HEARING CONSIDERS IMPACT OF SECRECY PROPOSALS ON SCIENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000100030115-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2010
• Sequence Number: 115
• Publication Date: April 3, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

S-? -
anitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/02: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100030115-0
SCIENCE NEWS
3 April 1982
Hearing considers impact of secrecy proposals on science
The U.S. academic community may be-i
come a greater target for Soviet efforts to'
gather militarily important technical in-.
formation if the overn_, ment succeeds in
cutting off Soviet espionage efforts, said
Aari iral Bobby R. ntnan ty director
of the_ Central Intelligence Agency ur-
rently. universities are responsible for
only a small proportion of the outflow of
sensitive technical information, he said.
Inman repeated his warning made earlier
this year at the American Association foi
the Advancement of Scier.ce annual meet-
ing (SN: 1/16/82, p.35) that scientists
should pay more attention to the national
security implications of their research and
publications, or they could face greater
restrictions in the future.
? . Inman was one of eight witnesses who
appeared last week before a joint hearing
of two subcommittees of the House Com-
mittee on Science and Technology on gov-
ernment ernment proposals to restrict access to
nonsecret but sensitive scientific informa-
tion.
Inman described his role as a "goad to,
discussion" in an attempt to."energize they
academic community to take national se-
curity concerns seriously." He questioned
the. value of international exchange pro-,
grams in which U.S.,scientists and society;
appeared to gain little, and pointed to the
voluntary prepublication review of cryp-.
tology papers as a good example of how to,
handle the problem of balancing national;
security interests and the need for open
scientific communication.
Robert M. Rosenzweig, public affairs
vice president at Stanford University, de-l
fended exchanges with the Soviet Union.
"While we have little to gain from their sci-
ence and technology, he said, "we have
much to lose from ignorance of Russian
institutions, processes, motives and pur-
poses." Rosenzweig said the government
already has the authority, by denying;
visas, to limit Soviet access to training and
research in sensitive areas. if work going
on at Stanford was judged to be too sensi-
tive to be exposed to a Russian visitor,i
then thesolution is to keep him away from!
the university, not to ask the university to'
play policeman, he said. i
Rosenzweig also described the cryptol-
ogy agreement as a cumbersome experi-
mental arrangement with ambiguous re-
sults so far. He said it would be a mistake
to "overlearn from the experience and ex-
tend it prematurely to other fields of sci-
ence' Frank Press, National Academy of 1
Sciences president, also pointed-out that i
some universities have refused to partici-
pate in the experiment. - '
Press said it was important to have a
balanced, objective assessment of the
views of both government and the scien-
tific community on the export control and
technology transfer controversy. He an-
nounced that the Department of Defense
had agreed to fund and cooperate in an
NAS study to examine the relationship be-
tween university research and national
security. Chaired by Date R. Corson, presi-
dent emeritus of Cornell University, the
18-member panel plans to issue an interim
report in September and a final report in
March 1983.
The review will include an examination
of the advantages and disadvantages of
free communication in two or three spe-
cific fields of science and technology -
such as mathematics relating to cryptol-
ogy, very. high speed integrated circuits
and artificial intelligence-to be selected
by the study panel in consultation with the
Defense Department. ? . .. .. ..
George P. Millburn, acting deputy under
secretary of defense for research and en-1
gineering, 'outlined the Defense Depart-)
ment's dilemma. If it vigorously attemptsi
to regulate the flow of scientific inforina-
tion In the scientific community, it could
jeopardize the strength and vitality of the
very community it is seeking to -revitalize
for the sake of national defense," he said.;
On the other hand, if DOD abandons any
attempt at regulation in ? the university
context, it could seriously comptomise
and, in certain cases, totally undercut
other efforts to control the outflow of
militarily critical technology."
Millburn said the Defense Department is
increasing its monitoring of DOD-funded
research to restrict the flow of unclassified
technical information that falls under the'
category of Information subject to export
control. The system depends on the con-
tract between the Defense Department
and the university or researcher involved.
If guidelines for release of information are
accepted as. part of the contract, then:,
there should be little room for misun-
derstanding later," said Millburn. "The sys-
tem is voluntary in the sense that the con-
tract does not have to be accepted."
Because all research issubject to export
control regulations, Millburn said that
similar contract guidelines could. be
negotiated not only with the Defense De-
partment but also with other federal fund-
ing agencies, and that voluntary controls
and peer review may be appropriate for
research not funded by the federal gov-
ernment.The Defense Department sees its
role as a consultant and advisor as to what
is militarily critical and subject to export
controls.
However, after listening to Millburn and
Inman, Rep. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn) said,
"I have not been con vnced that the degree
of leakage from the academic community
is such that it would override the concern
of even taking halting steps" toward re-
stricting scientific communication. He
suggested that Inman was taking the "first
steps along the road that has, made 4oviet
science so pitiful." .
Press said the best way to solve the
problem was to stay ahead by funding re-
search and development and supporting
education, while the NAS study would nar-
row and define the issues in which genuine
differences exist. -1. Peterson
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/02 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000100030115-0