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