MIT gained public attention this fall when it refused a $400,000 computer science grant from the National Security Agency because the grant would have required the Institute to provide information about foreign researchers working on the unclassified project.

While the NSA felt it was acting in the interests of national security, the agency’s scrutiny made the project fruitless for everyone, Widnall said.

“The work will not be done at MIT,” she remarked. “Is that in the interest of national security? I don’t think so.”

Much of the controversy between government and researchers centers on unclear notions of which research projects could endanger the country when published. Governmental officials have recently begun referring to some work as “sensitive”—neither fully classified nor safe for complete disclosure.

But Widnall said she urges colleagues not to “buy into” this new term, which has not been defined clearly and threatens to mitigate valuable research from being adequately pursued and published.

Widnall, who was recently appointed to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, testified before Congress this fall on her distrust of intermediate research classifications.

Vest agreed with her position.

“Whenever possible, we should draw distinct boundaries,” he said. “Basic research should be open, and scientific research should be either classified or unclassified.”

Even research that must be kept classified for the safe development of technology should be released publicly as soon as it has served its original purpose to foster diverse innovation, according to Widnall.

“You can’t protect classified research forever,” she said.

Channels of Communication

Many of the panelists’ frustrations stemmed from stifled communication, both within the governmental community and between academia and the state.

Bloom emphasized that disease researchers who cannot pursue their work and publish their results freely risk inhibiting patterns of scientific progress as a whole.

Many of the most important discoveries about previously incurable diseases and conditions came about as the biological community pondered and explored the published results of one study, she said.

And while federal grants have made several facets of study, such as AIDS research, possible, Bloom said, governmental support for biological science—and dialogue with its experts—is comparatively weak.