mind-control. He details how these procedures took on a strange life of their own, escaping the confines of the research lab to become part of the 1960s counterculture. Much later, in the early 2000s, they resurfaced in the war on terror.
Now, however, there is a much more frightening and pervasive tool that could be used for a form of mind control: social media. The advent of social media has ushered in a transformative era for disinformation, turning various platforms into some of the most powerful propaganda machines in history. With the vast reach and influence of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, disinformation campaigns can now spread rapidly and widely, targeting diverse audiences with tailored narratives and false information. Moreover, emerging artificial intelligence technology allows hostile actors to generate false images, videos, and speech that are virtually indistinguishable from real content.
A recent study conducted by MIT scholars found that false news on Twitter spread faster and more broadly than true stories. The decentralized nature of social media enables the amplification of disinformation through user-generated content, making it increasingly challenging to distinguish between fact and fiction. The ability to manipulate algorithms and exploit echo chambers further compounds the problem, as disinformation can easily reinforce pre-existing biases and beliefs.
The attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, highlights how mis- and disinformation can result in a direct threat to national security. In this case, insurrectionists — fueled by mis- and disinformation about American democratic institutions, processes, and elections — stormed the U.S. Capitol Building in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Their actions directly threatened America’s democracy and rule of law. This alarming event reveals that combating disinformation should be a top national security priority.
Another problem that could harm our democracy and impact the upcoming 2024 U.S. elections is the rise of “deepfakes.” Deepfakes are videos of people in which their faces or bodies have been digitally altered so that they appear to be someone else. While deepfakes are not a new phenomenon, the rapidly improving capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI), coupled with AI’s growing accessibility, have dramatically increased the risks of deepfakes. Producing convincing deepfakes once required significant resources and technical expertise, but it can now be done easily — at trivial cost by individuals with very little technical sophistication — making it difficult for the public to determine what’s real and what’s not.
These are complex challenges, requiring concerted efforts from technology companies, governments, and individuals alike. We were buoyed to see the recent Biden-Harris administration’s National Cyber Workforce and Education Strategy, a first-of-its-kind comprehensive approach aimed at addressing both immediate and long-term cyber workforce needs. The initiative will include equipping every American with foundational cyber skills — a strong step forward. Aligned to this is a new U.S. Department of Education K-12 cybersecurity resilience effort, which includes the establishment of a Government Coordinating Council (GCC), as well as the release of the Department’s three K-12 Digital Infrastructure briefs, including “K-12 Digital Infrastructure Brief: Defensible and Resilient," co-authored by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Other nations and international organizations are also taking important steps forward on these issues. For example, NATO recently intensified efforts to counter “hybrid challenges,” including disinformation campaigns and malicious cyber activities, and is “strengthening [its] ability to prepare for, deter, and defend against hybrid tactics that seek to undermine our security and societies.” The European Commission recently announced a €1.2 million project to deepen its understanding of how disinformation about war, elections, and gender emerges and spreads. The United Kingdom also launched a Rapid Response Unit to combat fake news, and Sweden recently set up a Psychological Defense Agency. Counter-influence campaigns in Western countries have begun to “pre-bunk” (or inoculate against) weaponized disinformation, in one case by “tell[ing] the public to anticipate false narratives, but not listen to them.” The challenge now is to replicate such programs worldwide — a difficult task given that states themselves are often behind various cyber threats.
Taking a multi-pronged approach and finding novel solutions will be key. Winter et al. (2022) call for a neuroscience-based understanding of mis- and disinformation susceptibility and resilience. This includes promoting initiatives to help people identify, avoid, and repel misinformation. It also involves detecting and preventing the spread of misinformation, fostering information literacy/cognitive immunology, improving fact-checking, and pre- and de-bunking false information. Similarly, Norman et al. (2022) call for investment in research for new solutions (e.g., infodemiology, cognitive immunology).
Along these lines, we propose the creation of an alliance of brain scientists, publishers, and media leaders to define a code of conduct with respect to the notion of objectivity of information. The debate surrounding media independence in our current polarized environment is rife, both in political and media circles, as reflected in A.G. Sulzberger’s influential article “Journalism’s Essential Value.” However, conclusions drawn on the basis of journalistic ethics need to be enhanced by what we know about the functioning of the brain and its susceptibility to bias. Together, we can produce a “Neuroshield,” comprised of a set of regulatory protections, a code of conduct for the media world, and a toolkit empowering citizens to protect themselves and their cognitive freedom against the onslaught of disinformation. The manipulation of information, particularly through social media platforms, has become a powerful tool for propaganda and shaping public opinion — with significant implications for democracy and geopolitics. Creating a Neuroshield that protects cognitive freedom and strengthens regulatory safeguards is essential in the face of the disinformation challenge.
Managing the Emergence of Dual Use Brain-Computer Interfaces
Similar to neuroweapons and mis- and disinformation, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) could have enormous national security implications. BCIs refer to systems that establish a direct pathway between a brain and an external computer such as a PC, a robotic arm, a speech synthesizer, or a wheelchair. In a military setting, BCIs could, for example, enable service members to operate a drone hands-free on the battlefield or help Air Force pilots learn more efficiently and get into aircraft cockpits faster. Such neurotechnologies have the potential to radically alter future wars.
Although there is still considerable missing knowledge and lack of understanding regarding the biological processes and mechanisms involved in BCIs, several countries are already advancing BCI innovations for both civilian and military usage. As BCI technology progresses, democratic nations will need to make decisions about how to manage their investments in military applications of neuroscience research and emerging neurotechnology.
Recently, Kosal and Putney put forward an analytical ethical framework that “attempts to predict the dissemination of neurotechnologies to both the commercial and military sectors in the United States and China.” This framework also articulates important national security implications of BCIs, including the difficulty of setting international ethical and legal norms for BCI use (especially in wartime operating environments), and data privacy risks (e.g., hackers could steal data related to a person’s brain signals). As research into BCIs continues, these national security risks must be evaluated and addressed.
Recognizing the National Security Value of Atypical Minds
Despite concerns regarding neuroweapons, disinformation, and the use of BCIs — all of which have potentially alarming implications — there are also positive ways brain capital can benefit national security. Specifically, national security organizations need highly skilled and intellectually creative individuals who are eager to apply their talents to the nation's most pressing challenges. In public and private discussions, officials and experts have addressed the need for neurodiversity in the national security community.
A recent report by the RAND Corporation describes missions that are too important and too difficult to be left to those who use their brains only in typical ways. The report aims to understand the benefits that people with neurodivergence bring to national security; the challenges in recruiting, working with, and managing a neurodiverse workforce; and the barriers in national security workplaces that prevent agencies from realizing the full benefits of neurodiversity. Investing in and recognizing the value of a neurodiverse population will therefore be critical for enhancing national security.
Enhancing Brain Health to Promote National Security
Protecting people, particularly former service members, from brain disorders is another way to enhance national security. We were encouraged to see that the recent Senate appropriations bill proposes setting aside funds for geroscience research to study accelerated aging processes associated with military service, including neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. The bill outlines how the Defense Department, the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) could lead the project. Although it still needs to pass the House, the bill is an important step forward in prioritizing the brain capital of service members.
An often-overlooked area is the risk for employees with both security clearances and dementia, a particularly poignant problem given the aging national security workforce. Protecting this population and researching the effects of aging on military service members are critical to enhancing national security.
It is also important to advance civilian-based approaches to understanding, preventing, diagnosing, and treating brain and mental health disorders, as well as stimulating creativity and entrepreneurship. Developing a brain capital industrial strategy could further the development of national security-oriented innovations such as BCIs and other brain capital technologies (See Box 1).
Box 1 — Overview of the Brain Capital Industrial Strategy
Brain capital technologies are neuroscience-inspired technologies addressing the confluence of mental health, neurology, education, future of work, creativity, and brain performance, particularly in late-life and early childhood. We believe there is a need to consider a “brain mission economy” where neuroscience-inspired missions are conceptualized and launched across industries supported through the co-operation of the public and private sectors. A successful brain capital industrial strategy would boost economic resilience by reducing the economic burden of brain and mental disorders, as well as by stimulating creativity and entrepreneurship. Capacity for brain capital technology entrepreneurship will be enhanced by further basic and translational science breakthroughs and by supportive policy settings.
The brain capital industrial strategy could also support initiatives like the VA’s $20 million Mission Daybreak challenge, which invites the private sector to find ways to reduce the veteran suicide rate. Protecting the mental health of veterans is an important societal goal that aligns with the concept of a brain capital industrial strategy and a focus on safeguarding national security.
Another similar initiative is the Cohen Veterans Bioscience (CVB), a nonprofit biomedical research organization developing new approaches to researching, diagnosing and treating post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries for millions of veterans, service members, first responders, and civilians. Supporting initiatives like this and reducing the impact of brain disorders on both service members and civilians can aid in advancing national security goals.
Along these same lines, a Department of Defense (DoD)-led public-private consortium is seeking prototype solutions for the role of AI in diagnosing, detecting, and treating traumatic brain injury. The request is intended to inform both the Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium — a nonprofit biomedical technology consortium operating under an Other Transaction Authority with the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC) — and the DoD of available technology and interest ahead of the former’s “State of the Technology” meeting, which is slated for early 2024 and will focus on neurotrauma. Following the meeting, an organizing panel will craft a “State of the Technology” report that will offer recommendations for both USAMRDC’s neurotrauma group and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.
These efforts, and a focus on boosting national brain health, will be key for strengthening democracy. By creating environments that enable each citizen to achieve their full brain health potential, both personal and societal well-being will be enhanced. An educated, well-informed, and mentally resilient population forms the basis of democracy, and gearing policymaking toward equitable and quality brain health may prove essential to combat brain challenges, promote societal cohesion, and bolster national security efforts.
Emerging policy innovations directed at building “pro-democratic brain health” across individual, communal, national, and international levels have previously been outlined. While extensive research is warranted to further validate these approaches, brain health-directed policymaking harbors great potential as a novel concept for democracy strengthening.
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
Although the connections between brain capital and national security may at first seem distant, they are actually far more related than people realize. To safeguard national security, we propose the following policy recommendations:
- Limit the development of neuroweapons and adhere to international treaties banning their use.
- Develop a Neuroshield comprising a set of regulatory protections, a code of conduct for the media world, and a toolkit empowering citizens to protect themselves against the onslaught of disinformation.
- Establish ethical and legal norms for developing brain-computer interfaces.
- Recognize the need for neurodiversity and brain health in the national security community.
- Support innovations and projects designed to enhance “pro-democratic brain health” and protect the brain health of service members and citizens.
- Create an action group on brain capital for national security — hosted by the Brain Capital Alliance and the Baker Institute for Public Policy — to develop novel data and solutions in this area. This task force will involve transdisciplinary participants spanning defense, law, economics, neural engineering, neuroscience, information science, ethics, mental health, education, public policy, and AI.
By prioritizing the protection of brain capital, nations can ensure the safety and well-being of their citizens while also maintaining a strong national defense. It is essential that we continue to explore and invest in this field to ensure a secure future for all.
 Stew Magnuson, “EXCLUSIVE: Doctors Reveal Details of Neuro-Weapon Attacks in Havana,” National Defense Magazine, September 6, 2018, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/9/6/exclusive-doctors-reveal-details-of-neuroweapon-attacks-in-havana; Julian Barnes, “Most ‘Havana Syndrome’ Cases Unlikely Caused by Foreign Power, C.I.A. Says,” The New York Times, January 20, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/us/politics/havana-syndrome-cia-report.html; Randel L. Swanson et al., “Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba,” JAMA 319, no. 11 (March 20, 2018): 1125-1133. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.1742.
 Perry World House, “When neuroscience leads to neuroweapons,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 5, 2016, https://thebulletin.org/2016/10/when-neuroscience-leads-to-neuroweapons/.
 “US accuses China of developing ‘brain control weaponry,’” Financial Times, December 16, 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/f9637825-0e9b-45d7-a49a-1eb507d41e68.
 Perry World House, “When neuroscience leads to neuroweapons.”
 “WORLD: Neuroweapons; Inside Story of the US mind control project,” Asian Human Rights Commission, September 27, 2013, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-174-2013/.
 Dennis Normile, “China bets big on brain research with massive cash infusion and openness to monkey studies,” Science, September 20, 2022, https://www.science.org/content/article/china-bets-big-brain-research-massive-cash-infusion-and-openness-monkey-studies.
 Andreas Killen, Nervous Systems: Brain Science in the Early Cold War (HarperCollins Publishers, 2023).
 Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral, “The Spread of True and False News Online,” Science 359, no. 6380 (2018): 1146-1151, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559.
 Ian MacCrae, Harris Eyre, Andy Keller, and Sandi Chapman, “How Social Media is Changing Our Brains,” The Dallas Morning News, December 5, 2021, https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/12/05/how-social-media-is-changing-our-brains/.
 Thor Benson, “Brace Yourself for the 2024 Deepfake Election,” WIRED, April 27, 2023, https://www.wired.com/story/chatgpt-generative-ai-deepfake-2024-us-presidential-election/.
 The White House, “FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces National Cyber Workforce and Education Strategy, Unleashing America’s Cyber Talent,” July 31, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/31/fact-sheet-biden-%E2%81%A0harris-administration-announces-national-cyber-workforce-and-education-strategy-unleashing-americas-cyber-talent/.
 European Commission, “€1.2 million for new project to deepen understanding of disinformation on war, elections and gender,” Press Release, July 31, 2023, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/eu12-million-new-project-deepen-understanding-disinformation-war-elections-and-gender.
 “Alex Aiken introduces the Rapid Response Unit,” The National Archives, UK Government Communication Service, July 19, 2018, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20200203104056/https:/gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/alex-aiken-introduces-the-rapid-response-unit/.
 Shannon Bond, “False information is everywhere. 'Pre-bunking' tries to head it off early,” NPR, October 28, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/28/1132021770/false-information-is-everywhere-pre-bunking-tries-to-head-it-off-early.
 Sebastian F. Winter et al., “Brain Health-Directed Policymaking A New Concept To Strengthen Democracy,” Brookings, Working Paper no. 178, October 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/brain-health-directed-policymaking-a-new-concept-to-strengthen-democracy/.
 Andy Norman, Harris Eyre, and William Hynes, “Disinformation? There are Remedies for That,” Psychiatric Times, March 16, 2022, https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/disinformation-there-are-remedies-for-that.
 A.G. Sulzberger, “Journalism’s Essential Value,” Columbia Journalism Review, May 15, 2023, https://www.cjr.org/special_report/ag-sulzberger-new-york-times-journalisms-essential-value-objectivity-independence.php.
 Thomas Novelly and Zachary Fryer-Biggs, “The Next Frontier for Warfighters Might Be Implants in Their Brains. Is the Pentagon Ready for the Consequences?” Military.com, July 28, 2023, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/07/28/next-frontier-warfighters-might-be-implants-their-brains-pentagon-ready-consequences.html.
 Margaret Kosal and Joy Putney, “Neurotechnology and international security: Predicting commercial and military adoption of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) in the United States and China,” Politics and the Life Sciences 42, no. 1 (2022): 81-103, https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.2.
 Cortney Weinbaum, Omair Khan, Teresa D. Thomas, and Bradley D. Stein, “Neurodiversity and National Security: How to Tackle National Security Challenges with a Wider Range of Cognitive Talents,” RAND, 2023, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1875-1.html.
 Geroscience is a field of science which seeks to understand the genetic, molecular, and cellular mechanisms that make aging a major risk factor and driver of common chronic conditions and diseases of older people.
 U.S. Senate, “Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2024,” 118th Congress, July 27, 2023, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy24_defense_report.pdf.
 Kristie L. Gore, Samantha Cherney, Regina A. Shih, and Richard S. Girven, “Could Dementia in the National Security Workforce Create a Security Threat?” RAND, 2023, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1779-1.html.
 William Hynes, Pawel Swieboda, Patrick Love, Jo-An Occhipinti, and Harris A. Eyre. From Markets to Minds: The Role of Brain Capital in Economic Security. Policy brief no. 08.02.23. Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, Texas, https://doi.org/10.25613/H5YV-DH34.
 Carten Cordell, “Can AI diagnose brain trauma? The military wants to know,” Defense One, July 28, 2023, https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/07/defense-department-seeks-insights-ais-ability-diagnose-brain-injuries/388899/.
 See Acqnotes, “Other Transaction Authority (OTA),” https://acqnotes.com/acqnote/careerfields/other-transaction-authority-ota.
 Sandra Bond Chapman, Harris Eyre, Admiral William H. McRaven, and Carol Graham, “Strengthen Brain Health, Strengthen the Country,” The Dallas Morning News, April 15, 2023, https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/04/15/strengthen-brain-health-strengthen-the-country/.
 Winter et al., “Brain Health-Directed Policymaking A New Concept To Strengthen Democracy.”
 Winter et al., “Brain Health-Directed Policymaking A New Concept To Strengthen Democracy;” Erin Smith et al., “Brain capital: A new vector for democracy strengthening,” Brookings, November 8, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/brain-capital-a-new-vector-for-democracy-strengthening/.
 Harris Eyre et al., “Toward a Comprehensive Brain Deal to Harness the Potential of Artificial Intelligence,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, May 31, 2023, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/toward-brain-new-deal-harness-potential-artificial.
About the Authors
Harris A. Eyre, M.D., Ph.D., is a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a senior fellow at the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. He leads the Brain Capital Alliance and co-leads the OECD Neuroscience-inspired Policy Initiative. He is an advisor to the Euro-Mediterranean Economists Association.
William Hynes, D.Phil., is the coordinator of the New Approaches to Economic Challenges unit within the Office of the Chief Economist of the OECD. He also holds adjunct positions with the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, University College London, and the Santa Fe Institute.
Geoffrey F. L. Ling, M.D., Ph.D., is a neurologist, neuroscientist, technologist and retired U.S. Army colonel. He is an adjunct professor with the Department of Neurology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and co-leader of The BrainHealth Project at the Center for BrainHealth at The University of Texas at Dallas. Dr. Ling was the founding director of the DARPA Biological Technologies Office.
Jo-An Occhipinti, Ph.D., is an associate professor, the co-director of the Mental Wealth Initiative, and head of Systems Modelling Simulation & Data Science at the Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney. She is also managing director of Computer Simulation & Advanced Research Technologies (CSART), an international not-for-profit.
Rym Ayadi, Ph.D., is founder and president of the Euro-Mediterranean Economists Association and senior advisor to the Center for European Policy Studies.
Michael D. Matthews, Ph.D., is a professor of engineering psychology in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point.
Ryan Abbott, M.D., J.D., Ph.D., is a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Surrey School of Law, an adjunct assistant professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, a partner at Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan, and a mediator and arbitrator at JAMS, Inc.
Patrick Love is a writer and editor. He worked in the New Approaches to Economic Challenges unit and the Futures programme at the Office of the Secretary General at the OECD.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.