the war on terrorism versus the free and open exchange of scientific and technical information...

The War on Terrorismversus

The Free and Open Exchange of Scientific and Technical

Information

Michael J. HopmeierChief,

Innovative and Unconventional Concepts

Unconventional Concepts, Inc.426 E. Hollywood Blvd, Suite AMary Esther, FL 32569(850) 243-4411, Fax (850) [email protected]

2 April 2003

© 2003 unconventional concepts inc

Turning Point in Science Publication On September 19, 1918, a 21-year-old Army

private reported to the Camp Jackson, S.C., base hospital feeling ill.

Within a week he was one of 21 million fatalities attributed to the influenza pandemic of 1918.

On March 21, 1997, almost exactly 80 years later, a team from AFIP published details of the disease genetic code in the journal Science and rekindled a debate on the freedom of scientific and technical information.

© 2003 unconventional concepts inc 2

In March 1989, 8 years before the AFIP article, Fleishman and Ponds of the University of Utah published their findings on cold fusion.

Their results were immediately applauded, and derided, by numerous respected, and not so respected, researchers worldwide.

In November 1989, the Energy Research Advisory Board of the DOE was convened to review the issue.

They found that “…experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells reported to date do not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from phenomena attributed to cold fusion.”

Cold Fusion


Cold Fusion (cont’d)

The board continued to discuss a variety of experiments and their equivocal results.

Key, however, is that there were other experiments, by other agencies, trying to duplicate the effort and either verify or repudiate the results.


“Science”

As defined in Hypertext Webster Gateway at UCSD

Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound or philosophical knowledge


Science and Technical Information

Not used just to inform and educate

Used to support or repudiate research

The Energy Research and Advisory Board was not convened to evaluate cold fusion, but instead to consider whether to alter funding profiles to support cold fusion research!

Used to coordinate and focus research into areas of interest or value


“Power corrupts…”

“…And Absolute Knowledge can be a two-edged sword.”

Unquestionably, too much information can be dangerous...

...BUT SO CAN TOO LITTLE!


To Publish or Not To Publish…?

Themis, the Greek Goddess of Justice, was said to be blindfolded to better objectively evaluate the evidence placed before her.

We have the same responsibility in assessing the value of information.


A Simple Decision:Release or Not Release?

4

Right Wrong

Release

Withhold

1

2 3

Let us consider the immediate effectson the decision maker.


Immediate Effects

Release Correct

Part of SOP

No specific impact

Everyone does his job


Immediate Effects (cont’d)

Withhold Correct

Perhaps minor complaints from those who wish to release

No public disclosure

Information not available



Withhold Wrong

Possible ineffectiveness of research

Limitations on further research

Possible limited damage to researcher’s career, but hard to determine

Overall, no clear or immediate negative impact



Release Wrong

Potential immediate adverse effects (attacks, assistance to adversaries)

Probable negative publicity

Necessity to immediately defend decision

Potential damage to decision maker’s career


Not Purely Self-Interest!

These decisions are generally made on the basis of the best information possible.

They are well thought-out and well considered.

But weighting is on the conservative—i.e., “don’t release.”


Issues Are Larger Than STI

The 1997 DSB Transnational Threats Study noted information dissemination problems:

“Users” lacked critical data when and as needed.

Classification impeded the flow of critical information, the value of which may have outweighed the damage that release could cause.

Then, as now, there is no process by which these relative values can be assessed.


Solution

Develop a process whereby we can assess and measure the impact of information, as it is both

withheld and released.


Risk

There is unquestionably a risk associated with releasing “sensitive” data.

We have all been trained to be aware and wary of this.

The effects are often obvious, immediate, and highly detrimental.


Risk (cont’d)

There is an equally great—and possibly greater—risk in not releasing some information

SARS

HIV/AIDS

Combined research on strategic issues


Education

To release or not release is neither a purely policy nor a purely scientific decision.

Scientific and technical personnel do not always have sufficient knowledge of the ramifications of their information release and can be short-sighted.

Policy personnel seldom have the background to grasp the significance if the information is related to science.

Both sides must be educated as to the impact of their decisions.


One Possible Answer

Create a joint high-level committee to

consist of senior science and policy makers;

focus on creating guidelines and policies, not on evaluating particular technologies or research areas; and

provide guidance on creating and disseminating education and policy, not just dogma.


Final Analysis

Risk

There is if we release information

There is if we don’t

Balance

Is the only answer

Educate our people, at all levels, to be able to effectively weigh the risks

Make the best use of the resources we have, and accept that there will always be a threat—we just have to minimize it


the war on terrorism versus the free and open exchange of scientific and technical information...

Documents

cold fusion research

cold fusion contd

value of information

energy research advisory

technical information

philosophical knowledge

absolute knowledge

established knowledge