|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
CONTROVERSY OVER CLASSIFIED RESEARCH ON CAMPUS |
Current rating: 0 |
by Steven Aftergood, FAS
(No verified email address) |
28 Feb 2002
Modified: 01 Mar 2002 |
|
According to opponents of the proposed restrictions, it is not classified research that conflicts with academic freedom but rather the efforts to restrict such research. This is clever, but not quite persuasive since it evades the question of whether the restrictions on access, speech and publication entailed by classification can ever be "consistent with the mission of the university." |
The propriety of conducting classified research in academia is once again becoming a subject of controversy on university campuses across the country, with some schools moving to ban such research and others considering relaxing the restrictions that now exist.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has prohibited classified research on campus "to the greatest extent possible" since the late 1960s while permitting such research at its off-campus Lincoln Laboratory. Because classification by definition interferes with free scientific exchange and open publication, it has generally been viewed as incompatible with academic pursuits.
But earlier this month, MIT established a faculty committee to reexamine its current policy on classified research.
"The committee's work is happening at a time of change in laws governing access and disclosure of research materials and information following the September 11 attacks," according to Helen Samuels of the MIT Provost's Office.
See "New committee to look at Institute policies on scientific information access, disclosure," from MIT Tech Talk (2/13/02):
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2002/feb13/access.html
Classified research is currently prohibited at Stanford University, State University of New York, and a number of other campuses.
Duke University recently rejected a government research contract because it would have permitted the Defense Department to block release of research results (as reported in "Universities Review Policies for Onsite Classified Research" by David Malakoff, Science Magazine, 22 February 2002, pp. 1438-9).
Next week the University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) will consider new steps to restrict classified research, a subject that has prompted intense debate on campus.
According to opponents of the proposed restrictions, it is not classified research that conflicts with academic freedom but rather the efforts to restrict such research.
"If the university chose to forbid classified research, or to put in place constraints that made it impossible to pursue, it would severely infringe on the academic freedom of the faculty," according to UAF electrical engineering professor William Bristow. "Faculty should be free to choose their areas of inquiry so long as they are consistent with the mission of the university, will not endanger the health or safety of the public, and will comply with pertinent regulations."
This is clever, but not quite persuasive since it evades the question of whether the restrictions on access, speech and publication entailed by classification can ever be "consistent with the mission of the university."
The pending University of Alaska motion, authored by Prof. Norman K. Swazo, may be found here:
http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/DRAFT_MOTION_CR.rtf
It will be addressed by the UAF Faculty Senate on March 4.
_____________________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to majordomo (at) lists.fas.org with
this command in the body of the message:
subscribe secrecy_news
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to majordomo (at) lists.fas.org with this command
in the body of the message:
unsubscribe secrecy_news
OR email your request to saftergood (at) fas.org
Secrecy News is archived at: |
See also:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html
|
|
Ulterior motive, please |
by Charles M. Bee
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Mar 2002
|
|
Why do this? |
