ALLEN M. SHINN-ScienceTechnologyFree-1990

Overview of the Article

Title: Science, Technology, and Free SpeechAuthor: Allen M. Shinn, Jr.Published In: Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 28-31Stable URL: JSTORThis article delves into the implications of export control laws on the dynamics of scientific communication and the fundamental right of free speech, emphasizing the friction between national security interests and First Amendment protections.

Introduction

The article tackles the persistent tension that has existed since World War II between national security measures and First Amendment rights regarding scientific and technical communication. Historically, export control laws were implemented with the intention of safeguarding the nation by restricting the flow of technology that could be exploited by adversaries. However, these regulations have inadvertently obstructed open scientific dialogue and collaborative research efforts, crucial for technological advancement and innovation.

Trends in Federal R&D Funding

The article provides a critical analysis of the downward trend in federal spending on civilian Research and Development (R&D) observed since 1967. This trend raises alarm bells, as the U.S. engages with reforms in Eastern Europe and the European Community that create both new opportunities and trade barriers. The decline in federal R&D funding poses risks to the nation's competitiveness in science and technology.

Export Control Laws

Key laws discussed include:

• Export Administration Act: Governs the export of dual-use technologies.

• Arms Export Control Act: Regulates the export of defense articles and services.

• Invention Secrecy Act: Allows authorities to prohibit the dissemination of certain inventions.

The irony of these laws is highlighted; although their purpose is to protect national security, they may fundamentally undermine it by restricting essential research collaboration that can enhance scientific understanding and capabilities.

Issues with Export Control Laws

The article emphasizes several critical issues:

• First Amendment Violations:

  • Prior Restraint: Administrative licensing acts often constitute a form of prior restraint, which courts traditionally reject, as they limit free speech before it takes place.

  • Overbroad Definitions: Definitions of controlled information tend to be excessively expansive, which may unnecessarily restrict lawful and essential scientific communication.

  • Ineffectiveness: The article argues that export controls may not significantly bolster national security and could instead hinder vital scientific progress.

Constitutional Problems

• Non-Protected Speech: Not all speech enjoys protection; for instance, incidental speech tied to regulated conduct, such as missile technology, can be subject to regulation.

• National Security Regulations: Speech linked to national security can only be regulated under compelling circumstances and must adhere to precise legal frameworks.

• Prior Restraint Concerns: The historical context surrounding legislation, such as the English Licensing Act, reveals a longstanding legal principle opposing prior restraints on free speech, underscoring the necessity for judicial review before imposing restrictions on speech.

Specific Constitutional Failures of Export Laws

The article critiques specific failures of export laws:

• Lack of Due Process: Export control statutes often fail to meet due process standards, denying individuals the right to hearings before permission is granted or denied.

• Overbroad Restrictions: Laws that restrict both protected and unprotected speech are considered overbroad and thus unconstitutional.

• Ineffectiveness on National Security: Reports such as the Allen Report and Corson Report indicate that significant risks to national security stem more from espionage than from open scientific discourse. Furthermore, restricting information can weaken the U.S.'s scientific competitiveness, ultimately diminishing national security rather than enhancing military capabilities. The notion that controlling information which is globally accessible offers limited security benefits is also examined.

Historical Context and Reforms

Significant public backlash in the early 1980s against the Defense Department's stringent restrictions on communication showcases the demands for policy reform. Outcomes of this debate include:

• The State Department’s decision to limit controls on data closely associated with military equipment.

• A presidential statement that emphasized classification should be applied only to fundamental research results.

• New regulations from Commerce that defined and relaxed controls surrounding publicly available technical data, encouraging a more open exchange of scientific information.

Ongoing Issues

The article identifies ongoing challenges:

• The recent redefinition of "fundamental research" tends to exclude work with constraints on publication, creating potential loopholes for censorship.

• Industry-funded research faces scrutiny as corporate interests may lead to reluctance in publishing findings, thereby restricting communication in the scientific community.

Call to Action

The article advocates for the scientific community to actively engage with policymakers to protect the free speech rights inherent in the field of science. Proposed reforms emphasize minimizing bureaucratic controls that mandate only notifications rather than comprehensive licensing procedures.

Conclusion

Shinn’s article emphasizes the necessity for a delicate balance between the implications of national security and the constitutional rights of free speech within scientific discourse. Calls for reform of export control laws should prioritize transparency and safeguard the unrestricted flow of scientific communication, which is essential for fostering innovation and ensuring the U.S.'s scientific leadership on a global scale.