Science publishing versus security

WASHINGTON, DC — "We can outlaw biological weapons but not the knowledge to make them or resurrect them," John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), warned at a public workshop held January 9 at the National Academies of Science (NAS). Organized by both NAS and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the forum gathered scientists, Administration officials and security experts to discuss whether publication practices in the life sciences could lead to the inadvertent disclosure of "sensitive" information to those who might misuse it. "Previous restraints on the release of scientific information are not good guidelines for the issues we're facing today," Marburger declared. "We haven't had to reflect on the potential dual nature of biomedical products because they've been thought of as benign for so long."But they are no longer, and life scientists are preparing for the possible imposition of the same government restrictions on information-sharing with which the chemistry, physics and nuclear communities have lived for the last 50 years. According to Marburger, under new national security requirements researchers applying for federal grants would be notified when their funding is approved that their project is "classified," meaning they couldn't share or publish the findings. Those practices would slam shut more publication doors for the life sciences, a potentially pernicious trend that prompted American Society of Microbiology (ASM) president Ron Atlas to request the meeting between two communities that seem to neither respect nor trust each other. "Clearly, since September 11 and the ensuing anthrax attacks, there has been heightened fear that terrorists might be able to subvert the scientific enterprise by misusing scientific information that is widely available in scientific journals," Atlas said. Authors have asked to withhold critical information for that reason from articles in the 11 journals published by ASM, said Atlas.While he supports "taking prudent steps that would deny scientific and technical information to terrorists," Atlas, as he has done publicly since last summer, expressed his worry that permitting authors to withhold data could alter the fundamental tenets of science and could "adversely affect public health by inhibiting scientific research and medical progress."Attendees understood that determining the degree to which dissemination of scientific information and access to knowledge in the life sciences should be restricted in the name of security will take a while. As NAS president Bruce Alberts said, the day's event was only the start of a long discussion. And it may not be particularly civil. "The security community looks at the scientific community as at best disobedient and at worst traitorous," said John Hamre, president and chief executive officer of CSIS. "The scientific community looks at the security guys as a bunch of dopes. Both views are terribly wrong, of course."But Hamre said that wouldn't stop the security apparatus from doing its thing, which is to blanket all scientific information without understanding the critical portions that almost all scientists would readily agree need to be restricted. The political climate is encouraging the imposition of security restrictions that will provide precious little security but will have "terrible consequences for the scientific community," Hamre said. "We can't afford to risk more science in an atmosphere of paranoia." Harvard professor Lewis Branscomb, who is advising his university about security issues involving select agents, said the threat is not that a single entity controls the dissemination and restriction of information but that the government's elaborate web of controls "looks, smells and tastes like 'classification.'" Barring groups of people — certain foreigners, marijuana smokers or people with clinical depression — from seeing the research "reminds me of McCarthyism," Branscomb said. So what's a life scientist to do? "The community has to start talking and acting immediately," Hamre said. "Our openness is in the balance, and we're leaning the wrong way."

Science publishing versus security

Meeting explores balance between openness and defense of sensitive data.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of