NOTICE: The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by Act of Congress as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation for the furtherance of science and technology for the general welfare. The terms of its charter require the National Academy of Sciences to advise the federal government upon request within its fields of competence. Under this corporate charter, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It includes members of the councils of all three bodies.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82–62183
International Standard Book Number 0-309-03332-2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, October 1982
Second Printing, October 1982
Third Printing, November 1982
Fourth Printing, April 1983
Fifth Printing, January 1984
This study was supported by the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the National Academy of Sciences.
The NAS contribution was drawn from funds used for Academy-initiated projects; the funds were provided by the NAS consortium of private foundations. The consortium comprises the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Charles E.Culpeper Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Andrew W.Mellon Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20418
September 30, 1982
Scientific Communication and National Security addresses one of the most difficult of policy issues: one in which fundamental national objectives seem to have been abruptly thrown into direct conflict. Advances in science and technology have traditionally thrived in an atmosphere of open communication; openness has contributed to American military and economic strength and has been a tenet of American culture and higher education. However, recent trends, including apparent increases in acquisition efforts by our adversaries, have raised serious concerns that openness may harm U.S. security by providing adversaries with militarily relevant technologies that can be directed against us. As would be expected when major national interests are in question, signs of distrust have appeared on all sides of the growing public discussion. The federal government, through its research and development agencies, and the university research community, where most basic research is conducted, both will lose much if the nation cannot find a policy course that reflects legitimate concerns.
The Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security was constituted to address this complex and critical issue. It combined unusual breadth, practical experience, and variety of viewpoint—from government, industry, and the scientific community. With energy and a sense of commitment, the Panel searched for a sensible and practical policy amid controversies that continued even as it carried out its deliberations. Chairman Dale Corson guided its systematic evaluation of the costs and the benefits of openness with patient wisdom.
The Panel has provided a set of principles that shows a way to resolve the current dilemma. However, the existence of valid principles is only part of what the nation needs; success in translating such ideas into practical governmental action is by no means assured. It is the Panel’s hope and my own that it will be possible to establish within the government an appropriate group to develop mechanisms and guidelines in the cooperative spirit that the report itself displays. As the Panel points out, a key need is to improve mutual understanding between national security officials and members of the scientific community; representation of both in the process of implementing the report’s recommendations would be an excellent first step.
PANEL ON SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY
DALE R.CORSON (Chairman), President Emeritus,
RICHARD C.ATKINSON, Chancellor,
University of California, San Diego
(Former Director, National Science Foundation)
JOHN M.DEUTCH, Dean of Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(Former Under Secretary, Department of Energy)
ROBERT H.DICKE, Einstein Professor of Physics,
(Former Member, National Science Board)
EDWARD L.GINZTON, Chairman of the Board,
MARY L.GOOD, Vice President and Director of Research,
(Member, National Science Board)
NORMAN HACKERMAN, President,
(Former Chairman, National Science Board; Former Member, President’s Science Advisory Committee)
JAMES R.KILLIAN, President Emeritus,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(Former Presidential Science Advisor; Former Member, President’s Science Advisory Committee)
FRANKLIN LINDSAY, Chairman, Executive Committee,
RICHARD A.MESERVE, Attorney,
Covington and Burling
WOLFGANG K.H.PANOFSKY, Director,
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University
(Former Member, President’s Science Advisory Committee)
WILLIAM J.PERRY, Partner,
Hambrecht and Quist
(Former Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, Department of Defense)
SAMUEL C.PHILLIPS, Vice President and General Manager,
TRW Energy Products Group
(Former Director, National Security Agency)
ALEXANDER RICH, Sedgwick Professor of Biophysics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(Former Member, National Science Board)
JOHN D.ROBERTS, Provost,
California Institute of Technology
(Member of the Council of the National Academy of Sciences)
HAROLD T.SHAPIRO, President,
University of Michigan
CHARLES P.SLICHTER, Professor,
Department of Physics, University of Illinois
(Former Member, President’s Science Advisory Committee; Member, National Science Board)
MICHAEL I.SOVERN, President,
ELMER B.STAATS (Former U.S. Comptroller General; Former Deputy Budget Director; Former Executive Officer, Operations Coordinating Board, National Security Council)
LAWRENCE E.MCCRAY, Project Director
ELIZABETH G.PANOS, Administrative Assistant
MITCHEL B.WALLERSTEIN, Staff Consultant
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
GEORGE M.LOW (Chairman), President,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
SOLOMON J.BUCHSBAUM, Executive Vice President,
Customer Systems, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.
Hedrick and Lane, Attorneys at Law
ELWOOD V.JENSEN, Professor and Director,
Ben May Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Chicago
ALEXANDER LEAF, Chief of Medical Sciences,
Massachusetts General Hospital, and
Jackson Professor of Clinical Medicine,
Harvard Medical School
GARDNER LINDZEY, President and Director,
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
J.ROSS MACDONALD, William Rand Kenan, Jr., Professor of Physics,
University of North Carolina
JOHN L.MCLUCAS, President,
World Systems Division, Communications Satellite Corporation
ELIZABETH C.MILLER, WARF Professor of Oncology,
McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin
GEORGE E.PALADE, Chairman and Professor,
Section of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine
JOSEPH M.PETTIT, President,
Georgia Institute of Technology
LEON T.SILVER, Professor of Geology,
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology
HERBERT A.SIMON, Professor of Computer Science and Psychology,
Mathematics Department, University of California, Berkeley
F.KARL WILLENBROCK, Cecil H.Green Professor of Engineering,
Southern Methodist University
FRANK PRESS, President,
National Academy of Sciences
COURTLAND D.PERKINS, President,
National Academy of Engineering
FREDERICK C.ROBBINS, President,
Institute of Medicine
ALLAN R.HOFFMAN, Executive Director
BARBARA DARR, Administrative Assistant
The use of American science and technology in the rapid increase in Soviet military strength over the past decade has aroused substantial concern in the current administration. This concern has been expressed frequently in recent months by high-ranking officials, who have called for tighter controls on all forms of technology transfer, including communication among scientists by such means as the publication of papers in scientific journals and by face-to-face meetings. In addition, federal agencies have already taken steps to control the flow of data and information from scientific research. These statements and actions have led to rising concern in the U.S. scientific community that such controls might impede scientific progress and its contribution to the national welfare.
In March 1982, discussions among officials of the Academy complex and the Department of Defense led to the creation of the Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security under the aegis of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, a standing committee, to study the question. The charge to the Panel was, generally, to examine the relation between scientific communication1 and national security in light of the growing concern that foreign nations2 are gaining military advantage from such research. It states four major elements, as follows:
An examination of the national security interests and the interests in free communication in two or three specific fields of science and technology (e.g., cryptology,
very high speed integrated circuits, artificial intelligence) to be selected by the study panel in consultation with the Department of Defense. This analysis will include an examination of the extent to which American research has been used in Soviet military programs and, if possible, a consideration of how such information was transferred. In addition, the Panel will assess and compare the contribution to Soviet military strength from the transfer of research information with that arising from other means of technology transfer, such as the Soviet acquisition of American hardware.
A review—with an emphasis on the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and a proposed executive order on the classification system—of the principal policy and operational concerns of the respective government agencies, universities, scientific societies, and researchers. (The proprietary concerns of industry will not be considered.) The goal is to identify issues where common agreement exists, to expose those where apparent disagreements are based on misperceptions and misunderstandings, and, perhaps, to narrow and sharpen the issues on which genuine differences exist.
A rigorous evaluation of critical issues concerning the application of controls on the flow of research information.
The development of recommendations and conclusions concerning: (i) the intended and proper reach of controls vis-à-vis various categories of science and technology; (ii) areas of science and technology that are or should be outside the operation of controls; (iii) approaches that might provide more certainty and predictability to the regulatory system; and (iv) alternative procedures that might prove acceptable to all of the concerned sectors.
This study has been sponsored by the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the National Academy of Sciences.3 The Panel, composed of 19 members, includes senior members of university faculties and administrations, former federal agency officials, and leaders in high-technology industrial firms.
At the time the Panel was created, conversations among the Panel chairman, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering led to a decision that Panel members would be given security clearance (if they
did not already possess it) so that it would be possible for them to receive classified information about technology transfers to other countries. The Panel was subsequently given three secret-level briefings by members of the intelligence community. In addition, a subpanel, comprising six members of the Panel who hold clearance at the highest level, was briefed at two additional meetings.
The Panel has examined the evidence provided at the intelligence briefings and has sought to deal with this information in a way that would eliminate the need to classify this report. The main thrust of the Panel’s findings is completely reflected in this document. However, the Panel has also produced a classified version of the subpanel report based on the secret intelligence information it was given; this statement is available at the Academy to those with the appropriate security clearance.
The Panel invited as participants in its sessions liaison representatives from all the study’s sponsors as well as from the departments of State and Commerce, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the intelligence community, the Association of American Universities, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the American Physical Society. Liaison members participated in the Panel’s open sessions and those with the appropriate security clearance attended the Panel’s classified briefings. A list of all those who participated in the Panel’s deliberations is included (see pages 72–76).
The Panel held three two-day meetings in Washington at which it was briefed by representatives of the departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, and by representatives of the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Panel also heard presentations by members of the research community and by university representatives. In addition to these briefings, the Rand Corporation prepared an independent analysis of the transfer of sensitive technology from the United States to the Soviet Union.4 To determine the views of scientists and administrators at major research universities, the Panel asked a group of faculty members and administrative officials at Cornell University to prepare a paper incorporating their own views and those of counterparts at other universities (see Working Papers). The Panel also requested and received letters from a group of executives from high-technology industries expressing their views (see Appendix C). The Panel commissioned papers by experts in various aspects of technology transfer and studied the published material on the subject. It examined a few specific scientific areas in some detail.
In order to determine how and where controls might further the national welfare, it is necessary to balance many factors, including the military advantage from controls, their impact on the ability of
the research process to serve military, commercial and basic cultural goals, and their effects on the education of students in science and technology. The Panel hopes that this report serves to identify these important issues and to set out recommendations that achieve an appropriate balance.
The Panel is grateful for the assistance provided by the departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, and by the various intelligence agencies. Without their generous help, our task would have been impossible. The liaison representatives of the various departments, agencies, and organizations also contributed to our effort, and we thank them as well. We are also appreciative of the work of the Cornell University committee, which was headed by W.Donald Cooke. We wish to express special thanks to Frank Press, President of the National Academy of Sciences; Courtland Perkins, President of the National Academy of Engineering; and Philip M.Smith, Executive Officer of the National Academy of Sciences for their help and support. I wish to extend my personal thanks to Lawrence McCray, project director, Mitchel Wallerstein, staff consultant, and to Elizabeth Panos, administrative assistant, for their staff support. We are also grateful to Barbara Darr and Allan Hoffman of the COSEPUP staff. Finally, I wish to express my thanks to the individual members of the Panel for their dedicated service in making an early report possible.
Panel and Staff Papers
The Historical Context of National Security Concerns About Science and Technology
WORKING PAPERS OF THE PANEL
[Photocopies of the collected working papers of the Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.]
Soviet Science and Weapons Acquisition
Restrictions on Academic Research and the National Interest
W.D.Cooke, Thomas Eisner, Thomas Everhart, Franklin A.Long, Dorothy Nelkin, Benjamin Widom, and Edward Wolf
East-West Technology Transfer
John W.Kiser, III
Comments on Historical Aspects of Classification and Communication in Magnetic Fusion Research
Richard F.Post, Melvin B.Gottlieb, and Wolfang K.H.Panofsky
The Office of Strategic Information (OSI), U.S. Department of Commerce, 1954–1957
The Coordinating Committee for National Export Controls (COCOM)
Mitchel B.Wallerstein with Annex by John P.Hardt and Kate S.Tomlinson