DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (09/30/83)
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
[ I hate to flame, but here's an issue that really got to me...]
>From the call for papers for the "Artificial Intelligence and Machines":
AUTHORS PLEASE NOTE: A Public Release/Sensitivity Approval is necessary.
Authors from DOD, DOD contractors, and individuals whose work is government
funded must have their papers reviewed for public release and more
importantly sensitivity (i.e. an operations security review for sensitive
unclassified material) by the security office of their sponsoring agency.
How much AI work does *NOT* fall under one of the categories "Authors from
DOD, DOD contractors, and individuals whose work is government funded" ?
I read this to mean that essentially any government involvement with
research now leaves one open to goverment "protection".
At issue here is not the goverment duty to safeguard classified materials;
it is the intent of the government to limit distribution of non-military
basic research (alias "sensitive unclassified material"). This "we paid for
it, it's OURS (and the Russians can't have it)" mentality seems the rule now.
But isn't science supposed to be for the benefit of all mankind,
and not just another economic bargaining chip? I cannot help but to
be chilled by this divorce of science from a higher moral outlook.
Does it sound old fashioned to believe that scientific thought is
part of a common heritage, to be used to improve the lives of all? A
far as I can see, if all countries in the world follow the lead of
the US and USSR toward scientific protectionism, we scientists will
have allowed science to abandon its primary role toward learning
about ourselves and become a mere intellectual commodity.
David Rogers
DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPAabc%brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (10/04/83)
From: Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc@brl-bmd> I don't believe, as you assert, that the motive for clearing papers produced under DOD sponsorship is 'econnomic' but, alas, military. You then may justly argue the merits of non-export of things militarily important vs the benefuits which acaccrue to all of us by a free and open exchange. I'm not taking sides--yet., but am trying to see the issue clearly defined. Brint