After a long battle with the Reagan Administration over information controls, Harvard and the higher education community appear to be winning the battle for freedom of scientific information.

In the name of national security, the Reagan Administration has spent the last seven years attempting to limit the free exchange of scientific research. The Administration has expanded controls on the publication of scientific research, attempted to impose prepublication reviews of research results, broadened the classification of information and limited the exchange of knowledge with overseas scholars.

Led by Harvard Vice President for Government and Community Affairs John Shattuck, higher education officials have fought these policies on the grounds that they jeopardize academic freedom. Furthermore, the educators argue, such restrictions weaken scientific research, handicap the American economy and seriously damage national security in the long run.

Now, other interests are joining the educators' call for a less restrictive information policy. To Congress, the Iran-contra affair revealed the dangers of excessive government secrecy. Businessmen concerned about America's economic "competitiveness" have also mounted an attack on the Administration's controls. They argue that the failure to share scientific information has weakened the United States' ability to match foreign business innovations and will lead to economic stagnation.

Changes within the Reagan Administration have also moderated the Administration's insistence on secrecy. A number of hard-line policy makers have left the Administration, and the prospect of a further U.S.-USSR arms treaty has led President Reagan and other officials to tone down their anti-Soviet rhetoric.

As a result, the Reagan restrictive information policies appear to be losing ground. Congress is likely to balk at further attempts to keep a lid on scientific research--particularly in the field of superconductivity--congressional aides say.

"The outlook is improving for a relaxation of some of the restrictions on the communication of science and technology that have been imposed during the past decade," says a report released late last month by Shattuck and Harvard Policy Analyst Muriel Morisey Spence '69.

Moreover, education officials say, the issue of information restriction could be a major one in the up coming fall presidential campaign, since it has tremendous ramifications on economic growth, foreign policy, and the way the government formulates policy. They point out that the issues of government secrecy and information restriction played a prominent role in the Democratic candidates' debates throughout last winter and will likely become important topics in the fall campaign.

"The two principle topics of the upcoming campaign are going to be economic growth and competitiveness and the challenges of foreign policy and national security," Shattuck says. "The issue of government information controls is central to both of those topics."

"It's already entered the Democratic candidates' lexicons," says Thomas S. Blanton '77-79, director of planning and research for the National Security Archives (NSA), a Washington-based organization that seeks to declassify information.

Every Democratic candidate has come out in favor of more open government and fewer restriction on scientific information, in part as a result of the Iran-contra scandal. On the Republican side, however, Vice President George Bush has not separated himself from the Reagan Administration's policies. Nonetheless, analysts believe Bush may have to change his stance.

"I think we're going to see both candidates trying to put some distance between themselves and the Administration," Shattuck says.

Implications for Scientific Research

At stake in this debate, educators say, is America's position in scientific research and in the world economy.

Higher education officials argue that science works best in an open atmosphere, and that too many restrictions lead to a stagnation of basic science. Pointing to the Warsaw Pact countries, scientists argue that their economic stagnation is a result of government restrictions on scientific communication. If the United States continues to restrict the free flow of science and technology, it will ultimately weaken America's position on the cutting edge of research, critics say.