| In the United States, the military is responsible for protecting its forces from biological weapons. However, the Department of Defense has neglected biodefense---most of the funding for which now comes from civilian organizations rather than traditional military sponsors. Why did the Department of Defense fail to support biodefense yet eagerly fund other weapon systems? Conversely, why did civilian organizations like the Department of Health and Human Services support research related to bioterrorism?;I argue that organizational frames explain both military neglect and civilian sponsorship of biodefense. Organizational frames are ideational constraints that define and limit the tasks an organization will do. Because the military's frame of reference is defined by kinetic warfare (i.e. projectile weapons and explosives), it neglects non-kinetic capabilities like biodefense. I elaborate on this theory and test it against realism and governmental or bureaucratic politics, which represent the conventional wisdom in the literature on security studies.;Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the history of research, development, acquisition, and doctrine for biodefense provides strong support for organizational frame theory, little support for realism, and only mixed support for governmental and bureaucratic politics. As a result, my findings provide important insight into the social construction of threats, organizational decision making, and national security policy. |
