Reasonable, not hardline, open to dialogue” are the three takeaways Joe Hunt wants voters to remember from his campaign for Georgia’s 10^th Congressional District, an accurate and honest representation of who he is and what he stands for. Currently represented by Rep. Jody Hice (R), Georgia’s 10^th Congressional District includes the cities of Winder, Athens, and Milledgeville. A native of Elberton, Georgia, Hunt attended Georgia Southern University where he received a degree in public relations. While concurrently completing his MBA at the Stetson School of Business at Mercer University, Hunt began his career at Zaxby’s, where he has worked for the last sixteen years and currently serves as the Vice President of Franchisee Relations. However, despite his considerable success in business, he remains deeply concerned with community affairs.

Politics entered Hunt’s life after the 2016 election, a divisive and polarizing event that he believes does not accurately reflect people’s actual political sentiments. However, the real wakeup call for Hunt appeared when he went to the polls to vote and discovered that the incumbent for Georgia’s 10^th Congressional District, Rep. Jody Hice (R), ran unopposed by both Democrats and Republicans. Hice’s successful reelection in 2016 angered Hunt, who strongly dislikes Hice’s polarizing focus on social issues such as gay marriage. In his frustration, Hunt wrote himself in on the ballot for Congress and vowed that Hice would never again run unopposed. Sticking true to his word, Hunt announced his campaign in June 2017 as the only Republican opposition to Rep. Jody Hice (R) in the primary, pledging to focus primarily on the reinvigoration of local communities’ economies.

At the center of Hunt’s campaign to augment American economic success are rural towns such as Sparta, Georgia, a town that has experienced diminishing industrial, scholastic, and agrarian opportunities in the past several years. As these opportunities dissipate in towns such as Sparta, high school students have and will continue to see little reason to stay in their hometowns, moving to larger cities and slowly causing the death of rural communities. Hunt wants to keep small town, rural America alive by providing other opportunities through programs that he says will bring “economic empowerment.” One of these programs is the Trade Industry Apprenticeship Program (TIA). Funded through taxes, the TIA would establish partnerships between public high schools and local privately-owned businesses, which would allow high school students to complete two-year apprenticeships in trade/vocational occupations such as welding and plumbing, earning money to pay for trade school tuition after graduating from high school. In exchange for participating in the TIA, private businesses would receive tax credits or deductions. Through the TIA, Hunt hopes to increase economic growth in small rural towns throughout America. Along with other programs such as privatizing student loan debt and attracting businesses and larger scale operations to rural areas, Hunt believes that the TIA will increase the tax base because more productive members of society with higher incomes will increase tax revenue. Although the TIA will require an enormous initial investment, Hunt believes that over time the program will pay for itself by adding new, more productive individuals to the American tax base. This fiscal concern with maintaining programs through adding more individuals to the American tax base even permeates his views on immigration policy.

Hunt’s immigration policy reflects a more centrist fiscal approach. Although he supports strengthening border security, he’s not 100% sold on President Trump’s proposed border wall because, as he reasons, “How many tuitions could we [the American people] pay for with that same amount of money” reserved for the border wall? Instead, Hunt suggests focusing on immigration services rather than a border wall. In his opinion, most illegal immigrants are good, hard-working people who fulfill necessary roles in the hospitality, construction, and agricultural industries. Hunt wants to harness the “economic engine” of illegal immigrants by allowing them to work and live in the United States. However, he does not support granting them citizenship unless they complete the necessary steps for becoming a legal citizen. For children of these illegal immigrants, he supports programs such as DACA because these children did not choose to walk across the border. Hunt wants to allow these children to be successful participants in the American economy. Ultimately, however, Hunt seeks to discover a balance through securing the American border effectively while also allowing immigrants and their families to provide a better life for themselves and contribute to the American economy. As these immigrants become legally documented, they will both continue to contribute to the growth of the American economy and augment the American tax base, another example of how central economic issues are to Hunt’s viewpoints on national policy debates.

The economy even affects his views on the environment. For Hunt, regardless of the diverse views present on climate change’s existence no matter, protecting the environment remains a vital concern. He understands the need for some regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency but wants to ensure that ineffective regulations are removed not only to protect industry and economic growth but also to protect the environment. Hunt believes that industry will eventually determine the best course for environmental policy by creating sustainable technology that will protect and improve America’s environmental conditions. However, Hunt believes that tax incentives are necessary to stimulate this innovation. For example, because petroleum refinement is America’s largest industry with a finite supply of resources, Hunt proposes tax incentives “to enable Georgia’s entrepreneurs to develop inventive energy solutions in order to reduce costs for future generations.” Again, for Joe Hunt, the economy remains central to solving American policy issues.

Based upon on these policy initiatives, Joe Hunt hopes that residents of Georgia’s 10^th Congressional District will vote for him as the Republican nominee on May 22, 2018. Although it appears to be an uphill climb against the incumbent Rep. Jody Hice, Hunt believes that his message centering on economic development will appeal to his mainly rural electorate. And Hunt’s economically centered campaign certainly does provide Republicans a strong alternative to Rep. Jody Hice’s polarizing campaign. Ultimately, whether he wins or loses, Hunt is satisfied with the 2018 primary election because, in his opinion, “Everybody deserves a choice.”

Dr. Tsakloglou is not only an accomplished academic but also previously served in the government, advising the Prime Minister from 2010 to 2012 and serving as Chairman of the Greek Government’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2012 to 2014. Now that he is no longer employed by the Greek government, he feels that he can speak more freely and wanted to convey that Greek economists and academics do not necessarily share the same views as the government.

One of the first things I saw about you when I was reading about the referendum, there was a letter of almost 250 Greek economists asking Greece to vote yes on the referendum. You were one of the economists who signed the letter. Could you explain your reasoning?

First of all, the very foundations of the referendum were very dubious. The government asked the people to vote on a proposal that was no longer even on the table. The broader interpretation from our European partners was, ok you can have a referendum, but ask the real question – do we want to keep staying in the euro with more measures or return to the Drachma without any extra measures?

From this point of view I have a good feeling that the majority of the Greek population, and this is something that has been confirmed by poll after poll, is strongly in favor of staying in the Euro. Apparently, we failed in this attempt, and the majority voted no in the referendum, believing the argument of the government that this was more or less about austerity.

The results were truly disastrous in every sense of the word. The government signed a new agreement that was far tougher than the one of the referendum. There was a bank run and the government was forced to implement capital controls. Growth prospects for the country deteriorated sharply and as a consequence we are facing even more austerity.

The recent deal that was negotiated still keeps Greece in the Eurozone and imposes more severe austerity measures. The former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said it is going to be a disaster. Do you agree with him?

It’s funny you mention Varoufakis. The economy started with growth prospects this year from 2.5-3 percent and we managed to end up with prospects of -3 percent. During his tenure, two things happened. Every time the economy grows by 1 percent, 0.5 percent goes to the government in the form of direct taxes, indirect taxes and social security contributions. As a result of the growth deterioration, this translates into 3 percentage points less in public revenue. This is enormous and is purely a result of Varoufakis’ policies.

Moreover, as a result of these policies, we face increasing uncertainty about Greece’s prospects in the Euro. We are drawing large amounts of money from the banking system and forcing it towards imminent collapse. We have ended up with capital controls, which in turn have devastated the overall economy. Many argue controls on the outflow of savings should have been imposed earlier. However, whenever we have capital controls, we always have dislocation effects – you cannot import freely and do other important things to maintain the economy.

There is a litany of problems with the most recent deal. But is it still better to accept it to stay in the Eurozone? Is there something better that Greece could do or is this the only option they have left?

In our life, we always have options, and we always try to pick the least harmful or most beneficial. Leaving the euro, the so-called Grexit, has very few if any benefits. First of all, why do countries devalue or leave a monetary union? To gain competitiveness by reducing the price of labor. But Greece has carried out a very substantial internal devaluation; wages are at the level they were back in the 1990s.

The main problem with Greece is that there is no inflow of capital. A Grexit would not attract foreign capital, at least in the short to medium term. The only thing it would do is generalized impoverishment of the population.  Several of the arguments mentioned by the proponents, like getting rid of austerity, are not written off without the Euro. Our debt will still be in Euros, while our currency will be the Drachma and will devalue faster, and the debt-to-GDP ratio would reach astronomical ratios.

Besides this there is something else, a greater political reason. It is of paramount importance for Greece to be part of the core of Europe. If you look at history there are several attempts to create monetary unions. The only successful monetary unions are those that were also fiscal unions. In fact, most of the time fiscal union precedes monetary union. To have a fiscal union you need a substantial budget and, hence, you need political union as well. If Europe is going to move in this direction, Greece must be part of the process, for political reasons as well as economic ones.

The Eurozone seems more like a political than an economic project. When you were working and teaching when the Eurozone was created, did you see these problems coming? Did you see that monetary policy would be near impossible with such different economies?

You are absolutely right that it was a political not an economic project. In economic terms, there were several problems that the founding fathers were well aware. Primarily, the euro area is not an optimal currency area. Even the United States is not exactly an optimal currency area, however if there is a recession in California and a boom in New York, you can transfer resources from New York to California and vice versa. This mechanism does not exist in the European Union. The hope during the creation was that once the euro was introduced, the business cycles of the various countries would be synchronized. This did not happen.

As a result we do have this problem in the construction of the euro. What they were hoping was that, if this situation developed slowly over years, they could gradually develop a common economic policy. The first years of the euro were an outstanding success, but a lot of imbalances were building. Some countries, Germany notably, were building up large current account surpluses vis-à-vis the South’s current account deficits. The theory was not to worry because as soon as we have deficits in current accounts, there would still be an inflow of capital. This inflow didn’t happen in the way they were anticipating. For example, they were hoping Greeks would buy Mercedes Benz cars, and Germans would buy houses on the island of Crete. However, the difference was covered by Germans buying Greek government bonds, and this was something that led to the current crisis.

During the crisis there were several mechanisms that were set up quickly. For example, the European Stability Mechanism that exists now to play the role of the European IMF.  Then, there was the swift implementation of the banking union. Plus there were several surveillance mechanisms that were set in place. All of these things were absolutely necessary and a huge progress was accomplished in this short period of time. However, the main element is still missing – combining elements of fiscal policy which will entail closer political integration. Already, there are movements in this direction, and I have a feeling that once the Greek crisis settles down we will see this. We already saw President Hollande speaking about closer political union.

Once the Greek crisis settles down, will we see another crisis pop up elsewhere? Maybe in Spain?

If you look at the history of capitalism, in fact far before capitalism, it is a history of crises. At some time there will be another crisis in another part of the continent. However, the question is whether we will have mechanism ready to deal with the crisis quickly and effectively. This is something that did not exist when the Greek crisis erupted.

In relation to austerity, you along with a lot of other Greek economists do not agree with the totalizing view of no austerity whatsoever.

When the Greek crisis erupted, the primary deficit in the Greek budget was equal to 10.5 percent of the then-GDP. In other words, even if our entire debt was forgiven, the next year we would have created another debt of that magnitude. To close this primary deficit, there are not many ways. You increase taxes, you cut spending. Given the size of this deficit, there is no question that some recession was inevitable. The question was how deep a recession, given that Greece experienced the largest recession of any European country since World War II. With the addition of the expected recession for this year and next year will even overtake the United States in the mid-war period.

Therefore there is the question, was so much recession necessary? The answer in my opinion is no. There were definitely flaws in the design of the first Greek program which looked at the Greek crisis as a problem of liquidity not a problem of solvency.

Could you explain that distinction for the non-economics folks?

Suppose that you own a firm and you have customers that owe you money, reliable customers. Then you are in a position where you need to make some large payments. Even though there is a substantial cash flow in the future, you do not have cash now – that is a liquidity problem. Solvency problem is that the portfolio of your customers is problematic and you have large unmanageable debts accumulating.

If you are in a position of a government that has a solvency problem, a haircut is necessary, but it is better to do it at the beginning of the process rather than later. There is no question that some sort of haircut to the Greek debt will take place, but this will not be a nominal haircut. There are several ways to reduce the net present value of the Greek debt that could be used. For example we could extend the maturities of Greek debt, extend the grace period, reduce interest rates, etc. There are several techniques.

The Syriza party was a marginal party that is now hugely popular with the Greek public; do you think they are sustainable? Is their agenda sustainable?

Yes and no. Syriza is definitely a creation of the crisis. If you go back to the elections of 2009, their share of the electorate was around 4 percent. It exploded very quickly, benefiting from the collapse of the mainstream parties. In politics in general, there is no notion of vacuum, and what’s happening at the moment is that there is a large portion of Greeks who identify as center left, however due to the fragmentation of the centre-left they voted for Syriza. Taking into account the recent 180 degree turn of Tsipras, this may be accomplished in the short to medium term by a shift in the ideological position of Syriza or at least the fraction of Syriza (given that we might have a break-up of the party) that will be represented of Tsipras.

Under these circumstances, Tsipras may survive, and Syriza may survive, but they will have reconfigured everything. If they remain in the same kind of ideological position, in my opinion Syriza will collapse either with the collapse of the country, something I hope will not happen, or it will collapse as soon as the economy recovers.

In terms of debt payment, a recent letter written by 35 Greek economists asked the troika to create a program of debt cancellation, new terms of payment, do you agree with that? Thinking from the perspective of the creditors.

Let me put it this way – why do banks often forgive debtors? Because they know in the end, they will be receiving even lower payments otherwise. It is the same thing that is happening here, the only realistic way that Greece can pay back the debt is economic recovery. If we continue with negative growth rates, our debt will never be repaid, there’s no question about it. This is understood by the governments of other countries as well.

On the other hand, we should take into account that most of the Greek debt is not in private hands; it is held by other countries and international organizations. It is very difficult for the politicians in these countries to explain to theie electorates that we gave this money to Greece, they are in trouble, you will lose some of the money on face value. It is far easier to tell them we gave them 100 dollars and we will get back 100 dollars plus some interest rate in a period of the next three generations if not more.

We have talked about the structure of the Eurozone, but you write a lot about the structure of the Greek economy – tax collection, public assistance, abuse, etc. Do you think these are bigger factors than the Eurozone?

This is the factor. The Greek crisis can be looked at in the following ways. The Greek crisis was primarily a crisis of competitiveness. In 2008, our current account deficit was a tad lower than 15 percent of GDP. That’s an enormous amount. If you go back to the 1980’s, Greece initiated an austerity program as soon as our current account deficit reached 6 percent of GDP.

What was the reason we ended up with the severe loss of competitiveness? To answer this we must go back to 2001. The government tried to tackle one of the most acute problems – pensions. Our pensions system was bound to explode if left unreformed. When the government tried to reform the system, Greece was paralyzed by strikes. It was a situation of self-denial. As soon as this reform failed, the whole reform process was halted. Then we had the government of New Democracy for five years (2004-2009). In those years, no reform occurred, and the changes that did happen only put us further back. As a result of these factors, our competitiveness started declining.

We know that reforms have a lag period – if we adopt something now, we won’t observe the consequences immediately. It will take some time. There were several reforms that were adopted before 2001. When Greece joined the euro and enjoyed lower interest rates, these reforms contributed to booming in subsequent years. However, the lack of subsequent reforms led to loss of competitiveness and increases in the current account deficits. There were no reforms, we were losing competitiveness, and we ended up where we ended up.

Unlike what is often said, during the period of the program there were many serious reforms that were undertaken.  For example, according to the OECD’s reports “Going for Growth.”, Greece has been a champion of new reform efforts in recent years. The problem is that we were starting from an extremely low level, and we had a long way to go. The reform process should not have stopped, and this is the point of many economists that I fully subscribe to.

Does the crisis in Greece and the Eurozone have ripple effects in the global economy? Some people think it will be harder for weaker economies in the Eurozone, like Ireland or Portugal, to attract investments. Do you think it will be contained or have lasting effects?

It may have lasting effects but not for the reasons you have mentioned. The main fear of several people is that if Greece fails, the next weak link is Portugal. I do not think this will happen for a different reason. What is happening at the moment is that the European Central Bank is adopting quantitative easing. If there are pressures on Portugal, I have a feeling the European Central Bank could kill those pressures very easily by buying Portuguese bonds.

However, down the road, in two or three years’ time, bigger economies like Italy or to a lesser extent Spain or France, may have difficulties in the bond market. These markets are substantially larger than the Greek bond market and many people in the markets will remember that a far smaller economy like Greece was collapsing and they did not save it. At that time we would be in big and imminent danger, with the potential collapse of the entire Eurozone with consequences for the entire world economy.

– By Robert Galerstein/Photo Credit: FinWeb

It’s hard to say what the biggest generic “ecological” threat facing America is as there is much divide between environmental threats and conservation issues. Environmentalism has to do with toxins that affect humans and is much more anthropocentric, meaning it relates more directly to humankind. Conservation is more concerned with biological diversity: extinctions, loss of biodiversity and habitat, etc.

Recently staff writer Rory Hibbler received the honor of interviewing science-nature author David Quammen on his writings about the clashes between society and the environment. He argues that the climate should be our primary concern, due to its outreaching effects.

When habitats are broken up, populations become trapped and cannot relocate to adapt to climate change. He cites the frittilary butterflies in the mountaintops of Colorado as an example. They need a very specific habitat, and the particular wildflowers they consume are at risk due to encroaching snowmelts, thus endangering the butterfly population as well.

The butterflies are now trapped on top of the mountains of Colorado due to human development- a process called insularization. Scientifically, insularization is defined as the creation of islands of populations, and it’s a huge issue, although the general public typically remains unaware. Studies have shown that the more humans allow wildlife to fractionalize, the more interrupted ecosystems become. For example, the Three Gorges Dam in Sandouping, China created increased interspecific competition among rodent populations. Islands were created due to the disruption in habitat and certain species became trapped on differing islands. More dramatically, in his book Monitoring Ecological Change author Ian Spellerberg writes “the insularization…has resulted in species and population extinctions…insularization has both ecological and genetic implications and reduced variability has long been recognized as a feature of small and isolated populations.”

As Quammen stated it, this is one of America’s biggest conservation crises because “people can move, but habitats can’t.”

Once the need to preserve the earth has been established, the next issue is how to convince society of this. “The best way to conserve…is to mercantilise,” according to Quammen. While capitalism is grossly oversimplified in this question, will allowing people to harvest endangered or threatened species for profit work to benefit the survival of the species? The answer is, there is no answer. According to Quammen, there is no catch-all, one-stop solution. Every animal is different and while perhaps crocodile farms in Australia will preserve the Crocodylus porosus, it may not work as well for elusive Siberian Tigers of Russia.

Other incentives for conservation are “tricky and very important.” The “Muskrat Conundrum” is David Quammen’s term for the balancing act between human desires and wildlife conservation. There is a tension between human safety and ecological safety. Explained in its true detail in Quammen’s book Monsters of God, the impoverished (and often native) populations will remain preyed upon by dangerous predators so the rich can enjoy the benefit of knowing there are still lions, tigers, and bears in the world—as long as those predators aren’t in their backyards. Quammen says “we must have to deal with that reality.” The ethical fix here is to let the poor enjoy the benefits along with the strife of tigers in their village. Quammen cites ecotourism as an example of a way to “monetize these resources” and preserve social pressures along with ecological ones.

However, economics can only go so far. Another prong to this approach is by persuading inherent value to wild spaces left on this planet. Quammen believes that money isn’t the only way to convince populations to conserve our planet. Instead we also must “capture their imaginations.”

In order to conserve, people must ignite “aesthetic and intellectual” inspirations as well as be sensitive to economic needs. The poor and the rich must come together to share the burden and the benefits of coexisting on a planet of monsters.

Turning the situation around, there are also instances when the environment seriously impacts humans. One situation lies in one of modern science’s greatest puzzles: zoonotic diseases. David Quammen specifies with the term: Spillover, coincidentally this is also the name of one of his more recent books in which he discuses where terrifying diseases like Ebola and AIDS came from.

Where does #Ebola hide between outbreaks? Featured article @NatGeo @DavidQuammen http://t.co/0kUWTx41Zi pic.twitter.com/mSbCUxZbfg

— Dr. Thomas Gillespie (@BiodiversHealth) June 18, 2015

Essentially, many of the world’s most detrimental diseases came from animals that we share this planet with. The scary part is often times we have no idea how the disease spilled over to humans or what animal caused the spill. Take MERS for example, a subset of the Corona virus family. It’s a new virus that came from the Arabian Peninsula and it’s an especially alarming type because of its adaptability.

A man came home to South Korea from the Middle East and became incredibly ill. He was admitted to a hospital for respiratory distress and quickly it spread throughout the country. The question soon became, “where did this virus come from?”

Theories emerged, and fingers soon pointed to an animalistic explanation. These diseases are called zoonotic. They spread to humans via animal contact, dubbed the “reservoir host.” For SARS, the cousin of MERS, it is bats. But for many zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola, the reservoir host is a mystery. Lately Quammen’s work has been following scientists who are unraveling these mysteries.

Quammen explains, with each new disease that emerges we have two questions: where did it come from and how did it spillover to humans?

December 2013, a young boy in Guinea died unexpectedly. Soon so did his sister, mother, nurse, etc. There was one spillover from some sort of animal contact and suddenly 27,000 humans have died from Ebola. How did this boy get the disease? What gave it to him and how can we stop it?

Quammen’s advice for the last question is to “understand mechanisms of transmission and interrupt it.” Prodding further into this counsel, how can we interrupt when there are cultural barriers, ie the burial traditions of some African cultures?

“Respect those cultural practices and offer alternatives,” he said.

Compromise is key. Educate both sides of the spectrum: scientists and doctors trying to prevent the spread and indigenous cultures affected by the outbreak. It’s taken almost 40 years of research since Ebola’s discovery and we still don’t know what caused the start. Nonetheless, we can do our best to prevent its spread and the spread of so many other zoonotic killers.

– By Rory Hibbler

Star Wars Interview Part 1: A New Hope for Political Engagement

When asked about his broad outlook on the politics of Star Wars, Madonna stated, “Politics is not treated in a favorable light… if you see the first few movies …how the Jedi intentionally avoided engaging the political process early on…was part of the sell. I often worry that the way we portray politics in movies like this perpetuates the notion that students…should not engage the political process.  I think that’s definitely problematic.”

Around the time Lucas was writing Star Wars in the early 1970s Americans were already becoming disillusioned with politics thanks to Nixon’s infamous Watergate scandal. Following the release of the first Star Wars movie in 1981, then President Reagan continued to bring scandal to the White House with the Iran-Contra affair, secretly selling weapons to Iran. And who could forget about President Clinton not having any relations with that woman?

So are these political examples the reason for the trend of political villains? Perhaps people enjoy watching bad politicians because we’re so disillusioned with real world politics. We see examples of cynicism in America everywhere- from the 36.4 percent voter turnout rate to the 13 percent Congress Approval rating. Does cynicism in Hollywood lead discourage political engagement or does the skepticism in voters create these themes in Hollywood? Either way it’s a problem that needs to be addressed as America’s great experiment in democracy is starting to falter.

Star Wars Interview Part 2: Social Issues Strike Back

Are social issues often the source of contention in an authoritarian regime? Are sub-governments able to form, perhaps to relieve some of this pressure? Or are there other methods?

Madonna stated that, despite the fact that they shy away from politics, under the Jedi “certainly the people would be better off.” When asked for the source of the Rebel’s contention Madonna points to the central government, who was “taking a lot of resources and spending…on mechanisms that were controlling the people by force…and not necessarily spending those resources on things that improved the lives of those people.”

Perhaps the Empires’ biggest mistake was the lack of focus on social issues that real authoritarian regimes use to gain legitimacy. One example lies in China, which has been reforming its welfare system since 2000 to be more inclusive to the often-marginalized rural population. Contrastingly, North Korea, claims to be spending almost 40 percent on social features (education, health care, etc) however it is more likely they spend 30-50 percent of their budget on the military and little to no money on social welfare programs. In other examples, look at Vargas in Brazil and Peron in Argentina: both authoritarian leaders whose populism and commitment to social values helped them retain legitimacy and power in the 1900s.

However, desperate authoritarian regimes still use fear and intimidation more to grasp onto power. Although no government is willing to put resources (as in, $15.6 septillion) into building that Death Star.

https://twitter.com/DepressedDarth/status/593497664974643200

Unfortunately, more authoritarian governments are willing to utilize violent force to suppress uprisings, from Egypt and its attack on student protests to Putin’s crackdown on freedom of expression in Russia.

I asked Madonna if it’s possible for a sub-government such as the Ewok tribe to form under such large empires. He responded: “What I would guess is that this is very much still a centralized government. There’s going to be a sub-government there but any point the Empire is going to take over that sub-government if they’re disagreeing with them. It’s not a federal system in the classical sense. It’s still a top-down hierarchical system, where I think the Empire could care less what you’re doing as long as it’s not running contrary to their interests.”

We also see the allowance of sub-governments in more legitimate authoritarian regimes. Terribly boring studies have shown that political subsystems can increase political viability and are integral parts of the policy-making process. Take Afghanistan for example: historically the government allowed tribal governments to have more local autonomy while attempts to centralize local governance has failed.

Some authoritarian regimes appear to be taking Star War’s cue that when social issues are neglected, the people and non-humans (we can’t forget the Genosians) alike are likely to rise up. Just because there’s no real-life Darth Vader does not mean that there are governments not using ‘the force’ of totalitarian regimes and authoritarian strong holding.

Star Wars Interview Part 3: Return of the Power Grabbing in Politics

Madonna argues that in Star Wars the Jedi was less effective because they were “willing to delegate that [power] to the Republic… they did not get involved in the government to stop the concentrating of power, and it seemed like they knew [Palpatine] probably shouldn’t have that much power, up front. They didn’t do anything about it.” Palpatine’s grasp of power was actually somewhat legitimate because he “sort of went through and took power through the Galactic Senate.”

Why did this happen? The power was originally delegated in the Star Wars context because “a trade federation had issued a blockade against Naboo.” Madonna argues then that the Jedi’s were too hesitant to engage in the political process to really do anything about it: “I think the critique is that they could have stopped that power grab, by going through the Senate if they wanted to, by tipping off the Senators if they wanted to, and just raising some awareness.” Following that we get the unintended consequences of a Senator turned Chancellor turned dictator.

Ok, but this is all a science fiction opera – why would this political nonsense matter? Because this ascent to power is also reflected in the real world. After all, Hitler rose to power in a very similar sense – he was legitimately elected as chancellor with 33 percent of the vote (higher than any other party in the election).

In the U.S. context it ranges from bureaucratic delegation to a concentration of Presidential power. As Madonna explained, “Congress does this frequently, where they’ll create a board to decide whether or not they’ll close military bases, or, in the instance of the Affordable Care Act…whether or not employers had to provide birth control under the act and whether or not there could be a religious exemption.” The F.D.A. actually made that politically charged decision – not elected officials.

Madonna claims this concept also “parallels really nicely” with the autonomous presidency. Lately there has been contention from Republicans against Obama’s unilateral action on immigration reform, arguing he’s abusing his power. Historically we have seen numerous Presidents on both sides of the aisle, however, issuing large numbers of executive orders.

Finally an example of runaway power is evident between citizen-governmental relations. The kind we may not even know about: government surveillance. Post 9/11 we gave up certain powers of freedom to our government via the Patriot Act in return for increased security. But did we give these freedoms up realizing that we may not get them back? In a time of crisis we let the US government do what it had to do and now we are seeing the unintended consequences of that with increased surveillance and serious infringements on citizen privacy, particularly in phone records.

Despite all these examples, why are governments (and citizens) giving up reserved powers? Well, Madonna explains that in the United States its still relatively safe thanks to “the extreme separation of power system…It’s unlikely you’re ever going to see that sort of concentration.” He stated “Fast action is a benefit. The downside is that, once you give them those powers, it may be difficult to get those powers back.”

Madonna makes the “path dependency point” that “once you decide to enter into a decision… [its] very difficult to exit from that path.” We see it in Star Wars when Palpatine legitimately takes command but then never gives it back and we see it in the real world, when government agencies or officials are delegated authority that is never truly returned.

Governments should take a cue from Hollywood. The lack of faith in fake governments reflects the lack of faith in the United States’ very real democratic government. Authoritarian regimes without concern for social issues tend to lack the legitimacy needed to retain power. And finally, while we may need to occasionally let people (or Galactic Chancellors) have temporary powers, we also must be prepared for the unintended consequences and realize that these powers may never be returned.

– By Rory Hibbler

GPR: Now that you are out of the political realm and back in the public sector, do you ever see yourself returning to politics?

Adelman: I believe that there are many ways to serve your country, and I don’t know if my days as an elected official are numbered. I look forward to continued public service, even if it is from the private sector. I think that there is value in “rotating the crops”, so to speak, and getting new faces into office.

GPR: You’ve been recognized by several government organizations for your work promoting American exports in Southeast Asia. What strategies made you so successful? What strategies did you use that you would like to see implemented elsewhere in the Foreign Service?

Adelman: We had success because we approached export promotion on a regional basis. It came largely as a result of strong cooperation and teamwork between all American embassies in Southeast Asia. I would hope that the regional approach to commercial diplomacy becomes a model for all American diplomats. Historically, we have worked on a bilateral basis for export promotion, but we would be well served looking at it regionally.

GPR: In 2004 a free trade agreement between the United States and Singapore went into effect. Other free trade agreements, notably NAFTA, have had controversial effects in the years after their signing. Do you see our agreement with Singapore as a success for the United States? Why?

Adelman: It has been a great success story. Current trade volume between the two nations is over $50 billion per year, and we see an impressive trade surplus year in and year out. FTAs are challenging because benefits for the United States are evenly distributed over the American economy. Special interest groups are narrowly focused and organized around protecting American markets; therefore, they can make congressional politics treacherous. Free trade generally benefits the United States because we produce the highest quality products. 95 percent of the world’s people and 70 percent of its purchasing power are located outside of the United States and American exporters need help reaching these markets. The politics of free trade often makes for strange bedfellows. President Obama enjoyed overwhelming support from congressional Republicans on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and numerous FTAs. President Clinton also enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support for the passage of NAFTA. Because of this bipartisan cooperation, FTAs can be happy political stories.

GPR: In 2012 you had the opportunity to travel on a mission to Naypidaw, Myanmar. In the first year after the military junta, which ruled for almost 50 years, relinquished control, what were the political and social climates like? How were you treated as a representative of the United States?

Adelman: Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, was at one time the most prosperous country in Southeast Asia and is now one of the poorest in the region. When I made the trip there, Myanmar had just emerged from effective isolation. We were received favorably and enthusiastically. The government of Myanmar was eager to attract American direct investment and enjoy goods and services from corporations with representatives in our envoy including Caterpillar, General Electric, and Johnson & Johnson. It is difficult to become an overnight participant in the global economy and the country has, for a long time, been excluded from what the global economy has to offer. It will take some time but I am optimistic about the country’s development. Myanmar boasts tremendous natural resources, both agricultural and mineral, as well as industrious and warm people. There are still some human rights concerns which need to be watched closely, including ethnic violence and the persecution of the nation’s Muslim population.

GPR: What is the daily life of an ambassador like?

Adelman: There is no easy way to describe a typical day. Some posts focus on security, some on trade and investment, others on people to people exchanges; it really varies with region. Singapore is an important place for security, business, American education, and the success of American culture, so I was involved in diplomacy on all three fronts. There is a significant U.S. Navy presence in the country as well as 25,000 American expatriates. Although they are not a treaty ally, they are a good friend of the United States and we enjoy a strategic partnership and work closely on anti-piracy issues. My goal there was to deepen friendship and institutionalize an already existing robust economic partnership. I believe it is the highest privilege any American could have to represent America in an important place in the world.

GPR: You spent over seven years in the Georgia State Senate. National attention was recently called to the Georgia State Legislature with the passing and implementation of House Bill 60, which is often referred to as the “guns everywhere” bill by its critics. It garnered support from some Senate Democrats, including your successor from the 42nd district and 2014 gubernatorial candidate Jason Carter. As the former minority whip, did this surprise you and do you have a strong opinion on the bill?

Adelman: I haven’t personally read or studied the law. I’ve only seen news reports. The 2^nd Amendment requires tricky balance. My record in Georgia favors sportsman’s issues but I think that common sense laws for firearms are needed. Concealed carry laws are often controversial, as well as high volume magazines for automatic weapons. I have a moderate record on these issues. Daily compromises are necessary in the Senate and we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Mass murders should cause people to step back and consider the impact of the proliferation of guns in the United States. Common sense lawmakers need to strike the right balance.

GPR: What did you do while you were at UGA that best helped you prepare for a future in law and politics?

Adelman: I had a wonderful UGA undergraduate experience. My success in and enjoyment of Professor Carter’s political science course and Professor Lee’s communication law course made me decide to go to law school. I really enjoyed the diversity on campus and the opportunity to interact with people from all walks of life. The full range of course offerings and extracurriculars on a large campus are conducive to future success in politics and diplomacy. I met my wife there and I think of UGA as a very special place.

GPR: Were you still able to watch the Dawgs play football half way around the world in Singapore?

Adelman: Not every game. There is a 12 hour time difference between Athens and Singapore which made it challenging. There is no substitute for being in Sanford Stadium.

– By William Brockman/Photo Credit: William Brockman

By: Shalin Jyotishi

As the heated Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial races rumble on, many democrats are hoping to see Georgia “turn blue.” Polls have revealed both campaigns to be toss ups. Hopeful liberal Georgians have cited demographic changes in Georgia as enhancing their chances of taking the governor’s office and one of two senate seats.

However, Republicans aren’t keen on giving up Georgia to Democrats. Despite Mitt Romney winning Georgia by only 7.8 percentage points, down from the 16.6 points during the 2004 Bush-Gore election, Georgia is still a conservative, red state. Georgia is home to some of the most conservative congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, including Paul Broun (GA-10) and Phil Gingrey (GA-11). The Peach State is also home to the most far-right member of the House, Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3).

Further, Georgia is also home to the most conservative district east of the Mississippi, the 9th district. Spanning from the northern edge of Athens, Ga to all of Northeast Georgia, District 9 is a solid red bastion.

In a previous GPR piece, I interviewed physicist, teacher and social organizer, David Vogel, who is running on District 9’s Democratic ticket. Vogel’s platform centers on inequality and “evidence-based policy.” To learn more about the other side of this interesting race, I sat down with army chaplain, attorney, and former Georgia state representative: GA-9th District incumbent Doug Collins.

GPR: What makes you qualified to represent Georgia’s 9th District in the U.S. House of Representatives?

I think my current service as congressman and my record here in Washington, DC shows that I’m a conservative that represents the 9th district very well considering the 9th being the most conservative district east of the Mississippi. My background in state legislature, my service in Iraq, the fact that I’ve owned a small business and that I was in the Air Force as a chaplain provide me with a good foundation. I think all these things will help me up in DC to get our economy going, get our government out of the way.

GPR: You’re on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. You’ve also served in the Air Force Reserve since 2002. What do you think is the most pressing international issue facing America and what you would like to do about it if you’re re-elected in November?

I think the biggest thing we face overseas is the continuing threat of terrorism that is still present around the world and is expanding in certain areas. I think the turmoil in the Middle East is our biggest threat right now with Syria’s crisis which has overflowed into Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to stand with our friend Israel which is the only democratic ally in that region. I have sponsored peace legislation called the Israeli Qualitative Military Edge bill which passed the House unanimously. [The bill] enhances American commitment to making sure that Israel always has a qualitative military edge over its neighbors.

GPR: Georgia is one of three states that houses two top 20 public research universities; Georgia Tech and UGA. District 9 partially covers Athens which is home to UGA. What are your thoughts regarding science and research funding in the United States?

I think it’s something we need to continue to fund. I think there are choices we must make given our budget situation. We’re running a deficit every year because we don’t have our budget balanced, but I do think research funding is important because they plant the seeds for future progress and future innovation. We need to continue to fund those projects where we can.

GPR: What are your thoughts on the Keystone pipeline?

I’m in favor of the Keystone pipeline. It provides jobs and brings shale oil out of Canada, and the US has led the world in pollution control. America’s carbon footprint has been reduced dramatically. If we don’t move forward with Keystone, that oil is going to be shipped to China and other places where there aren’t [environmental] controls, and we lose jobs.

GPR: Your opponent David Vogel has run a campaign focusing on income inequality and the 1% of income earners. What are your thoughts on wealth inequality?

I think we need to make our tax-code fairer, flatter and more understandable. I’m a proponent of the fair tax. We need to incentivize jobs to stay in America. That won’t happen by taxing companies. Putting one group of people against another group of people is a classic democrat strategy of class warfare. I think that’s beneath the dignity of the 9th district and I think it’s very unfortunate that Mr. Vogel has chosen to work a class warfare angle.

GPR: You’re on the House Subcommittee for Economic Growth and Job Creation. You’ve co-owned a small business with your wife. What do you think is the most important thing Congress needs to do to make sure more jobs are created?

We need to reduce the regulatory burden of all sizes. I’ve been doing just that. I sponsored a bill called the Sue and Settle bill which reduced burden. Getting regulation under control is something we need to do. We also have to look for a tax-code that is not as complicated as the current one we have. Government in itself does not create jobs except government jobs. We need to get out of the way and let the free enterprise system do its thing.

Rep. Collins won 76.2 percent of the vote in 2012. This year, Collins won 80.2% of the votes against Republican challenger Bernard Fontaine during the primary. Collins also boasts a war chest of $211,610.59 cash on hand as of April 15th.

In contrast, political outsider and Democrat challenger Vogel previously only won 28.3% of the votes during the 2012 Georgia House of Representatives District 33 election. As of April 15th, Vogel has $4,723 cash on hand.

However, Vogel remains optimistic that his campaign may prove useful in building democratic infrastructure for future campaigns as well as state campaigns. Vogel won 10 percent more votes than the last Democrat to run in District 33. November will tell the tale of the “most conservative district east of the Mississippi.”

An Interview with Georgia District 9 Candidate, David Vogel

By: Shalin Jyotishi

The Georgia primaries officially ended on May 20, and, subsequently, a series of intense runoff and general elections. Here in Athens, citizens finished their own highly contested mayoral debate. However, Athenians, like many Georgians, still have some decisions to make in November. Athens is represented by two congressional districts by congressional districts nine and ten. As the Classic City begins its sleepy summer months, new races have blazed in northern Athens and the rest of Georgia’s 9th district.

District 9 incumbent, Doug Collins (R), a lawyer and former army chaplain, is a fairly moderate Republican congressman compared to his counterparts. Ideologically, Collins sits to the left of Paul Broun (GA-10), Jack Kingston (GA-1), and Phil Gingrey (GA-11) – all of whom are running for retiring senator Saxby Chambliss’s seat in the U.S. Senate. Despite being a moderate conservative, Collins has been representing one of the most conservative districts in the Eastern Time Zone.

Collins is being challenged for his House of Representatives seat by physicist, teacher, and social organizer, David Vogel (D). Vogel has spent the majority of his career as a teacher. He has lived abroad and boasts a platform against “slogan usage.” He has a website separate from his campaign website called noslogans.org which advocates the use of “evidence-based policy.” A political outsider, the California-native previously ran an unsuccessful race for Georgia House of Representatives (District 33) against Republican incumbent Tom McCall. Despite only winning 28.3 percent of the votes, Vogel won 10 percent more votes than the last Democrat to run in District 33. As for District 9, it’s been nearly 15 years since a Democrat held the house seat. No Democrat has held district 9 since Nathan Deal switched parties  during the 1995 Republican Revolution.

Now Vogel aims to replace Collins as house representative of Georgia’s 9th district. To learn more, I sat down with Dr. David Vogel, Democratic candidate for district 9.

GPR: What makes you qualified to represent Georgia’s 9th district in the U.S. House of Representatives?

I’m a math-head by nature. I have the training needed to understand the arithmetic behind policy. I’m afraid we don’t have very many people in office who are able to understand policy, because [policy] is a quantitative issue not just a slogan fight.

GPR: You received your PhD in Physiology and Biophysics from the University of Iowa and during your fellowship at Johns Hopkins University, you discovered an interest in math education. As a teacher, scientist and aspiring congressman what are your thoughts on scientific research funding in the United States? Do you support the FIRST Act proposed by the House Committee on Science?

The question about how much funding given to science is appropriate, but [in regards to the FIRST Act] what to fund is not an issue that can be answered quantitatively. Being a scientist, I think science is underfunded. A bigger issue for me is congressional meddling in funding. Republicans have stopped funding social sciences now, and I suppose that’s because they don’t want the answers. There’s meddling in science to make it relevant to capitalism. When you try to push [science] it doesn’t work very well. If we had these policies in the 18th and 19th centuries that said science had to have some clear application down the road, then [science] would have died. Electricity wouldn’t have been studied. It didn’t have any clear application when we were shocking monks by surprise. [Laughs] Science needs to be a matter of answering questions scientists are concerned about. If politicians are able to say to focus on one question as opposed to another, progress is going to be poor.

GPR: Given your background in teaching, what is your stance on Common Core?

I happen to not like Common Core. However, it’s not a local control versus federal control issue. Sometime in the past, we decided to create the Department of Education. We assumed the people who worked there knew something about education. Frankly, when I read the Common Core standards, I think I’m reading something that was written by experts in a field in which nothing is known. I have three teenagers home. None of them can add fractions. They are studying imaginary numbers. That’s something that may come in handy in the third year of college if they happen to be physics majors, in which case they can learn all there is to know about imaginary numbers in 20 minutes rather than spending a month on it in grade school. They don’t know what imaginary numbers might be for. I think education in the hands of “educationists” is a big mistake. I think ordinary classroom teachers often know more about teaching than the people who are telling them what to do. Even if Common Core was a good plan, it’s going to get botched because teachers don’t like it.

I would also like to see STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) education in the hand of practitioners. If you talk to people who do math well, they tell you to get the calculators out of the classrooms because students need to be able to see relationships between the numbers that are needed when they go to more advanced subjects. I know medical students who don’t know long division or their long division tables. It’s shocking.

GPR: Your campaign has heavily focused on income inequality and the concentration of wealth in the top .01 percent of the population. What do you hope to do to address this issue if elected to congress?

I hope to educate congressmen who have a bigger stage to play on than I do. I want to help people to start understanding the future of wealth inequality. People are starting to talk about wealth inequality, but nobody is focusing on the future of it. The future is really scary. If there isn’t any change, all of the wealth is going to be in the hand of the teeny-tiny fraction of Americans in just a few years. That evidence is clear. We need to have tax policies that relieve those people some of their money. For me, it would be a highly progressive tax, the kind we had in the 1950s. I’d also be willing to look at something that included a fair tax approach for most Americans but add in a wealth tax for the super rich. It makes people angry, but you cannot stabilize wealth inequality without a wealth tax.

GPR: What is your stance on climate change?

It’s been over 20 years since I met a scientist who wasn’t convinced that climate change was coming. When you hear climate change deniers talk, they always wind up saying the scientists pushing climate change are only doing it to get grant money to fund their operations. Most people do not understand how science works. Scientists are very intolerant of bad data. Every journal looks for it all the time. When a scientist gets caught fudging data, it’s the end of his science career. Even if he’s well-known. For a large enterprise like climate change, for climate change to be a fraud is just unthinkable. I’d like to see us engage the rest of the world in adapting to climate change. It’s coming, we need to adapt to it. I’d like to see the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) left alone. Conservatives think EPA regulations are a horrible burden on the economy. Pollution is a horrible burden on the economy. In Hong Kong, the air pollution produces 5,000 deaths a year and billions of dollars in economic losses to one city. We don’t have the data on Beijing, but it’s worse than that. Think about Los Angeles before the EPA. The United States has a 40 year [industrial] head start on China. Without the EPA, most of us would be dead.

GPR: You lived abroad for a number of years. What is your stance on immigration policy?

At the moment, I have a Guatemalan kid who’s 19 years old living in my house. Two years ago his parents couldn’t manage the Great Recession and went back to Guatemala. He wanted to finish schooling here, so we let him stay with us until he graduated high school. Emotionally, I understand the “Dreamers.” My own wife and stepson are naturalized citizens. They’re from Brazil originally. That being said, there is still a problem with population growth in the United States. We can’t allow everyone into the United States. America has a reputation for being a richer place than it is. Immigrants can’t find their way out of poverty the way they could 30 years ago. I would vote for bills that would reduce the chain of immigrants to the US, but I would also vote for path to citizenship for people who are here and well-established illegally.

Vogel faces an uphill battle this fall. Incumbent Doug Collins won 80.2 percent of the 2014 primary votes beating challenger Bernard Fontaine. In 2012, he won 76.2 percent of the votes. He sits on a war chest of $565,150.68. However, Vogel remains optimistic that his campaign may prove useful in building democratic infrastructure for future campaigns as well as state campaigns.

Polls opened on Oasis for SGA elections yesterday. There are two SGA Executive tickets running. I was able to speak to Zek Osibanjo, Megan Ernst, and Shivani Vakharia about BridgeUGA.

Let’s start by introducing yourselves.

Shivani: I’m a third-year International Affairs and Political Science major. I’m running for treasurer. My goal is to make campus seem a little smaller. I know through small clubs allocation you have a lot of one-on-one time with different organizations and you get to know them better to see what their goals are for the year.

Megan: I’m a junior Journalism and Political Science double-major also doing a concurrent Masters of Public Administration. I’m running for vice president and my goals are to make SGA more accessible and inclusive. Senate is especially intimidating to people on the outside. I want to make the process more transparent and make it so that we as a legislative body are working on things that really address student needs and the most important issues to our student body. Also giving a diversity of voices so its not just one section of campus’s student needs, but that everyone’s having their voice heard.

Zek: I’m a third-year studying Management Information Systems. The reason I am running is because I was in senate my sophomore year, and when I was in senate I wasn’t used to my full potential. I wasn’t exactly doing what needed to be done. It focused more on the exclusive nature of SGA. I feel like when they start off in freshman programs they build bonds with other people, and then they grow that way. So people who are outsiders to SGA may come into SGA and may not always have a place and also don’t fit in or aren’t being used for what they should be doing. That’s one of the things I want to do. I want to make SGA more open to the students. I want to make sure that all students are included in SGA and that SGA is a voice for every student.

What is Bridge?

Z: Bridge is a connection between students and student government, and between students and other students. We’re trying to make sure campus is as inclusive as possible, so we want to bridge the gap between all areas of campus. It’s a movement.

What would you say to a student who feels that SGA doesn’t speak for him or her?

Z: Those are the students whose voices we want heard. Those are the students that we’re looking out for. Those are the students we’re targeting and making sure that they do have a place in SGA, because at the end of the day we’re representing 34,000 students, and if there’s something they don’t want represented, we want to make sure we also hear their side of the story. I think that’s what we’re targeting. I think the best way we can do that is by making sure we put SGA in the best light possible and making sure we’re out there doing our job and reaching out to students. I think that goes back to senate accountability; making sure that senators are doing their jobs. When I’ve been talking to people through this whole campaign, most people don’t know who their senators are. I feel like going back and making sure the senators are accountable to the students they represent is a big thing. Once students feel that SGA is doing something for them, they want to be a part of this organization. I want to make them feel as comfortable and as included in SGA as possible.

 You guys talk a lot about being more inclusive, how do you think SGA has become less inclusive than it could be?

M: I don’t think that it’s intention is to be exclusive. SGA does do great things. I just think that when you’re bringing people into a room that aren’t fully representative of the entire campus you’re going to get a distorted viewpoint of what needs to be done and how to do that. I think that part of it is just that it feels like this thing that has a barrier to entry. We as students don’t know that anyone can join committees. Anyone can show up and join the diversity committee or the academic affairs committee, and those things are really important. Anyone can come to Senate and bring things to the floor. The administration for this past year has done a great job of opening that up even more. Internally, it feels separated from campus, even though they do try to reach out. Part of that is being more aware of their constituents and the people they represent and the full breadth of that. Like having Senators be more accountable to their colleges and understand what their needs are and what they care about. Also having student life seats be fully representative of the diversity of voices, because 15 student life seats isn’t the whole breadth of diversity on campus either. It’s being more aware of the system and working to combat them.

What do you want students to know about Bridge?

Z: Don’t just be a student, be a Dawg. At the end of the day, we’re all here to be a student and to get a degree. There’s more to being a Bulldog than just getting a degree. It’s a lifestyle, it’s a movement, it’s bigger than us. When we all come together and we all walk through the Arch together, there’s more to the university. It’s a family, it’s a community, it’s the Bulldog Nation.

M: There’s a value system that makes us different from every other college. If we say we care about things like respect, stewardship, the pillars of the arch, and all those things that make us swell with pride as students. We have to better represent that in our daily lives on campus.

S: We’re real people with real problems, and we’re trying to have real solutions.

The University of Georgia has long been involved in academic research. The University’s administration, both former and current, emphasizes UGA’s role in the world’s “knowledge economy.” The days of Georgia Tech being regarded as the research powerhouse while UGA focuses on less grant-dependent fields such as law, education, social work and social sciences seems to be coming to an end.

Research has become so much of a focus at UGA, in fact, that in the 2014 State of the University address, President Jere Morehead mentioned the word “research” 24 times. Research mentions outnumbered mentions of “service” (14), “alumni” (11) “fundraising” (3), “tuition” (1), “teaching” (1), “education” (14) and, yes, even “football” (2). Research trailed only “students” (27) in per-word mentions in the State of the University address.

Clearly, research is important. In the days of dwindling funding and intense competition between higher education institutions, having a top research program means quite a lot to flagship land-grant universities such as UGA.

Previously, we spoke to Derek Eberhart who is UGA’s Director for Technology Commercialization Office. Dr. Eberhart told us a bit more about how UGA turns its myriad of research innovations and discoveries into dollar bills. This time, we sat down for a Q&A with the man who knows all things research at UGA: Vice President for Research, Dr. David Lee.

An accomplished biochemist, Dr. Lee has been involved in industry and academia. He has held posts with Oncogen/Bristol Myers Squibb and served on the faculty of UNC-Chapel Hill where he held a number of leadership positions, including Head of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics in the School of Medicine. Dr. Lee was elected Fellow of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2004, shortly before coming to UGA in 2005.

GPR: How did you become Vice-President for Research at the University?

Lee: I was a faculty member at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) for a number of years, where I rose through the ranks. I knew from day one I had administration in my blood. Most faculty run away from administrative responsibilities; they would rather focus on their scholarship and it’s a good thing that they do. Then there are some fools like myself (laughs) who tend to gravitate toward doing things for the community. As I look back, I was always taking on increasing roles in terms of helping develop programs, finding funding for programs, setting up scientific core facilities. Overtime I became part of the leadership at the cancer center at UNC; they have a very large and active cancer center there. A bit later on, I became a department head. I like helping faculty and students do what they do. I started looking at jobs like this one because it was the natural next step for someone wanting to move up from department head. When I interviewed here, I just really enjoyed all the people I interacted with here.

GPR: When did you have that realization?

Lee: Well, looking back to graduate school, I served as the president of our graduate student association, I went to faculty meetings; I guess even then I was interested in leadership. Most of it blossomed while I was a faculty member at [UNC] Chapel Hill.

GPR: Would you say you were shooting for administration from the start?

Lee: I would say I fell into it. I didn’t know I wanted to go into administration. I frequently saw people rising through the faculty ranks to dean, provost, and [it appears] like they’ve charted their path. They’re busy building their CVs and they’re focused. I can’t say I was ever that thoughtful or directed about it. It’s been a more natural process.

GPR: We’ve had some big administrative changes at UGA. We have a new president, provost, and several new vice-presidents and deans. What is the next step for research at UGA? How is this new administration going to affect the path? Many people have been saying this will be a new era for UGA with a focus less on construction projects and more on faculty and research building. How will research play into that?

Lee: I hope in a big way. My perspective is UGA has really risen in reputation over the last decade or so by a large degree based on the quality of our undergraduate and graduate programs. I think if we’re going to rise to the level of the very top public research universities around the country, we’ve got to see a similar kind of growth in our research enterprise. I think we’re very good at what we do, but we need to develop some really cutting edge programs in high visibility areas. We need to be more prominent on the national research stage. I know that President Morehead believes this. He’s said research is front and center for his administration, but not to the detriment of our undergraduate programs or our graduate programs or anything else we’re doing. We’re going to have to move forward while keeping those, but we’ve really got to make some giant strides forward for research. I think we’re well positioned to do that with engineering at UGA growing by leaps and bounds. I think the medical partnership, although right now largely focused on training doctors for the state of Georgia, will nevertheless be a platform for increased research in medical and biomedical areas. Lots of colleges have expanded their research programs. I think we’ve developed centers of excellence in many areas. The provost is also dedicated to research. Research is going to be a high priority for the university in the next decade I would predict.

GPR: Referring back to the medical partnership, do you foresee UGA forming it’s own stand-alone medical school in the future?

Lee: No, I think we’ll go forward as a partnership with Georgia Regents University. It’s a good way to serve the state by training more doctors. I think one of the things [the partnership] will cause is increased interaction between UGA and GRU, either through the partnership or because of it. We’ve strengthened collaboration across campus, but I think we’ll see more interactions with Georgia Regents which will benefit our research enterprise.

GPR: What is your overall perception of university rankings? What does it mean for UGA to be a top 20 public research university?

Lee: Well, part of me would like to say that I don’t care about rankings and that what I really care about is the quality of what we do and the impact of what we do. If we focus on those things, the rankings will take care of themselves. Mostly that’s what I believe. It’s hard not to pay attention to rankings.

Why do rankings matter? Because I think rankings are really how we’re perceived nationally and internationally. What do people think when they’re asked about the University of Georgia and how does that compare with Ohio State University or University of Wisconsin-Madison? I think those questions are important because they have all sorts of real impacts. When people in Washington, D.C. are thinking about who to next elect to the National Academy of Sciences, are they going to turn to the University of Georgia and its faculty there, or are they going to think about faculty at places they perceive to have higher reputations? When experts are being invited to places like Washington to help create policies affecting research in the future, where and how the money is going to be invested, will people turn to the University of Georgia and ask our faculty to take place in those conversations? Because those conversations are important to determining where the money ends up.

If we’re not part of those conversations, the money tends not to end up here. Rankings and perceptions of University of Georgia affect graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are critical to the research enterprise. They’ll only come here if they perceive that this is a high quality place and that a degree from this place will make a difference. I think these perceptions are important, these rankings are important. I think we need to pay attention to them.

GPR: In an article by Chronicle of Higher Education, UGA was mentioned as a potential member to join the Association of American Universities (AAU).  Will we be invited to the AAU?

(The AAU is an invite-only association comprised of elite public and private research universities that is often seen as a “gold standard” of higher education in America. AAU criteria include quality of undergraduate and graduate education, the faculty and research enterprise.)

Lee: I’d love to say yes. I think we have some work to do. Right now, our research portfolio is as large and robust as that of most members of the AAU. If I were to list all the members in descending order with those with the largest, most robust research enterprises to those with the smallest, we would be within the group at the low end, but just barely.

GPR: What do you enjoy the most being the VP for Research?

Lee: I love this job. I think I have one of the best jobs on campus. I get a lot of satisfaction out of helping the various constituencies of this office. I get a lot of pleasure about talking about our research stories. It’s hard to single any one thing out, but if I had to, I enjoy working with our faculty, particularly those who work really hard to be top scholars and to make a difference. I enjoy helping them through struggling with headwind, with the federal government cutting the budget for research. The competition for getting a grant these days is really difficult. I enjoy helping faculty in ways that I can. That may be by helping provide some very sophisticated equipment that will make their program competitive, it might be helping them with funding as they’re in between major grants, it might be by redirecting a lot of money into an interdisciplinary graduate program that many faculty members are excited about. I enjoy working with those who work hard to help themselves. I enjoy working with the deans on recruiting new faculty as well. I don’t get to work with students in this capacity, though. That was one of my favorite parts when I was a department head.

GPR: What is one of your hallmark accomplishments or what is one of your goals as VP for Research?

Lee: I like to think that our office has been an important catalyst for our interdisciplinary graduate and research programs. We’ve launched a number of efforts such as the interdisciplinary infectious disease program. We had more than a little bit to do with launching the obesity initiative on campus. [We also had a hand in] the alternative energy initiative at UGA demonstrated our new bio-systems research institute.

What I often say in talks with president or faculty is we’ve done a good job as a university in getting individual faculty their own research grants and awards, but what we need to improve on is we’ve got to start winning these much bigger awards with multiple faculty investigators and large teams which are drawn from multiple institutions.

We want UGA leading. These things really build your reputation. How do we feed the world? What do we do about the water shortage? If people come to UGA to get answers, it’ll mean a lot for this place. This takes bringing broad teams together with lots of different skillets and experiences.

Ultimately, the best thing any leader can do is hire good people. That’s your legacy in the end. I’d like to think we’ve gotten a team in the research office that pound for pound is as good as any team anywhere.

Every year, millions upon millions are spent on the University of Georgia’s research enterprise. Since the enactment of the Morrill Act of 1862, the University of Georgia has served as the state’s land-grant, sea-grant research university. UGA has a duty to conduct meaningful research to benefit the citizens of the state, nation, and world. Prestige, recognition, and public and private support all stem from a powerful research enterprise. Among the most elite public research universities – University of Michigan, University of California-Berkeley, UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, and many others – a vibrant, thriving research portfolio stands as the common denominator. Faculty who can obtain competitive National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institute of Health (NIH) grants are deemed deserving of accolade in their respective fields. Institutions with the most cutting-edge facilities are able to attract the attention of businesses, and political and academic leaders all around the world. Undergraduate and graduate students flock to universities to utilize research capacities for their professional development.

However, one of the most crucial aspects of university research has to be the potential for revenue, and that notion is understood at UGA. Over the past 35 years, more than 500 new products based on UGA discoveries have been released into the world. One would be hard-pressed to find the average student, parent or football fan knowing that UGA created turf grass (called TifSport or TifGrand) which is now used everywhere from lavish golf courses in Dubai to the FIFA soccer stadiums in Brazil and South Africa. 95 percent of Georgia’s $980 million peanut crop has been UGA-improved. 55 percent of blueberries grown in the state have been affected by the research taking place in Athens. Would you believe UGA has been ranked in the top five universities in the nation for total licenses and options for the past six years? UGA is ranked in the top 15 among public universities in licensing revenue and top 40 among all universities. UGA garnered $8.3 million dollars in fiscal year 2013 thanks to the licensing revenue stemming from faculty work. These dollars and products are the outcomes of technology transfer, which is the process by which a university takes the work done by a faculty member and licenses it for commercial use in the business sector.

To learn more about tech transfer, I sat down with Dr. Derek Eberhart, Director and Chief Licensing Officer of UGA’s Technology Commercialization Office.

GPR: Tell us about yourself. How did you get in the position you are today?

Eberhart: I’m a UGA graduate, I got my undergraduate and master’s here at Georgia. I was raised in the South. My master’s and undergraduate degrees are in poultry science and poultry genetics. I went to Emory University for my PhD in molecular genetics where I focused in human disease. My post-doc was at St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital where I did cancer research. At the time, I thought I’d go into academic research, but I had a friend who had a start-up company down in Texas, now called Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. As the company grew, we developed relationships with other bigger companies like Bristol-Myers Squibb and a number of others. I moved into alliance management, licensing, and business development. It was great working in business with a science background. We also worked with the NIH and different non-profit agencies. I had some former colleagues who moved into academic tech transfer. I had always been interested in coming back to UGA. My wife and I both graduated from here, and we both loved Athens. This position opened up about five years ago, and I took the opportunity. It was great working with faculty members, intellectual property protection, companies, and other groups.

GPR: How has technology transfer changed over the years?

Eberhart: From a university perspective, it’s a fairly new profession. Back in 1980 the Bayh–Dole Act was really what changed how universities were involved in commercialization. It allowed recipients of federal grant money to be able to actually elect ownership to an invention they make using grant money. Before that, the government was in charge of the procedure. Around 1980, the University of Georgia Research Foundation was created. They’re basically the stewards of all the [inventions and innovations] created by UGA employees. Technology transfer at UGA has increased tremendously over the last thirty years. Universities are looked to more as stimulants for economic development. We have research, teaching, and service as the main mission components of a university, and tech transfer fits into the research category. I think the concept of tech transfer has expanded over the years, and I think a lot of companies are scaling back research and development especially in the pharmaceutical industry where I came from. [The pharmaceutical companies] are looking to partner with research universities and tap into their innovation pipelines rather than doing it all in-house.

GPR: What are the relationships between faculty and administrators when it comes to technology transfer? Tech transfer can be a good source of revenue for the university, but you also have to factor in the “publish or perish” mentality of many faculty. How does that play into tech transfer?

Eberhart: We try to have more of a service approach. We’re here to serve faculty. I think a lot of faculty members see the satisfaction of something they have developed in their lab actually move from the lab into the market place. We try to take away as much of the administrative burden as we can and really allow the faculty members to focus on the research piece. If there’s no great research being done at the university, there’s nothing for the tech transfer office to do … as a part of our service to the community, some of the proceeds go back to the inventor, but the vast majority goes back to the research enterprise. The money that comes out of intellectual licensing goes back to research to reinvest in research.

GPR: What are some of the differences between public and private tech transfer offices?

The big distinction is private universities don’t necessarily have a service ambition, which is a big part of public universities. A lot of [private universities] focus on a revenue model. They might focus on what’s going to bring in the most revenue as opposed to focusing on the other opportunities that might not bring in as much money but are still beneficial. For UGA, our land-grant status gives us that obligation to create technologies that can benefit the public. Even if the return will be marginal, if it’s something that can benefit the public, we’re more likely to move forward with that and proceed with the tech transfer process. I think you can see that with the 500 products coming out of the [University of Georgia] over the last 35 years. Some of those aren’t going to make a lot of money, but some of them do make a lot of money. We recently developed a milk cooler that doesn’t require electricity. These types of things aren’t going to bring much money back to the university, but it helps meet a global need.

GPR: Where is UGA headed as far as tech transfer is concerned? What’s in the pipeline for UGA?

Eberhart: The expansion of the engineering school is very exciting. We’ve always had engineering here as part of the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences. Now it’s a stand-alone college, which is expanding the scope of its research. We’ll see many new products coming from them and collaborative projects. The Center for Molecular Medicine is also something that fits with the tech transfer model. The key to our tech transfer program is the breadth of the portfolio. We’re also looking to expand industry-sponsored research which might support early stage research that could lead to new products or technologies.

GPR: What would you tell the average student or alum interested in knowing what their university’s Technology Transfer Office needs to continue flourishing and expansion? Does UGA need more fundraising, more graduate students, more faculty members?

Eberhart: I think an awareness of what’s taking place at the university and helping to spread the word would be the biggest thing. [If the students asked each other], “Did you know there are over 500 products coming out of the university?” “Did you know the university’s tech transfer program is consistently ranked in the top five in terms of the number of licenses” that awareness would really help. I also think we need to tap into our pool of alumni who are out there in the business world who might be interested in starting a company around UGA technology or maybe they’re in a company now that can benefit with working with UGA. There are a lot of those stories that I don’t think are known enough. If you see a cool UGA story, pass it along!

GPR: Who is the current “industry model” for technology transfer, and what are we doing to replicate what they’re doing?

Eberhart: The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), which is the professional organizations for academic tech transfer, put out a survey every year. Our operation actually compares very favorably across the US. We’re top 15 for revenue and top 40 overall. I think it’s important to benchmark with peer institutions. We have to look at the research portfolio of a university. For example, UGA doesn’t have a stand-alone medical school and our engineering school is also new. We recently visited University of Florida’s tech transfer office as a benchmarking exercise. They have a really strong tech transfer program, but about 50 percent of their inventions come from their medical school and 25 percent from engineering. It’s hard to compare without controlling for that. We’re also in contact with other state research universities for benchmarking.

GPR: In a previous GPR interview, UGA Director for State Relations, Tricia Chastain, noted that Georgia is one of three states to house more than one top 20 public universities. What is your perception of prestige or rankings for research and tech transfer?

Eberhart: I think you pursue research excellence and rankings follow that. I don’t think it makes sense to chase rankings. Georgia does have a lot of strong universities. We have a great breadth of portfolio that’s not seen at other universities, but we also have the advantage of being close to Emory, Georgia Tech, Georgia State and Georgia Regents isn’t too far away. We have this “research crescent” that models after the research triangle in North Carolina (formed by Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University).

It goes back to the role of a university in economic development. Universities produce a lot of what companies need to invest, such as access to top graduates and access to innovation and expertise. For example, our Complex Carbohydrate Research (CCRC) facility is a world-renowned facility. Companies move to Georgia to make use of facilities like the CCRC, for example, Galectin Therapeutics. In the end it benefits the university and the state. We can attract top graduate students, top faculty, top undergraduates.

 GPR: The Association of American Universities (AAU) is an invite-only association of 62 elite research universities. When Georgia Tech was admitted in 2010, an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education cited UGA as a possible future member of the AAU. Does technology transfer have a role in obtaining “AAU status”? Is this something on your office’s list of long-term goals?

Eberhart: It is something that’s part of the overall master plan for the university. In terms of honors, we recently received a designation from the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) as one of 16 Innovation and Economic Prosperity Universities, which was given to institutions who significantly contribute to state economic development. National and international reputation is definitely one aspect for the office.