Bruce Alberts advocates openess in science

Biologists must shake themselves out of their denial and voluntarily relinquish some of their freedom before it is too late, warned leading scientists and policymakers at a January 2003 meeting on science and security, held at the US National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C. If scientists don't rise to the occasion, they run the risk of facing blanket restrictions created by undiscerning legislators.

Unlike physicists, biologists have thus far been spared by government restrictions. But although such limits may seem unsavory, scientists must wise up to the political climate and find ways to cooperate with security experts, said John Hamre, president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which co-sponsored the event.

Security experts now “look at the scientific community as insubordinate and naive,” Hamre said. If the two groups do not soon begin a constructive dialogue, he warned, “it will be a disaster.”

Because few people in the national security community have an appropriate background to decide what constitutes 'sensitive' research, speakers at the meeting agreed that the primary responsibility for devising standards lies with scientists. Several experts invoked the Asilomar moratorium on DNA recombination as an example of the kind of scientist-led intervention the situation warrants.

Still, the opinions of most scientists at the meeting fell squarely on the side of scientific openness.

“We cannot build walls and attempt to segregate potentially sensitive information,” said Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences.

“There is already classified research underway, just as there has always been,” Alberts noted, adding that such research is currently protected. Research is now classified according to National Security Decision Directive 189, created during the Reagan era and endorsed by the current administration, which says that, “to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research [should] remain unrestricted.”

But given the circumstances, Alberts said, “we could certainly develop a more sophisticated system than we have now.”

Federal agencies can earmark certain research as classified before, but not after, funding a project, noted John Marburger, director of the White House Office on Science and Technology.

“This is a new concept for the life sciences but an old one for physics,” Marburger said. But in contrast to nuclear research, regulating biological research is complicated because it is broad, easily hidden and more easily mastered, he said. Most biological research is also dual-use, meaning it has applications for both offensive and peaceful purposes.

Although American scientists are taking the lead in the discussions, whatever checks and balances they adopt will be meaningless unless they are honored internationally, added Alberts. “Anyone who thinks we can prevent others from learning and applying techniques is making a serious mistake,” he said. “For example, right now India is advertising for biotechnology students, saying it can provide the same quality of education as that found in the US for about a tenth of the price.”

The debate will probably continue in March at a meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, sponsored by the American Society of Microbiology. The goal is to create an organized system to “develop rational choices” for research, Alberts said. But “such a system requires more, not less, dissemination of scientific information.”