Last week, Vice President John Shattuck and Policy Analyst Muriel Morisey Spence '69 issued a report critical of Reagan guidelines for federal research.

Harvard is leading the nation's universities in an aggressive attack on Reagan administration policy in an effort to use the election year to redefine the relationship between institutions of higher learning and the government.

Recent reports and lobbying in Washington mark the renewed vigor with which both Harvard and other schools are fighting federal policies. Universities have criticized President Reagan's attitudes toward higher education since he entered office, but recent efforts are the first time these scholars and educators have sought to establish comprehensive federal policies on their own terms.

There is a difference in this debate. While past attack on the government have emphasized the threats to ideals of academic freedom, the newest University tack is to argue that limits on institutions of higher learning will harm everyone in the nation in very tangible and material ways.

Last week, two Harvard officials issued a report detailing efforts by the Reagan Administration to restrict the free flow of scholarship. Written by Vice President for Government and Community Affairs John Shattuck and Director of Policy Analysis Muriel Morisey Spence '69, the 53-page report charges the White House and other government agencies with pursuing information policies that will cause great harm to the academic community, the economy and national security.

The report is part of a combined effort by Harvard to influence policy making. "Many issues of importance to colleges and universities are being discussed and debated now because of the 1988 presidential elections," says Shattuck. "The elections have presented a forum for public policy issues, and we want to have our say."

University officials are thus linking higher education to economic health and other national concerns. President Bok and other prominent educators have begun calls for a new partnership between universities and government which would entail more financial assistance for higher education and closer university ties to Washington to solve national problems. Last month it was revealed that Bok and other university heads will release a report to presidential candidates of both parties proposing they work together to rebuild American competitiveness, foster equal opportunity, improve the quality of life, and strengthen "ethical rules of conduct" in society.

As part of the initiative to improve American competitiveness, Bok has called for an increased international presence at Harvard. Earlier this month, a special assistant to the President disclosed a report prepared for Bok which recommended that Harvard reform its admissions practices to increase the quality and number of foreign students in its schools. And in a speech last spring Bok criticized the Reagan Administration's foreign policy for tending toward isolationism.

Last week, Bok again addressed the competitiveness issue--one constantly harped on in Congress--in a speech with Stanford President Donald M. Kennedy '52 in Los Angeles. In his remarks, Bok took aim at the Reagan Administration for neglecting long-term spending for university research and facilities. Only with such aid, Bok said, could universities keep pace with world-wide research and take a larger role in improving American economic competitiveness.

While the University is spending much of its time forwarding its view of relations with the government, Harvard is also re-evaluating its ties to industry. A report on the ethical implications of closer University-industry ties is due out later this week, and Harvard officials are kicking off a wide-ranging study of the relationships different research schools across the country have with corporations. As with its thinking on government ties, the University is expected to call for closer cooperation with industry to address the problem of the American economy.

"Bok has returned from his sabbatical and we now have a rejuvenated presidency," says Shattuck. "The University is looking at how we can serve society to solve pressing problems and cooperate with the government and industry to address them."

In this vein, Shattuck and Spence seek to remove a large stumbling block to a closer relationship with the government: restrictions on information. While more federal funds may boost campus-based research, White House information policies produce an opposite effect which may far outweigh the good of more money.

"Too many restrictions will lead to a stagnation of basic science" with dire effects for the economy and national security, the report says. The report argues that the controls stifle the academic innovation and discovery which lie behind technological progress. And if our technological progress does not keep pace with our international competitors, our prosperity and safety will suffer, the report says.

"The long-term security needs of the United States depend on rapid technological development, which is not possible if broad communication restrictions are in place," the report says.

By couching this issue--which has been of interest mostly to academics--in terms of the economy and national security, the report is likely to broaden the base of opposition to the Administration's information policies, say university officials. And by framing their argument in these politically pressing terms, Shattuck and Spence provide a document that may very well persuade congressmen to rescind the Administration's policy changes.

But Reagan Administration officials reply that in the cases cited by the report, restrictions are needed to cut down on the amount of red tape or protect national security.

"It's the type of issue that does not generate a lot of response unless there is a pressure point," says Richard G. Leahy, the associate dean of the faculty for research and allied institutions. "The report could be that pressure point."

"Harvard's report gives us more force to our arguments against the Administration," says Robert L. Park, executive Washington director of the American Physical Society and a scientist. "The report's emphasis on the economy and national security and the Harvard name will make nonacademic people aware."

Action on government information policy has been quiet since last spring, when Congress forced Reagan to rescind what has come to be known as "the Poindexter memorandum." The memorandum, drafted by former National Security Adviser John Poindexter, would have allowed U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor and regulate almost all commerical and academic information stored electronically in the country.

"It's an important issue, but there hasn't been as much attention given it since the Poindexter memorandum," says Spence. But higher education officials hope the report will attract enough interest in the White House's policies to force their removal.

Although Congress has not received the report, aides there remain receptive to what the report has to say. "Hopefully it strikes a middle ground between complete openness and heavy restrictions, and if so, it will be of use," says Steven Ryan, counsel to the Senate committee on government operations which oversees federal information policy.

However, Ryan says it is difficult to get Congress moving on secrecy because it is "an issue by issue thing." "There is no widespread public interest in information policy, except from academics, because it is unglamorous and piecemeal," says Ryan.

Thus the report could provide the basis for action precisely because it links all the pieces into a coherent interpretation of the Reagan Administration's drive for secrecy, higher education officials and scientists say.

The American Association of Universities has agreed to publish the report and distribute it to its members, which include 54 America's premier research universities. The report is in the production stages and is expected out soon, says Robert M. Rosenzweig. The MIT journal, "Technology Review," is also considering publishing the report.

The report, entitled "Changing Government Information Policy: Implications for Scholarship, Science and Technology," expands on a similar study Shattuck wrote two years ago. That 1985 report, "Federal Restrictions on the Free Flow of Academic Information," received national attention and prompted university and Congressional opposition to the Administration's policies.

Shattuck and Spence enlarged the scope of the 1985 report to chart the actions of different federal bodies using a variety of dissimilar laws as part of a government-wide trend toward more secrecy. Agencies ranging from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Department of Defense (DOD) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have used legislation as different as the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Export Control Act to restrict the flow of information, the authors say.

One particular villian of the report, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), used paperwork reduction laws to "conduct a broad and ongoing review of agency judgements about what information should be gathered and made available to the public," Shattuck and Spence charge.

OIRA officials ceased or reduced publication of important government statistics and restricted the availability of certain federal information which did not support Administration goals and viewpoints--all on the grounds of cost-cutting efforts--the report says.

National security interests combine with budgetary concerns to further limit the free flow of information. For the last seven years, the Defense Department and the intelligence services have broadened the classification system, expanded the controls on the publication of scientific research, and limited the exchange of knowledge with scholars overseas, the report says.

In April, 1982, President Reagan issued an executive order which increased his ability to classify certain research "sensitive" to the nation's security. Administration officials have also used the Export Control Act, which authorizes restrictions on the export of "technological data" to bar foreign scientists and scholars, particularly those from Communist-bloc countries, from participating in scientific conferences and from being exposed to certain information.

According to Leahy, the Defense Department attempted just that last year when its officials tried to block foreign scholars' access to a supercomputer partly-owned by Harvard. After a sharp protest from the University and other schools, the Defense Department agreed to allow Eastern bloc researchers from overseas to work at the computer facility--located in Princeton--except those with links to intelligence services.

"Since then the issue has been quiet," says Leahy. "But [secrecy] is always an issue and it may come up again at any time."

The report lists more examples of conferences and courses where the Pentagon forced scientists to withhold research results because of the presence of foreign scholars. This has forced several professional societies, such as the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, to close their conferences to foreigners rather than risk inviting Pentagon interference.