National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom (DECEMBER 2017) The following report, prepared by a subcommittee of the Association’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, was approved in October 2017 by Committee A and adopted in November 2017 by the Council. The Trump administration’s alarming hostility to were dropped. It turned out that the devices science has exacerbated already troubling threats to Xi had discussed with Chinese colleagues did academic freedom in the physical and natural sciences not include a pocket heater and the exchanges in two different areas. In the area of international posed no threat to US interests. Professor Xi scientific exchange, Chinese or Chinese American sci- has now filed a civil suit charging malicious entists have been targeted and charged with espionage. prosecution.1 The second area, the field of climate science, has been • In August 2010 climate scientist Michael Mann, subjected to vicious attempts to discredit its valid- professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylva- ity, which have intensified significantly since Donald nia State University, was opening mail when Trump took office. Two incidents illustrate the nature white powder fell from a letter. It was corn- of the attacks: starch, not anthrax, but this was but one in a • On the morning of May 21, 2015, about a long series of threats Mann has received since dozen armed federal agents entered the home the late 1990s in response to his research dem- of physicist Xiaoxing Xi, guns drawn, with a onstrating how global warming was producing warrant for Xi’s arrest. His wife and daugh- a rising temperature curve whose shape he lik- ters stood by in fear as Xi was handcuffed and ened to a hockey stick. The sender of one email escorted away. At the time Xi was interim chair said that he and his collaborators “ought to be of the physics department at Temple University shot, quartered, and fed to the pigs along with and a naturalized US citizen. He is among the [their] whole damn families.”2 Later this report world’s leading experts on superconducting thin films, which carry electricity without resistance at very low temperatures. Citing a nondis- 1. On October 31, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union joined closure agreement Xi signed in 2006 in order Professor Xi’s suit, filing an amended complaint that “sets out to conduct research with a pocket heater—a troubling allegations of unconstitutional government conduct” and patented device that makes thin films of the charges the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Depart- superconductor magnesium diboride—the US ment with bias and discrimination against Xi and other American attorney’s office in Philadelphia charged him scientists of Chinese descent. See Ryan Parchment, “The Chilling with four counts of wire fraud stemming from Surveillance and Wrongful Arrest of a Chinese-American Physics Pro- fessor,” Speak Freely (blog), American Civil Liberties Union, October four emails sent to scientists in China about 31, 2017, https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance establishing labs and about a collaboration -technologies/chilling-surveillance-and-wrongful-arrest-chinese. involving a thin-film deposition device that the 2. “Perspectives of Scientists Who Become Targets: Michael government charged was a pocket heater. Xi Mann,” Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, July 20, 2017, faced eighty years in prison and a $1 million https://climatesciencedefensefund.org/2017/07/20/perspectives-of fine, but before a trial date was set the charges -scientists-who-become-targets-michael-mann/. 2018 BULLETIN | 25 National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom discusses the persecution of Mann by the Vir- States remaining a very strong force,” wrote two ginia attorney general and a private foundation prominent State Department science advisers, E. seeking to stop his climate research, as well as William Colglazier and Elizabeth E. Lyons, in 2014.5 efforts by the Trump administration to throttle According to a 2013 report by the National Science environmental science and silence scientists. Foundation, more than five million of the twenty-nine The first incident illustrates how concerns about million scientists and engineers in the United States national security and espionage have led to increas- were born in other countries. Approximately 25 ing restrictions on and threats to the global exchange percent of US Nobel Laureates and 25 percent of the of scientific research and the academic freedom of members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engi- American scientists to interact with foreign colleagues. neering, and Medicine immigrated to the United States Mann’s case demonstrates how a growing politiciza- as students or senior scientists. In 2013, 33 percent tion of science in the United States, now combined of US publications in science were coauthored with with a powerful antiscience bent in the Trump admin- scientists in other countries, compared with just 19 istration, has led many scientists to conclude, in the percent in 2000. Nearly a fifth of all papers published words of Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes, in scientific journals internationally in recent years “that the time for sitting on the sidelines has passed.”3 have authors from at least two countries.6 These two trends together threaten not only the These realities suggest that in today’s world, academic freedom of scientists but also the ability of as Colglazier and Lyons have argued, “sustaining American science to maintain its international stat- American leadership” in science will require “vigorous ure and continue to contribute to the improvement international collaboration across the new dynamic of American lives. This report investigates the nature landscape. If the United States can no longer be and extent of these interlinked threats and provides assured of leadership . through sheer dominance principles and recommendations for responding to of size and resources, it will need to maintain leader- them. Part I examines the tensions between academic ship through synergistic partnerships.” Hence, “U.S. freedom and national security in international sci- scientists and institutions should sustain the free entific exchange, building upon conclusions in the exchange of ideas and enter collaborations with strong 2003 report of an AAUP special committee, Academic agreements that articulate the mutual benefits for all Freedom and National Security in a Time of Crisis. participants and the arrangements for sharing outputs That report “urge[d] the implementation of fair mea- and benefits.”7 sures deemed vital to controlling the entry of foreign As early as 1999, a committee of the National students and visitors” consistent with broader prin- Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the ciples of academic freedom and international scholarly Institute of Medicine reached a similar conclusion, exchange.4 Part II examines politically motivated with special reference to nuclear weapons laborato- threats to scientific research, with emphasis on threats ries: “The world is awash in scientific discoveries and to climate science and on the initial actions of the Trump administration. Part III concludes the report by 5. E. William Colglazier and Elizabeth E. Lyons, “The United States endorsing statements of principle and recommenda- Looks to the Global Science, Technology, and Innovation Horizon,” tions offered by national scientific organizations. Science and Diplomacy 3, no. 3 (September 2014). 6. Sarah Kaplan, “How Trump’s Travel Ban Could Hurt Science,” I. Academic Freedom and International Washington Post, January 30, 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Scientific Exchange Engineering, and Medicine, letter to David T. Donahue, May 16, 2017, “The overwhelming U.S. dominance in scientific http://www.nationalacademies.org/NRC_test/Submission Comment research in the last half of the twentieth century is on Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants (DS-5535) NASEM being replaced by a more multipolar landscape of 05162017.pdf; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indica- science, technology, and innovation, with the United tors 2016 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2016). 7. Colglazier and Lyons, “The United States Looks to the Global Science, Technology, and Innovation Horizon.” See also Susan Sutton 3. Amy Harmon and Henry Fountain, “In Age of Trump, Scientists and Elizabeth E. Lyons, “Unintentional Diplomats: International Science Show Signs of a Political Pulse,” New York Times, February 6, 2017. Engagement and Science Diplomacy by U.S. Higher Education Institu- 4. Special Committee on Academic Freedom and National Security in tions,” http://www.aieaworld.org/assets/docs/Additional_Resource a Time of Crisis, “Academic Freedom and National Security in a Time of _PDFs/suttonsb%20and%20lyonsee-%20unintentional%20diplomats Crisis,” Academe, November–December 2003, 35. .pdf. 26 | 2018 BULLETIN National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom technological innovations. If the United States is to research and development as a percentage of gross remain the world’s technological leader, it must remain domestic product, formerly first in the world, now deeply engaged in international dialogue, despite the ranked just