Manoa Faculty Senate

CPM Support Documents on Classified Research, Nov 17, 2004

University of Colorado

STATEMENT OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE ON CLASSIFIED RESEARCH October 12, 1987

Petitions forwarded to the President for the conduct of classified research will be referred to the Faculty Committee on Classified Research (FCCR) for review and recommendation to the President. Each petition will have a Cover Sheet containing the following information:

Project Title
Names of Principal Investigator and Co-Investigators
Address and Phone Number(s) of Principal Investigator
The Granting Agency
Proposed Funding Level
Time period of the research
The CU location of the research
Time deadlines (if any) for proposal submission

The recommendations of the FCCR will be based on its judgment of the appropriateness of the proposed research at the University and its evaluation of the following factors, which should be addressed explicitly in the petition in the order shown:

1. An unclassified summary of the proposed research expressed in non technical terms and suitable for public dissemination.
2. The intellectual content of the proposed research; i.e., the extent to which it may lead to significant new knowledge in Science, Engineering, or other fields.
3. The relationships between the proposed research and the openness of the academic environment, i.e.
   1. The extent and duration of special security arrangements.
   2. The extent to which portions of the campus will have restricted access.
   3. The extent to which students and faculty involved in the research will be allowed to discuss their results with students and faculty not involved in the research.
   4. The restrictions that will be applied to publication of results.
4. The effect of the proposed research on the resources of the University (fluids, equipment, personnel, space, etc.) i.e.,
   1. The extent to which the research project will contribute new resources that can be applied to non-classified work.
   2. The extent to which the research project will require the dedication of resources that would otherwise be available for non-classified work.
5. The extent to which students will be involved in the proposed research.
6. The proposed time duration of the classified portion of the project. All petitions will be reviewed and approved on the local campus prior to review by the FCCR, utilizing a campus process defined by the Chancellor. The Faculty Committee requests explicit approval by the Department Chair in addition to any others specified by the Chancellor.

George Mason Univ

CLASSIFIED RESEARCH

Among the major issues of concern in the performance of classified research are the maintenance of high intellectual quality of research, communication within the University community, and the opportunity to publish the results of research. In addition, there are costs involved in maintaining the secure facilities needed for classified work. To assure that research is performed so that the University's goals are met, the following conditions must be met by each proposed classified project before the University allows it to be submitted for funding:

1. The principal investigator must submit to a Committee of research-active faculty members appointed by the administration (presently the Research Advisory Committee, which may be augmented by technical experts as the Committee sees fit) a brief statement about the sponsor, the nature of the project, the personnel involved, the contractual conditions, and the projected impacts on the University. As required, the principal investigator will meet with the Committee. The project review will be rapid, less than two weeks from the submission of the principal investigator's statement under normal conditions. The Committee must be satisfied that the benefits of the project to the University will outweigh any possible negative consequences, and that there are no conditions which undermine the University's overall intellectual integrity. The Committee's recommendation will be to the President or the President's designee(s) who will consider the Committee's recommendation as the most important input in deciding whether or not to allow the proposal to enter the customary proposal approval process of the University. Among the major criteria that the Committee must consider iii making its recommendation are the following:
   1. The project must be of high intellectual quality consistent with the University's goals and standards;
   2. The project must be such as to provide adequate opportunity for enrichment of the intellectual environment of the University through communication among faculty and students and with other intellectual communities outside of the university;
   3. Graduate students working on the project who are pursuing research-oriented degrees must have the restricted opportunity to use their work on the project to meet the research requirements for their degrees, including the publication of theses and dissertations without delay and without sponsor review;
   4. Faculty members, students, and staff working on the project must have the opportunity to publish material in the open literature making use of their work on the project;
   5. Insofar as allowed by the law, intellectual property rights and benefits for work resulting form the project belong to the university in accordance with university policies;
   6. Sponsor review of open literature publications and delays in open literature publication submissions beyond six months must be adequately justified.
2. The University central administration must not be required to provide funds to construct and maintain secure facilities for classified projects. These funds are to be guaranteed by the university unit sponsoring the proposal to the central administration prior to approval.
3. Every proposal must provide for substantive and procedural review by a designated University administrator of any project output or deliverables for compliance with University requirements.

MIT panel urges off-campus sites for classified research

A faculty committee, mindful of U.S. security needs following the Sept. 11 attacks and of MIT's history of national service, recommended today that MIT provide off-campus facilities to help faculty perform classified public service or research involving the nation's security.

"MIT remains committed to a strong role of public service and, as appropriate, to expanding the scope of that service," the committee said in its report, "In the Public Interest."

The Ad Hoc Committee on Access to and Disclosure of Scientific Information also strongly reiterated MIT's long-standing policy of intellectual openness on the campus. "National security, the health of our nation and the strength of our economy depend heavily on the advancement of science and technology and on the education of future generations. The well-being of our nation will ultimately be damaged if education, science and technology suffer as a result of any practices that indiscriminately discourage or limit the open exchange of ideas," the committee's report said.

"We recommend that no classified research should be carried out on campus; that no student, graduate or undergraduate, should be required to have a security clearance to perform thesis research; and that no thesis research should be carried out in (intellectual) areas requiring access to classified materials."

The committee said the university's dilemma following the events of Sept. 11 is that "restrictions on access to select biological agents, the application of export control provisions to university researchers, and a growing pressure to treat research results as sensitive create a new landscape for faculty, students and MIT as an institution."

Institute Professor Sheila Widnall, who was Secretary of the Air Force in the Clinton administration, headed the committee. The members of the committee were Vincent W.S. Chan, professor of electrical engineering and computer science and aeronautics and astronautics and director of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; Institute Professor Jerome I. Friedman, Nobel laureate in physics; Professor of Management Stephen C. Graves, chair of the faculty; and Professor of Political Science Harvey Sapoisky, director of the Security Studies Program.

Provost Robert A. Brown and Graves appointed the panel to examine MIT's policies dealing with restrictions on research, such as those arising from classified or industry-sponsored research.

Provost Brown, commenting on the report, said, "Professor Widnall and her colleagues have done an excellent job considering a complex landscape while focusing on MIT's core values of student education and scholarly exchange. The report will help guide our policies with respect to organization and governance of research for the years ahead."

FOUR VALUES

"The fundamental mission of MIT rests upon four values: unfettered transmission of knowledge through educational activities, creation of new knowledge through research and other scholarly activities, service to the nation and service to humanity," the committee stated. "Openness enables MIT to attract, educate and benefit from the best students, faculty and staff from around the world. This is especially important, as competence in science and technology has grown throughout the world so that access to research and knowledge outside the United States is critical to our own progress.

"No foreign national granted a visa by the U.S. government should be denied ac to courses, research or publications generally available on campus."

The committee said that allowing classified research on campus would require a dual research and management system. It would restrict faculty interaction and student involvement and "would inevitably create two separate classes of individuals on campus," the panel said. "In the end, we believe that the restrictions on the free flow of research results, as well as control of individual access, would negatively impact national security by hampering the progress of science in important areas of human health, economic growth, and in all of the other areas that science has brought benefits to our nation.

"We are moved by the obligation of public service to the nation. However, we believe that this is best met through an open and shared research environment on campus coupled with the operation of special facilities for classified research and the expansion of opportunities for faculty to engage in public service in significant ways."

PUBLIC SERVICE

The committee outlined MIT's history of public service in national defense, including the development of radar during World War II. During the Cold War, MIT developed the Distant Early Warning System and ballistic missile defenses at Lincoln Laboratory, a federally funded laboratory the Institute operates for the U.S. government. In the past decade, Lincoln Laboratory has developed sophisticated military communications systems, as well as nonclassified systems such as weather radar systems and an air traffic collision-avoidance system.

The committee anticipates that research currently being carried out on campus may have follow-on activities that require classification. The panel proposed that MIT provide nearby facilities off campus where faculty can work or advise on classified national security matters, and that MIT make arrangements for security clearances for faculty.

"For many faculty members, these clearances are an important enabler of their public service Since obtaining a clearance can take up to 18 months, responding promptly to public service opportunities is not possible without provision for the continuity of individual security clearances," the committee said.

"The national security implications of biological sciences are growing. It is not too hard to imagine a future Lincoln Laboratory-like entity conducting classified biologically related research in the Boston area."

The panel recommended that Lincoln Laboratory increase the involvement of MIT faculty in its research program and provide facilities for faculty to carry out classified research in compatible areas. Members proposed using the facilities of the independent Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Cambridge for research and access to classified material. The heads of both laboratories were consulted in the process, according to acknowledgements in the report.

"We do not recommend that MIT provide facilities for storage and access of classified materials on the MIT campus," the committee added.

SHORT-TERM EMERGENCIES

In the case of extraordinary national events, such as "the need for forensic analysis of biological materials," the committee recommended that MIT allow its unique campus facilities and expertise to be used for a short-term response to national emergencies.

Such an exception would require the permission of the provost, in consultation with a new standing faculty committee the report recommended which would monitor evolving federal legislation, any exception to MIT policy, and any issue of openness of research that might come to its attention concerning research sponsored by government or industry.

The panel supported the current MIT policy for on-campus research of not accepting prior review for possible disclosure of "sensitive information." The committee also expressed the view that restrictions on handling select agents may cause MIT to withdraw from affected areas of research.

A version of this article appeared in the June 12, 2002 issue of MIT Tech Talk (Volume 46, Number 34).