Commentary: The Control of Government-Sponsored Technical Information

Abstract

In today's competitive world, nations rely heavily on technology in their efforts to achieve safety and security. state of that technology depends in large part on the rapid and efficient dissemination of scientific and technical information. In both commercial and arms competition, however, prudence dictates that some information should be controlled and withheld from those who threaten to use it against the original possessor. And such control causes all information flow to slow down and thereby may defeat the stated purposes of the control-to increase technological competitiveness-as well as raise Constitutional issues. To be effective, any control of information must take into account the motivation of the individuals and the traditions of the institutions whose cooperation is essential to the success of the control. It must also recognize the statutory and legal boundaries that may not be overstepped. Thus, for national security control of scientific and technical information, the conflicting priorities of the interested parties must be recognized and accommodated before a viable modus operandi is possible.' scientist's home is the university. Information is the scientist's professional currency, to be traded and sometimes given away. Philip Handler once remarked that the scientist's ethic was summed up in Albert Einstein's statement: The right to search for truth implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.2 scientist is supposed to keep an open mind, listen to everyone, sift through all the evidence, and at the same time be helpful to other scientists by telling them all he or she knows. That, of course, is the ideal.3 engineer usually works in teams in industry. Total effort is divided among colleagues, so that their common endeavor can reach a well-defined goal, usually a new product of economic value. Information has intrinsic value, but only the product is traded or sold. Engineers have a welldeveloped sense of ethical behavior, expressed in more than one code of professional ethics. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, for example, has a code that goes back threequarters of a century. It lists four publics which the engineer must faithfully serve: the general public (for example, the ethical engineer must not approve an unsafe instrument); fellow workers (an engineer must treat them fairly); the profession (he or she must advance the profession of engineering-for example, by publishing engineering texts); and the employer (for example, he or she must not disclose proprietary information). engineer's code of ethics, in contrast to Einstein's credo for scientists, thus admits restricted information flow on the grounds that some transmissions could be harmful to those who contributed (by their capital or their labor) to the generation of the information (the employer or the team). Yet the engineer should be forthcoming and advance professional goals, including engineering knowledge, where the employer's interests are not directly at stake. To the engineer, therefore, Leo Young is Director, Research and Laboratory Management, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC 20301.