Title: Does Military Spending Increase State Bellicosity? The US Case.

Presenter(s): Agarwal, Aryan

Faculty Mentor: Robin Datta

College: Edmonds College | Field: Political Science | Presentation: Poster | Location: P-230

Abstract: The United States offers a compelling case study for examining the relationship between high military spending and propensity for war. According to Brown University's Cost of War Project, the US has spent $8 trillion on defense since 9/11, with an estimated one million lives lost in post-9/11 conflicts.This research investigates whether the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC) influences US bellicosity by examining two key relationships: the connection between defense industry lobbying and military spending, and the relationship between military capabilities and interstate militarized disputes. Statistical analysis reveals a strong positive correlation between annual US defense spending and defense industry lobbying expenditures (r = 0.87, p<0.01). However, the relationship between increased military spending and interstate militarized disputes remains unclear due to insignificant correlation (r = 0.074, p = 0.581).These findings support literature suggesting the MICC has significantly expanded the US defense budget through lobbying, campaign contributions, and funding foreign policy think tanks. Whether the MICC increases defense budgets through undue foreign policy influence remains inconclusive. Foreign policy bellicosity is complex and multifaceted, with explanations ranging from democratic peace theory to security dilemma theory. A multivariate correlational analysis is recommended to determine the relative weights of confounding variables associated with these theories and the primary variables examined in this research.

Title: Can Modern Technology Replace Animal Testing?

Presenter(s): Rust, Kaylea

Faculty Mentor: Robin Datta

College: Edmonds College | Field: Political Science | Presentation: Poster | Location: P-301

Abstract: Animal testing has been a cornerstone of U.S. biomedical research, yet growing ethical concerns, questions of efficacy, and technological advancements are challenging its continued prominence. This research investigates whether modern technologies can effectively and reliably replace animal testing and identifies the institutional and political barriers hindering this transition. Federal agencies like the FDA, NIH, and EPA perpetuate animal testing through interconnected mandates: the FDA requires animal tests for drug approvals, the NIH prioritizes animal models in funding, and the EPA mandates animal-based toxicity testing. This interconnectedness reinforces cautious practices, limiting the adoption of innovative, human-relevant alternatives. However, modern approaches such as organ-on-a-chip systems, AI-based modeling, and 3D bioprinting are demonstrating superior accuracy in predicting human outcomes. This project proposes a bipartisan framework, spearheaded by the FDA and NIH, to integrate these alternatives. Key reforms include validating and accepting non-animal methods as regulatory benchmarks, reallocating NIH grants towards human-relevant research, and mandating periodic congressional review of testing standards. Such reforms would accelerate drug development, reduce costs, enhance human safety, and significantly diminish animal suffering, ultimately advancing more ethical, efficient, and scientifically robust biomedical innovation in the U.S.