Recent controversies surrounding Harvard professors and the CIA have prompted President Derek C. Bok to investigate "new problems" associated with scholarly work for the agency that were left unaddressed by the wide-ranging university guidelines on the subject.

In an interview yesterday, Bok said that until this fall he had not been aware that some Harvard professors have allowed the CIA to review agency-sponsored work before publication and have agreed not to acknowledge agency funding in print.

Bok said such agreements may concern Harvard as an institution and that this spring he plans to "generate thoughtful discussion among faculty members." He said he may issue new guidelines for intelligence agency work because the existing regulations address different problems with CIA-related activities.

Specifically, Bok said he will address the ethics of CIA work done by Harvard scholars on their own time, or one day a week. "The problem is that what you do on that day makes you submit to restrictions on university-related work as well," Bok said.

Current Harvard rules allow professors to work for the CIA, but do not allow professors to submit to research restrictions when doing any work involving the university. It has long been unclear exactly what constitutes work involving Harvard and what the university considers "personal" work.

Controversy surrounding restricted research for the CIA and institutional involvement in personal agreements between the agency and professors arose this year in two separate cases.

This fall, The Crimson revealed that Albertson Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Nadav Safran had entered two contracts with the CIA, one for a conference on Islamic fundamentalism and one for a book about Saudi Arabia. And this spring, Eaton Professor of Government Samuel P. Huntington said he and a colleague prepared a report for the agency. He later published the report under the title, "Dead Dictators, Rioting Mobs," in a Harvard-affiliated journal.

Both professors submitted to pre publication review and nondisclosure of fundingrestrictions, but maintained that their work forthe CIA was personal and that Harvard was notinvolved.

In separate reviews of the two cases, Dean ofthe Faculty of Arts and Sciences A. Michael Spencefound Safran violated university guidelines in notproperly reporting the CIA-sponsored conference.But Spence in the reviews did not fault Huntingtonand Safran for working privately for the CIA whileagreeing to research restrictions.

Bok said yesterday: "If you [professors] areworking on something one day a week that mayaffect or compromise your work for the university,then the university must take an interest.Non-disclosure and pre-publication review are verysignificant questions."

The president said he believes professorsshould be free to consult with the CIA on theirown time. But he said when the professor publisheswork completed under a restrictive CIA contract,then it may involve the integrity of theuniversity.

"Publishing articles raises questions" aboutpersonal work for the agency, he said. Both Safranand Huntington published their CIA-sponsoredreports.

Bok's investigation into professors' dealingswith the CIA "does involve individual behavior,"he said. "There may be a role for [new] rules" inthis area.

The investigation by the president will notinterfere with a separate review of universityrules now being conducted in the Faculty of Artsand Sciences, Bok has said. That review isexpected to clarify current regulations onsponsored research.

The president stressed that he will attempt todevelop a consensus among faculty members on theethics of working for the CIA under restrictedconditions. "Faculty feelings are key here. If thefaculty doesn't believe in rules, they don'tmatter very much."

Open Letter

He said he also wants to speak with facultymembers, and perhaps later issue a presidentialopen letter "on what it means to be a scholar.Whether there is an obligation to disclose fundingand so forth."

"I would be arrogant to say, `here are theright answers.' Scholars must participate," in theinvestigation, he said.

The last time Bok reviewed academic links tointelligence agencies came in 1977, as a Senatepanel investigated the agency's purportedclandestine activites on college campuses.

Bok issued a series of non-binding guidelinesthat year suggesting that professors report anyintelligence agency-related activity, personal orinstitutional, to the dean of their faculty, whoshould subsequently inform the president of theuniversity of the activity. He said he has neverhad to enforce these guidelines