Before sexology and medical science prevailed in Japan as the accepted forms of "knowledge" of human sexuality, by the 1910s and '20s, other discourses competed with sexology's binaries of "normal sex" and "pathological sex," and so on. Leslie Winston will discuss the paradigm of intersexuality in the work of Shimizu Shikin (1868-1933) and Tokuda Shûsei (1872-1943) as a counter-discourse to the dominant narratives on sexuality. The body of the hermaphrodite confirmed that the roles the state insisted women should assume, in fact had no basis in "nature." As sexologists and scientists were making efforts to eliminate hermaphroditism, Shikin and Shûsei were invigorating it as an alternate discourse.

Leslie Winston is Visiting Assistant Professor of Japanese Language and Culture at Dickinson College. Her research focuses on subjectivity, particularly the female subject, in Japanese literature of the 1890s and early twentieth century. Her current interest lies in the discourse on intersexuality and its production of knowledge of the categories of "woman" and "man." She earned her Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of California, Los Angeles, an M.A. in English Literature from Stony Brook University, and an M.A. in Communication Studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Michele Mason will discuss her work that examines competing portrayals of "manliness" and "manhood" set in or associated with Hokkaido during the Meiji period. Focusing on representations of the tondenhei farming militia, nature and the colonial project and the shûjikan prison system in Hokkaido, she argues that powerful rhetorical modes deployed in the appropriation of the island played a crucial role in the construction of imperial ideology, the modern military, Japanese subjects and national identity. Her project reconsiders Hokkaido's ambivalent colonial status and its naturalized yet marginal position in the nation, as well as highlights the significance of gender, and specifically masculinity, in shaping modern Japan.

Michele Mason is a postdoctoral fellow in Japanese studies at FSI. Currently she is investigating little known stories about Hokkaido by Kôda Rohan, Hoshino Tenchi, Tayama Katai in addition to canonized works such as Kunikida Doppo's Meat and Potatoes. She received a B.A. in Linguistics and Japanese from the University of Oregon (Eugene), an M.A. in modern Japanese literature from the University of California, Los Angeles and a Ph.D. in modern Japanese literature with an emphasis on cultural studies from the University of California, Irvine.

After more than 30 years under the strong leadership of Suharto, Indonesians saw three weak and not always legitimate presidents come and go: B. J. Habibie (1998-99), Abdurrahman Wahid (1999-2001), and Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001-2004). Democratization went forward. Yet Indonesians increasingly longed for a stronger

government that could deliver on its promises, including economic development. In 2004 Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) won the country's first-ever direct presidential election by a landslide. During the campaign he promised, above all, an effective

government. Looking back on his first year, how has he performed? Has he broken the string of weak leaders? Will he grow in his job to become more effective? More

broadly, are weak leaders good for democracy but bad for development? Or does Indonesia illustrate some other relationship between national leadership, political

openness, and economic progress?

Hadi Soesastro is currently a visiting professor in the Weatherhead Institute of East Asian Studies at Columbia University. He has been with CSIS since 1971. His research interests include the political economy of development, regionalism, and trade, and energy issues, topics on which he has published and lectured widely. Recent writing on Indonesia includes an essay in Economic Recovery and Reform (2004). Dr. Soesastro chairs the International Steering Committee of PAFTAD (Pacific Trade and Development) and serves as an adjunct professor at the Australian National University in Canberra. In Indonesia he has served as a member of the National Research Council and the National Economic Council. He earned his PhD from the RAND Graduate School in Santa Monica, California.

Many people in China and the US assume that the new Taiwanese national identity is a political ploy which originated with Taiwan's government. Based on ethnographic research in both Taiwan and China, Melissa Brown argues that Taiwanese identity -- in both its ethnic and national forms -- are based on social experience. Because the people of Taiwan and China have had such different social experiences since 1895, Taiwanese identity as distinct from Chinese identity is real. The reality of Taiwanese identity poses challenges for resolving the debate over Taiwan's future relations with China, particularly in nationalistic responses due to lack of Chinese experience with Taiwanese society.

Melissa J. Brown is Assistant Professor of Anthropological Sciences and Research Affiliate at Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. She has been researching changing identities in Taiwan and China since 1991. Her books include Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan (University of California, Institute for East Asian Studies, 1996) and Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on Changing Identities (University of California Press, 2004).

How have curators responded to the 1995 controversy over the National Air and Space Museum's Enola Gay exhibit? Trends in curatorial practice since then offer opportunities for museum professionals who wish to question the costs of wars. Curators now believe that museum exhibits should be open-ended and also should reflect a multiplicity of views about a given subject. Their main strategy is to evoke a variety of memories among museum goers without trying to integrate them completely - collecting memories rather than collectivizing them. Far more challenging for museums is representing the larger social categories that shape peacetime lives as well. They have greatest difficulty with representing the experiences of foreigners. Yet, many Americans have never been comfortable with the official A-bomb narrative. If, as museum professionals now emphasize, visitors are bringing their own meaning to exhibits, display of the Enola Gay will forever provide an invitation to debate the moral and strategic legitimacy of the use of the atomic bomb in August 1945.

Laura Hein specializes in the history of Japan in the 20th century and its international relations. She is author of Reasonable Men, Powerful Words: Political Culture and Expertise in Twentieth Century Japan (University of California Press, 2004), which explores various ways in which economic expertise intersected with politics through a study of the lives of a tight-knit group of Japanese intellectuals. She also has a strong interest in problems of remembrance and public memory, resulting in three co-edited books with Mark Selden: Living with the Bomb: American and Japanese Cultural Conflicts in the Nuclear Age (1997), Censoring History: Citizenship and Memory in Japan, Germany, and the United States (2000), and Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to American and Japanese Power (2003). She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin.

The USSR's anti-plague system had four main responsibilities: monitor natural foci of endemic dread diseases such as plague, tularemia, anthrax, and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever; protect the nation from imported exotic diseases (e.g., cholera and smallpox); protect the nation from biological warfare; and perform tasks for the Soviet offensive biological weapons program. Although the anti-plague system appears to have had successes in public health, its work undoubtedly was compromised by excessive secrecy, which led to anti-plague scientists having to overcome substantial barriers before being able to communicate with colleagues in other Soviet public health agencies, publish the results of their work, and undertake travel to non-socialist countries. This system disintegrated after December 1991, but was resurrected as elements of the newly independent states' health systems.

Reporting on the findings of a recently concluded project carried out by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), I will discuss: (1) the threats that the anti-plague systems' human resources, pathogen culture collections, and equipment pose to international security; (2) the promises these systems hold, should they regain their former level of scientific/technical capability, for enhancing international public health; and (3) current activities by U.S. government agencies to lessen the security and safety threats of these systems and, simultaneously, increase their public health capabilities. As appropriate, I will illustrate the presentation with photos taken by CNS personnel in the course of having visited more than 40 anti-plague institutes and stations.

Dr. Raymond Zilinskas worked as a clinical microbiologist for 16 years, after graduating from California State University at Northridge with a BA in Biology, and from University of Stockholm with a Filosofie Kandidat in Organic Chemistry. He then commenced graduate studies at the University of Southern California. His dissertation addressed policy issues generated by recombinant DNA research, including the applicability of genetic engineering techniques for military and terrorist purposes. After earning a PhD, Dr. Zilinskas worked at the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (1981-1982), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (1982-1986), and University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (UMBI) (1987-1998). In addition, he was an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Department of International Health, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, until 1999.

In 1993, Dr. Zilinskas was appointed William Foster Fellow at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), where he worked on biological and toxin warfare issues. In 1994, ACDA seconded Dr. Zilinskas to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), where he worked as a biological analyst for seven months. He participated in two biological warfare-related inspections in Iraq (June and October 1994) encompassing 61 biological research and production facilities. He set up a database containing data about key dual-use biological equipment in Iraq and developed a protocol for UNSCOM's on-going monitoring and verification program in the biological field.

After the fellowship, Dr. Zilinskas returned to the UMBI and Johns Hopkins University. In addition, he continued to serve as a long-term consultant to ACDA (now part of the U.S. Department of State), for which he carried out studies on Cuban allegations of U.S. biological attacks against its people, animals, and plants and investigations carried out by the United Nations of chemical warfare in Southeast Asia and the Arabian Gulf region. Dr. Zilinskas also is a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense.

In September 1998, Dr. Zilinskas was appointed Senior Scientist at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), Monterey Institute of International Studies. On September 1, 2002, he was promoted to the Director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at the CNS. His research focuses on achieving effective biological arms control, assessing the proliferation potential of the former Soviet Union's biological warfare program, and meeting the threat of bioterrorism. Dr. Zilinskas' book Biological Warfare: Modern Offense and Defense, a definitive account on how modern biotechnology has qualitatively changed developments related to biological weapons and defense, was published in 1999. In 2005, the important reference work Encyclopedia of Bioterrorism Defense, which is co-edited by Richard Pilch and Dr. Zilinskas, was published by Wiley. He currently is writing a book on the former Soviet Union's biological warfare program, including its history, organization, accomplishments, and proliferation potential, which will be published in 2006.

Alan Tansman will discuss the productive challenges and the dispiriting difficulties that arise in teaching a course comparing Japanese and Jewish responses to the atrocities of World War II, particularly the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Nazi murder of the Jews. Is the comparison historically viable, ethically troubling, emotionally disturbing? How does the topic demand attention to the conflict between emotion and analysis in the classroom? What conclusions about comparative cultural study does it lead to?

Alan Tansman's research focuses on modern Japanese literature and culture. In addition he writes on Japanese cultural criticism, popular culture, film, Area Studies, Japanese and Jewish responses to atrocity, and the sublime in Japanese literature. He is the author of The Writings of Kôda Aya (Yale University Press, 1993) and the forthcoming The Culture of Japanese Fascism (Duke), and The Aesthetics of Japanese Fascism (California). He holds a Ph.D. in Japanese literature from Yale University.