| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to the Contents of News Review Special Edition
On October 18, the Presidents of three of America's most prestigious scientific organisations issued a statement calling for a fuller debate on the implications of the US war against terrorism for scientific research and transparency. In their message, Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), William A. Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and Harvey V. Fineberg, President of the Institute of Medicine, warn of the need "to achieve an appropriate balance between scientific openness and restrictions on public information." The statement continues: "Restrictions are clearly needed to safeguard strategic secrets; but openness also is needed to accelerate the progress of technical knowledge and enhance the nation's understanding of potential threats. A successful balance between these two needs... demands clarity in the distinctions between classified and unclassified research. 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 inevitable effect is to stifle scientific creativity and to weaken national security. To develop sharp criteria for determining when to classify and/or restrict public access to scientific information, as well as to address the other important issues outlined below, we call for a renewed dialogue among scientists, engineers, health researchers and policy-makers." To help "stimulate such a dialogue", the three Presidents set out two "Action Points": 1), the "scientific, engineering, and health research community should work closely with the federal government to determine which research may be related to possible new security threats and to develop principles for researchers in each field"; 2) the "federal government should maintain the general principle of National Security Decision Directive 189, issued in 1985: 'No restrictions shall be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification, except as provided in applicable US statutes.'"
Report: Text - Scientists call for debate on access verses security of scientific information, Washington File, October 21.
© 2002 The Acronym Institute.