National Science Board

Abstract This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the applications, challenges, and limitations of Generative AI (GenAI) in enhancing threat intelligence within cybersecurity, supported by real-world case studies. We examine a wide range of data sources in Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI), including security reports, blogs, social media, network traffic, malware samples, dark web data, and threat intelligence platforms (TIPs). This survey provides a full reference for integrating GenAI into CTI. We discuss various GenAI models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) and Deep Generative Models (DGMs) like Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and Diffusion Models, explaining their roles in detecting and addressing complex cyber threats. The survey highlights key applications in areas such as malware detection, network traffic analysis, phishing detection, threat actor attribution, and social engineering defense. We also explore critical challenges in deploying GenAI, including data privacy, security concerns, and the need for interpretable and transparent models. As regulations like the European Commission’s AI Act emerge, ensuring trustworthy AI solutions is becoming more crucial. Real-world case studies, such as the impact of the WannaCry ransomware, the rise of deepfakes, and AI-driven social engineering, demonstrate both the potential and current limitations of GenAI in CTI. Our goal is to provide foundational insights and strategic direction for advancing GenAI’s role in future cybersecurity frameworks, emphasizing the importance of innovation, adaptability, and ongoing learning to enhance resilience against evolving cyber threats. Ultimately, this survey offers critical insights into how GenAI can shape the future of cybersecurity by addressing key challenges and providing actionable guidance for effective implementation.

Since the reawakening of our interest in amplitude variation with offset analysis (AVO) by Ostrander (in Plane-wave reflection coeficients for gas and sands at non-normal incidence, Geophysics 1984), there has been phenomenal interest in the subject, and also a certain amount of controversy. On the one hand, there are many geophysicists who feel that AVO is the greatest thing to ever happen to the geophysical industry and who refuse to do any exploration work without including this technique. On the other hand, there is a second group of geophysicists who claim that the AVO method has been so strongly oversold that it has hurt the industry (see Geophysical credibility-A key to professional survival by Norman Neidell, December 1992 TLE). My own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere between these two polar extremities. However, at the risk of upsetting those who claim we have oversold the AVO method, the TLE Editorial Board has decided to put together this special issue. Our decision reflects both the large number of papers that have been submitted about the method and also our feeling that AVO deserves an objective overview from which the average geophysicist can decide about its applicability and usefulness.

Just as cell phones will soon deliver TV programming and analog TVs will disappear, the PS3 represents another mutation in the evolution of entertainment: game consoles transformed into media centers. Whatever form they might take in 2009, these entertainment systems will be in a world strangely different from 1967, when consoles, the Internet, Wi-Fi, smart cards, DVDs, digital video recorders, MP3 players, and microprocessors had yet to be invented

Following what for decades has become for me a near annual trek to the mountains of Park City, Utah, to cover Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival, last year I asked, “Lights, Camera …Action? Ar...

Article MetricsDownloadsCitationsNo data available.0123AugSepOctNovDecJan590Total6 Months12 MonthsTotal number of downloads for the most recent 6 whole calendar months.

"AEE&C Report on Rachel Carson Book Award Winners." Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(4), pp. 280–281

By the time I left my position as the Ecological Society of America's director of public affairs, I had worked for the Society for 21 years and witnessed an amazing array of changes. I feel fortunate that I was part of this very interesting period of ESA's history and was able to work with so many passionate and dedicated members and staff. The world's largest community of ecological scientists changed dramatically in size, demographics, journals, and the flavor of its annual meetings. But in my view, what had changed most of all was how its members viewed both their and ESA's role and responsibility to share ecological information beyond the ecological community. This is my attempt to highlight key events that occurred during those two decades. Thinking back to those early years of my tenure with the Society, my memories are those of a much smaller, much more academically focused organization. And one that was trying to transition from a largely volunteer-run society with a bit of a “clubby” feel to it, to a more sophisticated organization managed by professional staff with expertise in association management, finances, fundraising, publishing, public policy, and communication strategies. A transition from a mostly volunteer-run organization to one managed by professional staff and guided by an elected governing board is a lofty ambition. Not surprisingly, ESA went through a series of challenges during this period, and all of us involved learned a great deal about running a nonprofit membership society. It was a steep learning curve for ESA's governing board, council and committees as well as the ESA staff. Among the many lessons we learned was that good scientists do not always make good managers; in fact, the day-to-day business and management responsibilities are a far cry from the type of work most scientists relish and not usually ones in which they excel. But through even the bumpiest of these times, ESA members and staff were committed to doing what was best for ESA; ensuring that it would endure and continue to serve the ecological community was always front and center. Among those who devoted considerable time and energy to helping the Society navigate these “growing pain” hurdles was Mary Barber, who served as director of the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (which later became ESA's Science Office) and for a time did “double duty”, serving as Acting Executive Director and working long hours for many months. Others include past presidents James McMahon and Jim Brown. The arrival of Katherine McCarter, who was hired as ESA's executive director in 1997 after years in a key management position at the American Public Health Association, marked a significant turning point. Katherine was instrumental in facilitating ESA's continued transition to a truly professional society, well positioned to attain the goals its leadership had set when it voted in 1993 to establish a headquarters office in Washington, D.C. Years later, other scientific societies, including the American Society for Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) and the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), looked to ESA for guidance. Each of these organizations experienced growing pains of their own as they sought similar transitions and worked to establish a greater presence in the nation's capitol. When I first began working for the Society in August of 1992, most of the members with whom I interacted were primarily focused on their research and much less on sharing it beyond the ecological community. Although ESA's Public Affairs Office had established relations with the media under Marge Holland's leadership, and put effort and resources into attracting press to its annual meetings, most members did not feel prepared to communicate with the press. Other members, particularly those elected to Society leadership positions on its Governing Board, were supportive but less sure about the role they could or should play in the media and policy realms. The perennial tension between informing and advocating frequently arose and finessing how to share valuable and timely information with policymakers in order to play a viable role was always a challenge. Certainly there has always existed a subset of members committed to engaging with policy makers, the media, K-12 schools, private industry, and state and other entities. But the notion that ESA should pay high rent to be a player in public policy and give voice to ecological concerns and perspectives was far from universally embraced by members in the 1990s. Nor did the average ESA member—including leading ecologists active in the Society—necessarily feel like it was their place as research scientists to be involved in either public policy or talking to the media. One of my earliest memories is of the 1993 Annual Meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. (As a side note, this was the last time the Society met on a university campus; ESA had outgrown the university venue and had begun transitioning to convention centers). In Madison, we had managed to attract a local TV station to cover the meeting. However, much to my chagrin, the first several ecologists I approached nearly ran at the sight of the camera crew behind me. It took several tries before I managed to find an ecologist who was willing to talk on camera about the purpose of the meeting and to give a flavor of what transpired at such an assembly of several thousand ecologists. To be fair, the thought of being on camera is daunting to most of us. But it was a wake-up call that ESA had invested in public affairs staff partially to attract media coverage of annual meetings but that its members were unprepared to engage with the press. Several members provided excellent interviews, but overall they were the exception. I saw a repeat of this phenomenon at the 1994 meeting in Knoxville, Tennessee, and as a result, at the 1995 meeting in Snowbird, Utah, we offered communications training—complete with mock TV interviews and the tools needed to communicate effectively in any news medium. The session was sparsely attended—back then, sessions that focused on something other than research results usually were not very popular. But one of the handful of people who did attend and participate in both this session as well as a special public policy session we had organized was ESA Past President Jane Lubchenco (1992–1993), who was already developing what would become the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program. Another was Judy Meyer (ESA President 1994–1995), a member who fearlessly served on the boards of national environmental organizations, bringing science to bear on the challenges these groups were working to address. By 2010, many ecologists expected their professional society to reflect the growing diversity of professional careers in which ecologists work. They also expected ESA to play an active role in public policy and media engagement and provide opportunities for the Society's members to do likewise. Much of this push came from ESA's youngest members, graduate students who passionately wanted to contribute to helping address real world problems, who did not necessarily want to become part of academia, and who felt it was their duty as ecologists to engage wherever necessary to make a difference. They felt that advocating for an issue made them no less a scientist. Many variables contributed to that shift, in my view. Among them, the contributions of the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program established by Jane Lubchenco in the late 1990s which exposed academic ecologists to both the policy and media worlds, providing training and exposure and building a network of ecologists in academia who gained a deeper appreciation of why engaging with government, the private sector, and the media is vital. When ESA established its Rapid Response Team (RRT) about 10 years later, we drew heavily from alumni of the ALLP. Another critical factor was the shifting job market for ecologists. Academic job opportunities and research funding opportunities grew more competitive over this time period. Moreover, many younger ecologists wanted to contribute by working for non profits, government, and private sector entities in which they could apply their ecological knowledge directly to solving environmental problems. As the years went on, the public affairs team—working closely with the Public Affairs Committee—experimented with a range of offerings designed to foster understanding and opportunities to engage in both media outreach and public policy. These included what was initially called the Public Plenary and was intended to encourage attendance by members of the public in the cities in which ESA met. Also, the ESA Regional Policy Award was established to recognize decision makers who used ecological science in setting policy, ESA hosted congressional staff at ESA meetings, and a wide array of sessions were designed to give members training in public speaking, public policy development, and media engagement. The Opening Plenary was a mixed success; we learned that in spite of Public Service Announcements, press releases and other advertisements, members of the public were unlikely to come out to listen to a talk in a Convention Center on a Sunday evening in August. So more and more, the selection of the Opening Plenary speaker—managed by the Public Affairs Committee—focused on someone who could bring a different set of perspectives to ESA members themselves. Over the years, speakers included David Suzuki, the former host of The Nature of Things; a representative from the Office of former Governor Schwarzenegger (R-CA); and a roundtable of panelists discussing Earth stewardship. Likewise, the Regional Policy Award presented ESA with some new challenges. One was the difficulty of obtaining nominations from members; another was the tricky nature of assessing a nominee's qualifications and doing the necessary homework on other, perhaps unrelated positions the individual might have taken that would go against ESA member principles. Hosting congressional staff, as well as staff of the Congressional Service was overall a good to ecologists to the network of these ESA staff these the with staff on ESA such as congressional particularly valuable its staff provide and other information to congressional staff would out to us when working on with on which they members had us to them with ecologists and in this ecological information to When I first began to scientific meetings Washington, one was of the other scientific society and university affairs staff at these meetings had no what was why I was there as ESA's public affairs They we were an environmental but after a years ESA became in the science community and as an organization with many of and These became a that we network of and learned about on and in the several years, ESA the annual of Science science on a session for of and of their staff. ESA members about their research and science made by funding from Another science in which we were active focused on annual congressional that in scientists from the who of science and for a The scientists from with the and and in with of congressional This was a great learning for us and make ESA a in science policy However, the was that were by the much and more science organizations that to the flavor of this both in of the speakers to talk to the scientists and during meetings with congressional in such for several years, we made the decision that the time was for us to own one to the and concerns of and environmental ESA and the American of established the Ecological This us to resources with other organizations the American Society of Limnology and for Science and the and in a more and also established a which us to a of for the This served the work of a the of a and was made of which very and was in a the of congressional that became more with the concerns of community. One during these years was the of the all and and the they would be against This was during a period of time when there was a against the that and the President on the of Health by its already considerable felt and so the became time to give more to the the The this But from ESA's the was that the against the was not and it also the that the had not from the of to is the of all research all of So we were and very that the ecological community would to even more we did not and find a to highlight that all the into one was This was the we from the and Ecological first focused on meetings with the including a I to members to be of the the in also met with American for the of Science that at that time did not from overall in its also focused its on congressional such as the Office of a who served on the Science was a by and a for was also the Ecological also us to resources to on to members, particularly funding challenges and such as When it first was by director it was with very mixed by the ecological community. I that several members of ESA's Governing to do more to for in felt I should of the Society were over As it a of us did make to congressional to and we learned as by at that it was not well with policymakers who did not the for it how it would be different from from to took what we learned back to leadership to that it its but was not well several of congressional the of to the was a In a under the leadership of David a that in a that did with and was instrumental in As we worked to establish ESA as a the scientific society we less time with environmental groups in with whom former ESA public affairs Marge and had Much later, we worked with organizations that included the the and other with the and other science we with other scientific societies, including the The Society, and on of to such as ESA is to other scientific in D.C. of the of the and of in which ESA could in was But the affairs of professional societies, such as the American Society or the American ESA's resources were of In other scientific societies, entities were ESA was an environmental organization or a scientific This included congressional some of whom were of the on Congressional leadership, it could be to with key such as the environmental groups could congressional the of the ESA had to primarily to a of the of scientific information on public policy. The was very for a the leadership of the It was thought that ESA could play that role by on what the science of had to on a issue a However, there was a by later on, that to that scientists have no is a It was always a of the to in and on a key in which we could play a and I felt ESA members us to a bit far from the ESA's so was their for The between informing policy as scientists and advocating for environmental was always and has a of ESA members the Society's years ESA its in which what the Society had doing for on the expertise of its members to it to contribute ecological information to decision makers and in a timely was out of a from and was by the Public Affairs most of its members were and by the Governing and to serve for by ESA's members worked in academia, but membership to include and private sector ecologists. As the became less staff were able to greater on and to serve on the As by the members were to into when great opportunities presented themselves. the to to such as assessing or a working on a However, the was that such were not and some members felt when would go by us them to play a part in a policy or media Over we that members could us ESA's wide range of public affairs and more we looked to to to at the Congressional or and ESA press or other that would position the Society to some members to play the such as providing their expertise on staff for outreach and engagement. Other members we to play more such as talking directly with or serving as a at an ESA congressional As a we had to be that the we made of members were not to any of So that members would to other, and as a from the Society, Annual Meeting a which in to members, Governing ESA's Public Affairs and later, the Society's Policy in These key from the and a special from such as a or a congressional As the we and members more opportunities to share with other what they worked well and were they saw both in the engagement work they as well as their work with the of the growing of the and their high to be on a by the Society, we also them to and not for us to out to some members and public affairs staff, this was a bit of a and on a some would be called on they could contribute to a that was were not sought out as As we other such as ESA's and the ESA in we members to share their in the policy and media realms. In and to their resources and their first Congressional through the to ecologists was the members; a of public on in a congressional office was not on the average ESA at that It for and made the most of working for was through at the time and was with a staff that did not include or public affairs, and the Society for Conservation Biology was mostly volunteer-run and had no presence in Washington, ESA served as the host for and we interacted Over the years, back to sharing and the established and serving first as a member and later as President of ESA's Public Affairs Several years later, in ESA went to a congressional who worked for a on the and also served on ESA's Public Affairs Although ESA's leadership saw the of the ESA had taken on a growing array of other in to member Among it had its to diversity in the ecological and it had a new for its members, in and the to the of other journals, annual meetings, its and science the significant of a ESA did not another for the of my time However, member in such opportunities continued to and we a to address this In ESA its ESA Policy a competitive that member graduate students to to D.C. and participate in of policy engagement. These students learned about the met ESA members working at their professional and experienced what it to engage with and the of and policy, and find to the of to a decision This for the Society in my view, graduate students a new of early exposure to engaging in policy, and very serving as a to their Many of these students have on to for congressional or Executive or have into science policy In to policy over the years, we with a of to share with a wide of many years, media outreach press releases and press at the Annual Meeting was the with the media and new tools at we began to also directly with of the public through about ecologists and their ESA's to of and also provided members with the to their at Also, to over than are not ESA and ESA science on an ecological at a local or with an on with people not in ESA's this at the meeting and organized a to find an ecologist both and well for this type of engagement. One of is ESA's Policy which we in 1995 as Science and Policy to ESA members an to their on the of policy and to be of timely opportunities to By the time I left ESA in the public affairs of Society had to ecological information through and new address science and the and foster ESA member engagement with decision makers and members of the press. back over those years, one of the that is the excellent staff we were able to attract to work for the Society and who in their own ESA in the public affairs very first in 1995 was a who had several years as a congressional for the Science under the leadership of and on the were instrumental in new opportunities for particularly the policy sessions we began to members at the annual meetings. former was a media and policy communications had served as for and we to ESA's Public Affairs by and and and growing to community also to a key and role in the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program. was a in professional with over the years worked at the Society's media who in on work by press releases to include new research in ESA's journals, as well as the research presented at the annual meetings. working for the Public Affairs and contributed in different to us A out was who and I hired in and who the on outreach including engaging that key ecological and press would go on to work in the Society's Sustainable Biosphere Office and to in at the of Also, a graduate ESA's in and later served on the Public Affairs was always of the curve in about and who worked as ESA's from to us annual meeting sessions that public and to and public the first of these at the meeting. people and when they out it was a several to But most and it into an of much of and setting the for a more to the meeting. the of the we ran into who us how much they had the session and how it made them less about their also ESA's annual to a new of Others made significant contributions as who had worked in the Office of Science and Policy and went on to become an environmental to in on was in for congressional staff a success; and ESA's The to Washington, which focused on and into public worked with members on key ESA as well as on congressional ESA's a former congressional contributed to ESA's Policy for and Policy ESA's and and a and former media at the who and ESA science In to media and policy ESA's also began in the Public Affairs with and by and Each of these to ESA's growing these grew for the Society to establish its The who an that was to so many and people was ESA's Executive Katherine Katherine a that us to work and us the to with new to do contributed of own and staff with them and the it was that we media outreach beyond a on the research presented during the annual meetings and work to highlight research in The last years or so of my time with several of us worked to with the Society's leadership of an of ESA who work in or state government, for organizations such as the and or for Many of these members already the and of what into policy and the best to bring to decision there a between these members and the academic members, who make the of the Society's many of its academic members to make of the policy were ecologists who it and were to their academic ESA leadership was and has and is changes. As former ESA diversity of people and perspectives play as a role in as diversity in an The of ESA has always its members, those who make its expertise and its and As a former of the Society, to which I also I had the of the ESA went through over 21 years and how it to and It was a but mostly it was a and as the Society continued to and to serve its members and to share ecological science with decision makers and the media. served as Director of Public Affairs from 1995 to and to that as ESA's the position was from to as the Director for the Science Board, which the of and the for the Science

Article MetricsDownloadsCitationsNo data available.01JulAugSepOctNovDec520Total6 Months12 MonthsTotal number of downloads for the most recent 6 whole calendar months.

The digital-imaging revolution is rapidly changing our expectations of traditional media such as photography, television, and film. The ability to capture and generate high-definition images with digital cameras continues to advance. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of consumers are buying display technologies such as high-definition liquid-crystal-display monitors. However, researchers and commercial innovators are making major advancements to enable the low-cost deployment of large and immersive display systems for homes and businesses

Missouri physicians have shared humanitarian aid and exchanged medical knowledge for the past decade with European Georgia physicians. Donations have been made of medications, medical publications, used equipment and supplies as well as organizational knowledge exchange with sister medical organizations, sister medical schools and sister cities. The medical specialty exchanges include family medicine, neonatology, pediatrics, diabetology, endocrinology, ophthalmology, obstetrics, gynecology, anesthesiology and surgery.

As part of a year-long series of articles designed to analyze the changes in our industry and science that have occurred during its history members of the TLE Editorial Board and staff are digging though 20 years of monthly issues. This month we focus on business and staff changes that have taken place since the first issue of the magazine in 1982.

These last few years I have regularly been asked, during press or radio interviews, what I thought about the new wave or waves of anti-Semitism or judeophobia, as it is called. Statistical studies, rigorous scholarly research and journalistic inquiry demonstrate, through sad findings indeed, that an anti-jewish sentiment has become more present in the last few years. Intentional acts against Jews are on the rise, no longer restrained to profanation and insults. More partisan discourses also a...

No abstract available for this article.

We continue to get responses to the mapping problem presented in the May 1995 issue of TLE. Two particularly interesting responses are printed below.

Why postcommemorative? One may be weary of these post theories, which since the 1980s have not ceased drumming into us that there is an after and that we are already in it. So why launch this neologism? As Marianne Hirsch has underlined, the post also functions like a post-it that reminds you of tasks to accomplish: poststructuralism, postmodernism, postmemory. With 2015 closes a year punctuated by moments related both to the Second World War – the “liberation” of the camps in general and of...

"Call for Papers." Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 24(2), p. 332

Journal Article Gegenopfer und Opferverwehrung. Strukturen des Schuldrechts auf der Grundlage des Anglo-amerikanischen “check-and-balance” Systems Get access Becker W. G.Gegenopfer und Opferverwehrung. Strukturen des Schuldrechts auf der Grundlage des anglo-amerikanischen “check-and-balance” Systems. Berlin und Frankfurt/Main: Verlag Franz Vahlen, 1958. Pp. 516. Max Rheinstein Max Rheinstein *Board of Editor Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, Winter 1960, Pages 121–127, https://doi.org/10.2307/837861 Published: 01 January 1960

He passed away on May 13

Witness, victims, Truth and reconciliation commission, trauma, testify, slaves, refugee, concentration and extermination camps, the rebellious of 1917, rape, post-colonial, perpetrators, pedagogy and transmission, ¡ nunca mas !, never again, museum, monument, minorities, memory, memory work, justice, Righteous Among the Nations, grey zone, humanitarian action, human rights, genocide, exodus, exile, ethnic cleansing, displaced persons, discrimination, devoir de mémoire, deportation, dark touri...

"Demande d'articles." Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 24(3), p. 492