DISCUSSION CALLED KEY TO TECHNOLOGICAL LEAD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000200730015-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 22, 2010
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: October 1, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000200730015-3
ARTICLE APPEAR.W
11 ON PAGE___ 1 October 1982
Discussion called keys
to technological lead
WASHINGTON (AP)-There is little
evidence that open scientific discussion
hurts national security, and some govern.
ment attempts to control information
could hurt the country's technical prog-
ress, a National Academy of Sciences
panel said Thursday.
The nation's technical lead may be
better protected by continued research
and discovery than by trying to restrict
access to what is known, the special
panel said.
However, the panel, which received
several top-secret briefings during its
study, reviewed evidence of technology
lost to the Soviets and their allies and
found the problem "substantial and seri-
ous."
The Soviets get most of this informa-
tion through legal equipment purchases,
outright espionage, illegal international
trade and leaks from legal recipients
abroad, it said.
But the investigation "failed to reveal
specific evidence of damage to U.S. na-
tional security caused by information
obtained from U.S. academic sources," it
concluded.
THE SEVEN-MONTH study indicates
only a "very small part" of the technolo-
gy this country loses to the Soviet Union
can be attributed to open scientific com-
munication through meetings and publi,
cations.
The "limited and uncertain benefits" of
controls are "outweighed by the impor-
tance of scientific progress, which open
communication accelerates, to the over-
all welfare of the nation," said the Com-
mittee on Science, Engineering and Pub-
lic Policy.
The group acknowledged there is a
legitimate need to safeguard information,
particularly technical expertise that can
be applied to military design and produc-
tion.
However, it said, this involves only a
small amount of civilian research, and
the government should develop a consis-
tent policy for such controls.
The controversy about government re-
strictions on research results, particular-
ly from universities, has been growing-
for last five years.
THERE WERE repeated warnings'
from Adw Bobby man, former
r of n ra h~tenoe Aaen-
others that science-related secu-
rity had to stend.
Despite pr f m scientists, gDV-`
ernment agencies have restricted publi-
cation of papers, prevented presentations
at meetings and restricted admittance of'
foreign scientists to the U.S.
Last month the Defense Department
blocked presentation of almost 100 un-
classified papers at an optical engineer-
ing meeting in San Diego. The depart-
ment said some of the work might have
military implications, and Soviet scien-
tists attended the international meeting.
The academy study, chaired by Dr.
Dale Corson, president emeritus of Cor-
nell University, was sponsored by the
Defense Department, the National Sci-
ence Foundation and several scientific
organizations. It was intended to find
The panel recommended three guide-
lines it said would allow all but a small:
portion of government-funded, academic-
ally based research to continue without
restrictions:
? The vast majority of university work'
should be unrestricted.
? In rare cases where research meets
specific criteria, such as work with direct
military application, it should get prior
security classification.
? In the few "gray-area" cases, when
there is potential but unproven military
application, limited control may be justi-
fied. But these measures, such as re-'
stricting direct work by foreign scien-
tists, should be specified by contract
before the project begins.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000200730015-3