National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$56.25
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Scientific Communication and National Security (1982)
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)

Citation Manager

. "5 Improving the Current System." Scientific Communication and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1982.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
53
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Scientific Communication and National Security

scientific productivity as these programs shift to address the scientific basis of technologies—are only now beginning to emerge.

In general, the Panel concludes that there is much room for improvement in intelligently targeting the government’s efforts to prevent unwanted technology transfer; priorities must be set and communicated in order to limit the adverse effects of controls on other vital national interests, including that of maintaining a position of world leadership in science.

More specifically, there are several areas in which improvement is needed:

  • making controls more workable,

  • improving the factual basis for decisions,

  • improving mutual understanding between the government and the scientific community, and

  • bringing better balance to U.S.-U.S.S.R. exchange programs.

THE WORKABILITY OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM CAN BE IMPROVED

At this stage, the government’s technology transfer controls have a very wide compass. There is a risk that by covering such broad expanses of technology and by implicating the scientific activities across the same range, the overall efficiency of the effort will suffer. Two principles can be applied to bring a more coherent focus to the problem. First, the government should concentrate on the most feasible forms of control and should eschew regulations that impose compliance burdens without significantly affecting leakage. Second, it should concentrate its resources more systematically on those technologies that are of greatest relevance to near-term Soviet military strength.

Export Controls and Domestically Available Information

American scientists have broad, constitutionally based rights to disseminate information within the United States free from government control, unless the information is classified or they have agreed in advance to contractual provisions limiting disclosure. And, as a practical matter, information that is available domestically is also available abroad. For example, there is no practical way to prevent domestic publications from circulating internationally. Both ITAR and EAR recognize this fact to a limited extent by providing exemptions from the formal licensing process for certain types of generally available information, such as published data.1 But information is available through many channels—lectures, seminars, conferences,

1  

The Atomic Energy Act provides a unique statutory basis for controlling information bearing on nuclear weapons.

Page
53
Front Matter (R1-R16)
Executive Summary (1-8)
Introduction (9-12)
1 Current Knowledge About Unwanted Technology Transfer and Its Military Significance (13-21)
2 Universities and Scientific Communication (22-26)
3 The Current Control System (27-38)
4 General Conclusions: Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Controls (39-51)
5 Improving the Current System (52-64)
6 Compilation of Recommendations (65-90)
Appendix A: Memorandum from the Intelligence Subpanel to the Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security (91-96)
Appendix B: The Historical Context of National Security Concerns About Science and Technology (97-109)
Appendix C: A Study of the Responses of Industry to a Letter of Inquiry from the NAS Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security (110-116)
Appendix D: A Brief Analysis of University Research and Development Efforts Relating to National Security, 1940-1980 (117-119)
Appendix E: Voluntary Restraints on Research with National Security Implications: The Case of Cryptography, 1975-1982 (120-125)
Appendix F: The Role of Foreign Nationals Studying or Working in U.S. Universities and Other Sectors (126-135)
Appendix G: Letter from Five University Presidients (136-139)
Appendix H: Statement of Admiral B.R. Inman for the May 11, 1982, Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations Hearing on Technology Transfer (140-142)
Appendix I: Executive Order on National Security Information (143-170)
Appendix J: Correspondence Between the State Department and the University of Minnesota and M.I.T. Restricting Foreign Visitors (171-171)
Working Papers of the Panel (172-188)