AIP FYI #120: National Academies’ Presidents on Science and Security
In the new climate of heightened security after last year’s terrorist
attacks and anthrax mailings, what restrictions should be placed on public
access to research data, methods and results that might be used for harm?
What is the appropriate balance between open scientific exchange and the
restriction of information? Last week, the presidents of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine issued a statement to provoke thought and stimulate discussion
in both the policymaking and scientific communities. The October 18
statement, “Science and Security in an Age of Terrorism,” was signed by
Bruce Alberts of NAS, William Wulf of NAE, and Harvey Fineberg of IM. The
statement and a supporting background paper are available at
http://www.nationalacademies.org.
Since September 2001, says the background paper, “the federal government
has either adopted or is considering tighter security measures to counteract
terrorism,” including “increased monitoring of foreign students and
scholars, restrictions on access to certain information and materials, new
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, an expanded list of
technologies subject to export control or classification, and some screening
of scientific, engineering, and health publications.” (As reported in FYI
#116, OSTP Director John Marburger, in a recent hearing, denied that the
government was considering pre-publication review of sensitive
federally-funded research results.)
The presidents’ statement calls on scientists, engineers, and health
researchers to work with the government to “determine which research may be
related to possible new security threats and to develop principles for
researchers in each field.” In particular, the background paper notes, “the
chemical, biological, and even social science communities bear new
responsibilities to identify materials and areas of research that should –
or should not – be classified.” However, the presidents insist that the
distinctions between classified and unclassified research must be absolutely
clear: “We believe it to be essential that these distinctions not include
poorly defined categories of ‘sensitive but unclassified’ information that
do not provide precise guidance on what information should be restricted
from public access. Experience shows that vague criteria of this kind
generate deep uncertainties among both scientists and officials responsible
for enforcing regulations.”
“The federal government,” the background paper states, “has the
responsibility to maintain an open flow of information to a degree
consistent with national security…. Open communication of the results of
research is indispensable to the ‘self-correcting’ activities” of the
research enterprise. To this end, the presidents call on the federal
government to “affirm and maintain the general principle of National
Security Decision Directive 189, issued in 1985: ‘No restrictions may be
placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental
research that has not received national security classification, except as
provided in applicable U.S. statutes.'”
The statement challenges both scientists and policymakers to consider ways
to identify research that should be classified, without adversely impacting
the conduct of the research or the free flow of other scientific
information, and ways the scientific community can be enlisted to contribute
to the detection of, and countermeasures against, terrorist threats.
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3094
Please visit the AIP Science Policy site at http://www.aip.org/gov for
previous issues of FYI, other science policy information, and subscriber
options.
