Sir

Your News story “Academics stress licence threat to US science” (Nature 435, 4; 200510.1038/435004a) usefully focuses attention on US export-control regulations and their application to scientific research. But it repeats a common misperception regarding the scope of the export-control regulations in the context of domestic academic laboratories.

The News story states that a licence is required for certain foreign nationals to operate controlled equipment. This is not the case. A foreign national may work with controlled equipment, so long as no controlled technology is released to the foreign national in the process. The controls apply to the release of technology, not to the use of equipment.

The News story also states that the controls apply to technologies relating to a wide range of equipment. But licences are only required for release of a relatively small subset of technologies to foreign nationals from a limited number of countries. For instance, the article cites lasers as an example, yet no licences would be required to teach a foreign national how to use most lasers.

Finally, US companies and many universities are already complying with these export controls. The president of the University of Maryland, Dan Mote, is quoted as considering that obtaining the required licences could “bring work to a halt” in our nation's laboratories. On the contrary, proper compliance with these rules will strengthen our nation's security while ensuring that American science maintains its pre-eminent research capabilities.