The only government grant Harvard officials can recall having to turn down because of the danger of academic freedom being jeopardized didn't involve sensitive military research for the Department of Defense or high-energy physics research for the Department of Energy. Instead, the grant was from the Environmental Protection Agency for a Congressional pollution control project.

The faculty member declined to accept the grant because its contract included a "technical direction" clause, which would have allowed the federal government the power to direct the investigator's research.

Federal research grants in the past few years have been accompanied by increasingly restrictive terms, recent contracts with traditionally liberal agencies like the EPA and Department of Health and Human Services have included provisions for stricter publication review, technical direction by the sponsor, and funding rules.

And despite the fact that only one grant has actually been turned down, the University has begun to feel threatened in other, less tangible ways.

"We haven't felt the practical effects [of more restrictive government grants] like Caltech [the California Institute of Technology] and others," says John H.F. Shattuck, newly appointed vice president for government, community and public affairs, "but there are principles worth fighting for here."

Shattuck adds that there will be long-term damage to the academic community as a whole resulting from regulations restricting publication, prohibiting the exchange of information to foreign nationals, and labeling certain types of research classified."

Part of broader inroads into First Amendment rights, including the curtailment of the Freedom of Information Act, the more severe restrictions on sponsored research became prominent in 1981. Three regulations in particular since then have affected research at major universities.

In April 1982, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12356, widening the executive branch's discretion to classify certain research as "sensitive" in the national security context. Although some similarly restrictive attempts have been blocked by Congress, many inter-agency regulations bypass congressional review. In April of this year, for instance, the Department of Defense said it would place pre-publication clauses in some of its grants and contracts, though it has since relaxed some of the restrictions.

Currently, congressional debate over the parameters of the Export Control Act threatens to erode academic freedom further--"export" has come to include the exchange of papers at international conferences and presence of foreign nationals at American universities. A 1983 National Academy of Sciences staff report concluded that "the proposed rules [potential amendments to the Act] seem to have the potential to have a significant effect on the U.S. scientific enterprise."

Although Harvard has withstood the financial tightening of the past two years, it may not be able to do so in the future.

"For the first time, we can actually foresee turning down awards," says A. Simone Reagor, associate director for research administration, whose office negotiates all faculty proposals and sponsored research offers. While most of the 2000 contracts per year flow through the office smoothly--particularly those coming from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institute of Health (NIH)--about 25 a year must be renegotiated to meet the Faculty of Arts and Science's relatively stiff policy on acceptances of

Harvard's policy, established by a Faculty committee in 1970 and last revised in October of 1983, consists of seven principles. The two relevant to recent federal proposals prohibit the acceptance of grants that "carry security classification" and restrict the investigator's right to publish findings.

These guidelines, which officials say are fairly rigid compared to other major research faculties, may mean a reduction in sponsored research grants for Harvard. At about $4 million annually, the University's Department of Defense-sponsored research projects may be lost if that branch's pre-publication proposal holds, says Richard B. Leahy, associate dean of the Faculty for research and allied institutions.

But Defense Department-sponsored research makes up less than 25 percent of Harvard's (including the Medical School) $106 million total budget from externally funded research grants and contracts. The majority comes from NIH ($67 million) and NSF ($14 million) awards. Even in the rare case of a loss of all Department of Defense monies, Harvard research funding as a whole would not decrease significantly.

In addition to direct funding losses, however, Faculty members seeking financial support would face other worries, says Shattuck.