SCHÜTZT DIE EINSCHRÄNKUNG  DES WISSENSCHAFTLICH-TECHNISCHEN

INFORMATIONSTRANSFERS  DIE US-"NATIONAL SECURITY"?

Eine Literaturzusammenstellung (Stand: Juni 1982)

Rafael Capurro


 
  
Erschienen als Bericht FIZ-KA--3 (Fachinformationszentrum Energie - Physik - Mathematik GmbH - Karlsruhe) August 1982,  Nr. 3, ISSN 0172-2204.


 
 
 

Führende Vertreter der US-Regierung haben sich in letzter Zeit (etwa seit dem Regierungswechsel 1980) (30) über den offenen Fluß wissenschaftlich-technischen "Know-how" in die Ostblock-Staaten besorgt geäußert. Dieses Thema hat in den USA bereits eine dreißigjährige Geschichte (15, 19, 30), die etwa durch folgende Schritte gekennzeichnet ist:

Das Ende des in den fünfziger Jahren ausgedehnten Office of Strategic Information war der "Sputnik-Schock" (30).

Neulich hat die Reagan-Administration Einschränkungen insbesondere im wissenschaftlich-technischen Informationstransfer verlangt, die deutlich von der der Carter-Administration verfolgten Informationspolitik abweichen (4, 19, 39):

"The Administration's proposals represent a reversal of 30-year trend to open the governmental process to public scrutiny, and to encourage the free exchange of information, individuals, and technology, provided no demonstrable harm exists to the security of the Nation. (...) This administration has clearly opted to take full advantage of the broad language in the laws, as well as to propose its own amendments in pursuit of restrictive policies." (Repr. George E. Brown) (19)

Die Kontroverse mit der Fachwelt entflammte als Adm. Bobby R. Inman (ehem. Deputy Director der Central Intelligence Agency) bei der diesjährigen Jahrestagung der American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) den engen Zusammenhang zwischen der wissenschaftlich-technischen Forschung und der "national security" hervorhob (30, 35, 37):

"There is an overlap between technical information and national security which inevitable produces tension. (...) A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of research and prior to publication) the question of potential harm to the nation." (Adm. Bobby R. Inman) (35)

Seine Gedanken wurden von Repr. George E. Brown in einer Rede im House of Representatives heftig widersprochen ("paranoia about national security") (7, 19, 20). Eine ähnliche Kontroverse hatte im Oktober 1981 zwischen dem Herausgeber der Zeitschrift "Science", William D. Carey, und dem Deputy Secretary des Department of Defense, Hon. Frank Carlucci, stattgefunden (23, 26).

"I am dismayed to find the Defense Department indicting inter-Academy exchanges, student exchanges, scientific conferences and sympsia, and the entire "professional and open literature" as inherently adverse to U.S. military security interests." (W.D. Carey) (23)

"The Department of Defense favors scientific, technical and educational exchanges and the free exchanges of ideas in basic and fundamental science. However, since the military posture of this nation relies of heavily on its technical leadership, the Defense Department view with alarm the blatant and persistent attempts, some of which have just been described, to siphon away our military related critical technologies. (...) we believe that it is possible to inhibit this flow without infringing upon legitimate scientific discourse." (Hon. Frank Carlucci) (23)

Auswirkungen dieser Kontroverse zeigten sich bald auf verschiedenen Ebenen:

  • Die AAS bildete ein Subcommittee on National Security and Scientific Communication innerhalb des Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility (11, 26).
  • Bildung eines Ausschusses "Scientific and National Security Issues" (4, 30). Mitglieder des Ausschusses sind: die National Academy of Sciences, die National Academy of Engineering und das Institute of Medicine. In einem Bericht (Endfassung: März 1983) sollen folgende Themen analysiert werden:
    • Erörterung der Kontroverse "national security - free communication" aan einigen Fachgebieten aus Naturwissenschaft und Technik
    • Übersicht über die Interessen der staatlichen Institutionen, Universitäten, wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften und Forscher
    • Auswertung der kritischen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Kontrolle des Informationsflusses im Forschungsbereich
    • Schlußfolgerungen und Empfehlungen (4)
  • Bildung eines Komitees mit Mitgliedern der Association of American Universities (AAU) und des Department of Defense (42).
  • Der Council of Scientific Society Presidents beschäftigt sich u.a. mit der Frage des "potential embargoing of academic research results for national security reasons" (46). (Mai1 1982)
  • Lebhafte Diskussion in Fachzeitschriften: z.B. Science (11, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 43, 61), Chemical & Engineering News (30, 34, 35), Monitor (5, 10), Information Hotline (3, 6, 7, 8), The Information Society (28), Eneregy Communications (31), ASIS-Bulletin (33), Infotecture (13):
"Publicly-available information either is or is not in a special category when it comes to embargoes; Monitor believes that information in machine-readable form schould join books and journals in printed form in being excluded from embargo lists and, if publicly available, should be freely available to all within normal commercial conditions. We deplore the current US trend of excluding specific geographic areas for political reasons. But, most of all, we deplore the fact that much of the information industry appears to believe in "the free flow of information" whilst closing its eyes to government-inspired or directed impediments to that free flow." (Monitor) (5)
  • und in der US-Presse: "The Christian Science Monitor (21, 57), The Wall Street Journal (26), The New York Times (47) (in der deutschen Presse: 54, 62):
"Censorship would indeed strike a deadly blow at American Science and our national interests." (W.D. Carey, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 1982) (26)
  • Kritische Reaktionen seitens einzelner Wissenschaftler (16, 17, 30, 31, 41, 45, 51, 55, 56, 63):
"Secrecy is not security. (...) It is  my general Belilef that basic research should not be classified." (E. Teller) (20, 30, 56)

Einige Ereignisse des vergangenen und des laufenden Jahres können hervorgehoben werden:

1981

  • Fünf Universitätspräsidenten äußern sich besorgt bei den Secretaries of Commerce, State und Defense wegen der Einschränkungen des Informationstransfers (30).
  • Broschüre des Department of Defense über "Soviet Military Power" (22, 23, 30)
  • Präs. R. Reagan erweitert die Befugnisse der "intelligence community" für die Informationssammlung (8).

1982

  • Jahrestagung der AAAS. Panel "Striking a Balance: Scientific Freedom and National Security: Stauching scientific information flow, the Atomic Energy Act, cryptography". Teilnehmer: Mary M. Cheh, Peter J. Dening, Boby R. Inman, Harold P. Green, Daniel C. Schwarz, Paul N. McCloskey (12) (Februar).
  • George A. Keyworth (President Science Adviser) unterstreicht in The New York Times (30) die Äußerungen B.R. Inmans:
"Nobody is talking about putting a wrench on the nut of academic freedom. But there is a real hemorrhage of technology flowing to the Soviet Union." (G. A. Keyworth) (30)
  • Diskussion um Änderung des Feedom of Information Act (FIOA) (1, 3).
  • Kontroverse zwischen dem State Department und der Univ. Stanford um den Besuch des sowjetischen Roboter-Experten N.B. Umnov (30) (Februar).
  • Repr. George E. Brown kritisiert die "Executive Order on National Security Information" (19, 20) (Februar).
  • William J. Casey (CIA Director) und Stephen Bryen (Ass. Secretary of Defense) äußern sich besorgt über den Informationstransfer in die Ostblock-Staaten (30) (März)
  • Hearings des "House Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights to review the draft copy of the proposed Executive Order" (März) (4).
  • Präs. R. Reagan unterschreibt die neue "Executive Order on National Security Information" (die die 1978 von Präs. Carter ersetzt, vorherige von Nixon, Eisenhower und Truman) (19, 53)
"This Order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, and safeguarding national security information. It recognizes that it is essential that the public be informed concerning the activities of its government, but that the interests of the United States and its citizens require that certain information concerning the national defense and foreign relations be protected against unauthorized disclosure. Information may not be classified under thhis Order unless its disclosure reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security." (Executive Order, April 1982) (53)
  • Konferenz über "Future Directions in Information Policy" organisiert von der Nat. Telecom. and Information Administration und dem US Sept. of Commerce (Washington, 24.-25. Mai 1982)


Die anschließende Literaturzusammenstellung möchte einen Einstieg in die neueste Diskussion ermöglichen. Als zusammenfassende Aufsätze sind (4), (19) und (30) zu empfehlen. Seitens der Regierung sind (23), (35), (52) und (53) hervorzuheben.


1. -: Administration Proposes Legislation to Amend Freedom of Information Act. Information Hotline, Feb. (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 2, S. 1, 7-16

2. -: CIE Tallies Technology Loss to Soviet Bloc. Chemical & Engineering News, Mai 3 (1982) S. 8

3. -: DOD Experiences with FOIA Have Resulted in Significant Costs. Information Hotline, Dez. (1981) vol. 13, Nr. 11, S. 1, 14-16

4. -: Executive Order Gives Government Greater Power to Restrict Disclosure of   Information on Grounds of National Security. (Executive Order; Hearings held  before the House Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights). Information Hotline (Special Issue) Juni (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 6

5. -: Is Information "special"? Monitor, Feb. (1982) Nr. 12, s. 13-14

6. -: NTIA's Study Identifies Issues Facing Information Policymakers. Information Hotline, Dez. (1981) vol. 13, Nr. 11, s. 1, 16-20

7. -: "Paranoia About National Security" See as Leading Toward Government Control of Information. Information Hotline, Apr. (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 4, S. 1, 13-14

8. -: Reagan Broadens the Power of the "Intelligence Community" to Collect Information. Information Hotline, Feb. (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 2, S. 1, 17-18

9. -:  Reagan Restricts Press Access to National Security Information. (Statement by the President) Information Hotline, März (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 3, S. 1, 5-7

10. -: US Department of Commerce Vetoes ISI Tape Shipment to USRR. Monitor, Apr. (1982) Nr. 14, S. 1-2

11. -: Science and Secrecy. Science, 214 (1981) Nr. 4525, S. 1116-1117

12. -: Preconvention Program. 20. Arms Control and Security. Science 214 (19829 Nr. 4520, S. 543

13. -: Worries about US Information Blockage. Infotecture (European Edition) Nr. 11, 19. Mai (1982) S. 1, 9

14. BEARMAN, Toni Carbo U.S. Information Policy Issues. Information Services & Use 1 (1981) S. 169-173

15. BRICKER, R.P.G.: U.S. Technology Transfer to the Soviet Union: A Dilemma. April (1981) AD-A107 313/9

16. BROAD, William, J.: Communications and National Security. Science 214 (1981) Nr 4525, S. 1074

17. BROAD. William J.:  Presidential Secrecy Order Gets No defense. Science 215 (1982), Nr. 4540, S. 1591-1592

18. BROMLEY, D. Allan: The Other Frontiers of Science. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4536, S. 1035-1044

19. BROWN, George: Administration Policies on Government Control of Information. Congressional Record, Feb. (1982) vol. 128, Nr. 16, H 511-515

20. BROWN, George: Executive Order on Secrecy. Congressional Record, Apr. 6 (1982) vol. 128, Nr. 38, H 1434-1435

21. CAREY, William D.: Progress in Science is the Business of the Government. The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 5 (1981) vol. 74, S. 16

22. CAREY, William D.: Science and the National Security. Science 214 (1981) Nr. 4521, S. 609

23. CAREY, William D.; CARLUCCI, Frank: Scientific Exchanges and U.S. National Security. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4529, S. 139-141

24. CAREY. William D.: Science in an Election Year. Science 215 (1982) Nr 4530, S. 245

25. CAREY, William D.: 1981 Annual Report of the Executive Officer. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4535, S. 1064-1072

26. CAREY, William D.:  Censorship's Deadly Blow to Science. The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3 (1982) vol. 106, S. 125

27. CIA: Soviet Acquisiton of Western Technology. CIA-Report, Apr. 1982

28. COLBY, William E.: Intelligence in the 1980's. The Information Society, vol. 1 (1981) Nr. 1, S. 53-69

29. Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, Washington: the Role and Control of International Communications and Information. Report to the Subcommittee on International Operations. U.S. Government Printing Office (1977)

30. EMBER, Lois R.: Secrecy in Science: A Contradiction in Terms? Chemical & Engineering News, Apr. 5 (1982) S. 10-17

31. HARRACH, R.J.: Perspectives and Some Recent Developments Concerning Declassification of the Intertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Program. Energy Communications, vol. 7 (1982) Nr. 2, S. 189-196

32. HARRISON, Anna J.: Reflections on Current Issues in Science and Technology. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4535, S. 1061-1062

33. HENDERSON, Madeline M.: Striking a Balance: Scientific Freedom and National Security. ASIS Bulletin, Feb. (1982) S. 13

34. HEYLIN, Michael: Science in the Public Arena. Chemical & Engineering News, 22. März (1982) S. 7

35. INMAN, Bobby R.: Striking a Balance: Scientific Freedom and National Security (AAAS Symposium). Chemical and Engineering News, Jan 25 (1982) s. 27-19

36. KENNEDY, Donald: The Government, Secrecy and University Research. Science 2016 (1982) Nr. 4544, S. 365

37. KOLATA, Gina: CIA Director Warns Scientists. Science 215 (1982) Nr 4531, S. 383

38. KOLATA, Gina: New Pressure on Scientific Exchanges. Stanford Protests Restrictions. Science 2015 (1982) Nr. 4531, S. 383

39. KOLATA, Gina: Classification Standards Tightened. Science 2015 (1982) Nr. 4533, S. 636

40. KOLATA, Gina: Technology Transfer: New Controls Urged. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4533, S. 636-636

41. KOLATA, Gina: Stanford, NAS Agree on Soviet Scholar. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4535, S. 10 81.

42. KOLATA, Gina: DOD and University Presidents to Meet. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4535, S. 1080-1081

43. KOLATA, Gina: Final Draft of Classification Order. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4535, S. 1080

44. KOLATA, Gina: Hearings Planned for Classification Order. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4538, S. 1379

45. LAPPIN, Joseph s.: International Scientific Exchange: Additional Views. Science 216 (1982) Nr. 4532, S. 124

46. LEPKOWSKI, Wil: Society Presidents Seek to Increase Influence. Chemical and Engineering News, Mai 10 (1982) S. 43

47. MOHR, Charles: Weinberger Warns of Trade That Helps the Soviet Union. The New York Times, Feb. 8 (1982) vol. 131, S. 12

48. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (Hrsg.). Issues of Information Policy (1981) Vgl. Information Hotline, Dez. (1981) vol. 13, Nr. 11, S. 1, 16-20

49. NELKIN, Dorothy: Intellectual Property: The Control of Scientific Information. Sciene 216 (1982) Nr. 4547, S. 704-708

50. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Washington, D.C.: Report of the Defence Science Board Task Force on University Responsiveness to National Security Requirements. Jan. (1982) AD-A 112 070/B

51. PETERSIK, J. Timothy: International Scientific Exchange. Science 215 (1982) Nr.. 4534, S. 912-913

52. REAGAN, Ronald: Executive Order. United States Intelligence Activities. Information Hotline, Juni (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 2, S. 1, 18-26

53. REAGAN, Ronald: Executive Order, National Security Information. Information Hotline, Juni (1982) vol. 14, Nr. 6, S. 1 , 24-29

54. SCHLEICHER, Harry: Drastische Einschränkung wissenschaftlicher Arbeit droht. Frankfurter Rundschau, 3. Mai (1982)

55. SOKAL, Michael M.: Restrictions on Scientific Publication. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4537, S. 1182

56. TELLER, Edward: Secrecy in Science. Chemical and Engineering News, Apr. 5 (1982) S. 11.

57. UNGER, Stephen: The Threat of Expanding Secrecy in Technology. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 6 (1982) vol.  74, S. 16

58. WALSH, John: New Pressure on Scientific Exchanges. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4533, s. 637-638

59. WALSH, John: "Lack of Reciprocity Prompts IIASA Cutoff. Science 1216 (1982) Nr. 4541, S. 35

60. WEHAUSEN, John V.: International Scientific Exchange. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4534, S. 913

61. WRATHER, Joan: The Annual Meeting Comes to Town. Science 215 (1982) Nr. 4347, S. 1225-1228

62. Z., H.: Zensur für die Forschung? FAZ, 12. Febr. (1982) Nr. 40, S. 29-30

63. ZIMMER, György: International Scientific Exchange: Additional Views. Science 216 (1982) Nr. 4542, S. 124-126


Letztes update: 9.05.2017


 
 
    

Copyright © 2017 by Rafael Capurro, all rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. and international copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author.

 

 
Zurück zur digitalen Bibliothek 
 
Homepage Forschung Veranstaltungen
Veröffentlichungen Lehre Interviews