• PDF / 59,340 Bytes
• 2 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
• 45 Downloads / 163 Views

DOWNLOAD

REPORT

---

SCIENCE POLICY Incorporating WASHINGTON NEWS and policy news from around the world.

U.S. House Science Committee Holds Hearing on Sensitive Research In October, the U.S. House Science Committee held a hearing on “Conducting Research during the War on Terrorism: Balancing Openness and Security.” At the hearing, Dr. John Marburger, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, addressed a concern that the Bush administration was considering a policy of “pre-publication review” of sensitive federally funded research. “This is incorrect,” Marburger said. “This is not the thrust of the considerations, and it’s important to note that this process is in the formative stage.” House Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) opened the hearing by saying, “The war on terrorism will be won in the laboratory just as much as on the battlefield.” He noted that this highlights some “critical tensions” that the war on terrorism has brought to a head: “If the laboratory is a theater of war,” he said, “then what are its rules of engagement? War demands secrecy; science thrives on openness. How can a free society balance those competing demands?” In response to questions from Rep. Boehlert, witnesses from across the research community said that there should not be a category for “sensitive, but unclassified” research, a concept that dates back to the Cold War which was recently alluded to by White House officials in a proposal unveiled last May. Such a category, said the witnesses, would hamper the openness necessary for the scientific enterprise to thrive. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz, said, “The best way to sort out these issues is to work directly with experts in the various scientific fields and scientific societies. The experts are well equipped to help determine if something is sensitive or dangerous and may need to be withheld from the public domain for any amount of time by classifying the work.” About a week after the hearing, the presidents of the U.S. National Academies (NAS)—Bruce Alberts (National Academy of Sciences), William A. Wulf (National Academy of Engineering), and Harvey Fineberg (Institute of Medicine)—issued a statement that called for the scientific community to work closely with federal agencies responding to new national security threats. But they also asked the federal government to refrain from creating poorly defined categories of information that do not provide precise guidance on what data should be restricted from public access.

MRS BULLETIN/JANUARY 2003

“Experience shows that vague criteria of this kind generate deep uncertainties among both scientists and officials responsible for enforcing regulations,” they said in the statement. “The inevitable effect is to stifle scientific creativity and to weaken national security.” The NAS background paper on “Science and Security in an Age of Terrorism” refers to the self-regulating activities of the science community involved in uranium research prior to the Manhattan Project.