Sir

Your news article headlined “National academies slam Bush proposal for data security” (Nature 419, 769; 200210.1038/419769b) mischaracterizes the debate here in Washington by its very title. It also leads readers to believe, erroneously, that I said that “without written guidelines, scientists can't accept [President Bush's science adviser, John] Marburger's assurances”.

The statement “Science and Security in an Age of Terrorism”, published on 18 October by the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, recognizes the need “to achieve an appropriate balance between scientific openness and restrictions on public information” when strategic secrets are at stake. But it also asks our government to maintain the current clear distinctions between classified and unclassified research, and recommends against poorly defined categories of “sensitive but unclassified” information that do not provide “precise guidance on what information should be restricted from public access”.

The statement also asks the Bush administration to reaffirm a national security directive signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 which held that “no restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification”.

In the wake of 11 September 2001, all of us in science and government have been forced to soberly reassess our roles concerning research touching on possible terrorist threats. No US scientist wants to publish research in a form that could be helpful to terrorists. Similarly, no US government official should want to hinder (or worse, stop) scientific research that might lead to effective tools against terrorism.

Scientists and government are listening to each others' legitimate concerns, and the government wants to enlist scientists in its anti-terrorism policies. In January, the National Academies plan to host a town meeting in which scientists, scientific publishers, national-security experts and government officials can talk face to face.

Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is a key partner in these discussions. He informs us of the administration's concerns as well as communicating scientists' and scientific organizations' concerns to the White House. This is why I was disturbed at your implication that I said scientists couldn't rely on Marburger's assurances. That is simply wrong. The Bush administration has not yet even formulated its ultimate policy on this issue.

At the National Academies, we have never doubted Marburger's intentions or his goodwill. We share the same goal: to harness and focus the considerable energies of the science, engineering and health communities in the complex, rapidly changing challenge of counter-terrorism.