there are notable and important counterexamples to this statement. The subpanel also notes that many members of the academic community have little appreciation of the constructive and necessary role of the intelligence community in assessing foreign activities.

This “communication gap” manifests itself in several respects. The subpanel finds that some members of the intelligence community interpret such activities as excessive use of the library or lack of total dedication by a Soviet visitor to his projected task to be suspicious conduct. By such criteria most American researchers would seem suspect at their own research campuses. Conversely, the subpanel observes that some members of the U.S. research community are at times totally insensitive to national security issues and uncooperative with representatives of U.S. intelligence agencies. Reports on visitor activities or on visits by U.S. scientists travelling abroad are frequently late and at times not made at all, even if required by government contract.