According to critics like Bloom, both restrictive contracts and self-censorship could have devastating effects on the exchange of information, ultimately paralyzing, rather than protecting, the biological advances that might be used to protect the country.

The sort of material that ordinarily appears in peer journals, he says, is so specific and esoteric that a terrorist would have difficulty in appropriating it in any case.

The ambiguous reinvocation of a “sensitive” research category has drawn particular ire from scientists.

Vest, who last spring organized a special conference at MIT after his panel discussion at the Forum, said he thought an undefined “sensitive” category could lead to a “slippery slope” in restriction.

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

Bloom takes issue with the implications of the presidential directive more broadly.

“It’s creating ignorance among the greatest universities and the brightest students,” he said of efforts to red-flag international students and keep them from research opportunities. “We have to create a culture of science where no one wants to misuse it.”

But a year later, he says the path toward achieving this culture is still undefined.

DIALOGUE WITH WASHINGTON

In the months since Sept. 11, mounting concerns about the new regulations have initiated a dialogue between academia and government.

Governmental leaders say they now recognize the difficulty in tracing a path between the imperatives of national security and the academy’s cherished openness.

“We don’t know what to do,” says Elizabeth George, portfolio manager for BioDefense technologies in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which culls available research resources in the interest of national security. She says the DHS has asked leaders in academia to help arrive at a better balance between national security and academic openness, but without a definite outcome. “We’ve reached out to the experts and the jury is still out.”

John H. Marburger III, who heads the White House’s Office of Science and Technology, has been at the center of these efforts.

He says his interaction with the academic community has ensured that the Bush administration is mindful of tensions and obstacles that governmental oversight might create for research institutions accustomed to being beholden only to their own research concerns.

“This administration is quite serious about preserving openness,” he says.