“It’s creating ignorance among the greatest universities and the brightest students,” he said. “We have to create a culture of science where no one wants to misuse it.”

Such a culture, he said, depends on the free communication of innovative work among experts.

The three scientists comprising Friday’s panel all indicated they were prepared to work within present governmental requirements. But they emphasized that state infringement on academic freedom should diminish, not increase, in the future.

Keeping an amicable relationship between academia and the government will be vital over the next uncertain years, said Director of the Kennedy School’s Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy John P. Holdren, who moderated the discussion.

“If ever we find ourselves in a situation where the academy and state are in head-on conflict,” he remarked, “we’re in deep trouble.”

‘A Slippery Slope’

The debate over security and openness in scientific research has been longstanding, Vest said.

“We might be having this discussion even absent what happened on Sept. 11, 2001,” he said.

Nonetheless, the national tragedy of more than a year ago increased concern that the physical and intellectual resources of a research community could be turned against the nation.

In addition to requiring universities to register their samples of certain biological agents, the government has made increasing efforts to study the backgrounds of researchers working on certain projects, sometimes barring certain individuals from participation.

“We should not have to make distinctions between foreign and domestic students, once enrolled in our universities,” Vest said.

MIT will comply with recent governmental restrictions as much as is required, Vest maintained. But constraints established in the name of national security could initiate a “slippery slope” effect, he warned, severely compromising academic freedom at the nation’s top research institutions.

“I’m worried that this is the sort of thing that could easily cascade,” he said.

Both Vest and Bloom cited the recent decision of 32 prestigious scientific journals’ to self-censor their published material in light of national security concerns as lamentable, but preferable to other practical alternatives.

“If we don’t establish regulations,” Bloom said, “the government will. And they know less about the science than we do.”