Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism

University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons

Departmental Papers (BE) Department of Bioengineering

September 2005

Kenneth R. Foster University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

Irving A. Lerch American Physical Society

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers

Recommended Citation Foster, K. R., & Lerch, I. A. (2005). Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/60

This material is posted here with permission of the IEEE. Such permission of the IEEE does not in any way imply IEEE endorsement of any of the University of Pennsylvania's products or services. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution must be obtained from the IEEE by writing to [email protected]. By choosing to view this document, you agree to all provisions of the copyright laws protecting it.

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/60 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism

Abstract In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States government undertook a rushed effort to increase security. In addition to new legislation such as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the government dramatically ramped up enforcement of laws that have long been on the books, and revised its policies to deal with new terrorist threats.

While the need for increased security is undeniable, the costs of security measures need to be weighed as well, in terms of collateral damage they produce to the U.S. science and engineering (S&E) enterprise. That was the message of a panel discussion held at the June 2004 IEEE-SSIT International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS'04) in Worcester, MA [1]. We focus here on two main problems: the increasing difficulties facedy b students and scientists from abroad in obtaining visas to visit and study in the United States, and the barriers that are being erected to communication and collaboration between U.S. investigators and international scholars.

This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/60 Collateral Damage: American Science and the War on Terrorism

KENNETH R. FOSTER AND IRVING A. LERCH

“… the dependence of U.S. science on foreign scientists is such that biodefense research will be inhibited if we continue down a road of scientific isolationism. Apart from the obvious barriers that restrictions on access to scientific information and tools place on research, restrictions on scientific training for foreign nationals will delay those countries from developing expertise crucial to identifying and containing disease outbreaks — key to any global strategy against bioter- rorism. What is required is the proliferation of scientific training worldwide, not scientific isolationism.” Thomas May [1]

n the wake of the terrorist faced by students attacks of 2001, the United and scientists from States government undertook abroad in obtaining a rushed effort to increase visas to visit and security. In addition to new study in the United Ilegislation such as the Patriot Act States, and the barri- and the Homeland Security Act of ers that are being 2002, the government dramatically erected to communi- ©PHOTODISC ramped up enforcement of laws that cation and collabo- have long been on the books, and ration between U.S. investigators the United States generated by far revised its policies to deal with new and international scholars. the largest fraction of the world’s terrorist threats. S&E literature, and was the sole While the need for increased “Flattening” of the Worlds proprietor of advanced technologies security is undeniable, the costs of of Science and Engineering with important “dual use” (military security measures need to be The effect of these changes must be and civilian) applications. weighed as well, in terms of collat- understood in the context of the The changing productivity of eral damage they produce to the U.S. long-term changes in the productiv- U.S. S&E enterprise vis-à-vis the science and engineering (S&E) ity of U.S. science vis-à-vis that in rest of the world can be seen clearly enterprise. That was the message of the rest of the world, and America’s in the bi-annual Science and Tech- a panel discussion held at the June increasing reliance on scientists and nology Indicators, published by the 2004 IEEE-SSIT International Sym- engineers from abroad. As World National Science Board [2]. Figs. 1 posium on Technology and Society War II drew to an end, Americans and 2 show the numbers of papers (ISTAS`04) in Worcester, MA [1]. might have been forgiven for a mis- published in the standard science We focus here on two main prob- taken impression that science began and engineering literature by U.S. lems: the increasing difficulties and ended in the U.S. At that time, authors, compared to those by their

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 0278-0079/05/$20.00©2005IEEE | 45 Thousands In Europe and Asia, by comparison, 250 the numbers of people earning doctoral degrees in S&E have rapidly Western Europe increased (Fig. 4) and now each 200 United States region surpasses the U.S. in produc- tion of doctoral-level scientists and U.S. Share of World Total engineers. Percent 150 50 This long-term decline in the 40 United States vis-à-vis other devel- 30 oped countries in its science and 100 20 engineering productivity does not 10 reflect a decline in absolute terms. 0 1988 1992 1995 1998 2001 The U.S. still has roughly 30% of 50 the world’s share in S&E productiv- Japan China, South Korea, ity, far surpassing that of any other Singapore, Taiwan individual nation. The changes 0 reflect, rather, the huge government 1988 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 and private-sector investments by other countries, and concomitant Fig. 1. S&E articles, by selected country/region and U.S. share of world total: declines in U.S. investment in sci- 1988–2001 (source: [2]). ence and technology vis-à-vis the rest of the world. It means, however, that any Western monopoly the U.S. might once have Europe had on science and technology United around the world has evaporated, States and that the U.S. now depends on Asia scientific ideas and manpower that Eastern 1999 originate outside its borders. In high- Europe 1986 energy physics and materials Pacific research, for example, major Latin research facilities have been estab- America lished in Europe and Asia. This has Near East caused the focus of research on Sub-Saharan some topics to shift to those regions Africa from the United States. It also means 010203040 Percent that European and Asian firms now have the option of investing in new Fig. 2. Scientific publications: regional share of world output (source: [2]). research facilities outside the U.S., where they will find a ready supply of highly educated technical person- peers in other countries. from abroad to fill its ranks of engi- nel and vibrant research programs. In terms of numbers of papers, neers and scientists. Since the early Columnist Thomas L. Friedman has the productivity of the U.S. S&E 1980s, the number of U.S. white called this process the “flattening” of community has remained essentially males earning doctoral degrees each the world [3], and it is clearly taking flat for the past decade, whereas that year in science and engineering has place in science and technology as of Western Europe, Japan, and other been declining (Fig. 3). (Tragically, well as in other economic activities. Asian countries has increased sub- similar declines are seen in the num- stantially. In 1945, U.S. scientists bers of doctoral degrees earned by In the Wake of 9/11 and engineers published about 80% white female and U.S. minorities as In response to the terrorist attacks of of the world’s S&E literature; they well). Until 2001, these declines September 11, 2001, the U.S. govern- now account for less than one-third were offset by increases in degrees ment passed three major new laws in of the world’s scientific papers. earned by students holding tempo- 2002 (The Enhanced Border Security A second major trend has been rary visas. Now, for reasons that we and Visa Entry Reform Act, the Patri- the increasing reliance of the United discuss in the following section, ot Act and the Homeland Security States on professionals and students these numbers are in drastic decline. Act), and administratively ramped up

46 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 the enforcement of existing laws. Thousands This has led to a morass of problems 10 for the U.S. S&E enterprise. Two major initiatives, the Visas U.S. Citizens Mantis and Visas Condor directives, White Male deserve special mention. Visas Con- 8 dor, which started in January 2002, Temporary checks the name of a visa applicant Visa Holders against U.S. government databases to identify terrorists. It primarily affects 6 Muslim men between ages 16 and U.S. Citizens White Female 45, from 26 predominantly Muslim countries. 4 The Visas Mantis system, estab- Permanent lished by the State Department in Visa Holders 1998, is designed to prevent the entry of persons who might attempt to 2 export sensitive technology illegally U.S. Citizens from the United States. The program Minority was initially intended to stem the pro- 0 liferation of weapons of mass 1980 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 destruction. It was applied to visitors SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources from countries designated by the Statistics, Survey of Earned Doctrons, Special Tabulations. U.S. as State Sponsors of Terrorism, Science & Engineering Indicaton - 2004 and to nationals of countries desig- Fig. 3. S&E Doctorates earned by U.S. citizens and noncitizens: 1980-2001 nated as “sensitive.” Under Visas (source: [2]). Mantis, visa applications of scientists are sent to Washington for a check against a “technology alert list” Number of Degrees (TAL) of dual-use technologies. 25,000 The TAL initially included muni- tions, nuclear, and rocket technolo- Europe gies and other technologies obvious- 20,000 ly of use for weapons development. Its scope has expanded since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and now 15,000 United States includes: chemical, biotechnology, and biomedical engineering, remote 10,000 sensing, advanced computer technologies, materials technology, Asia cryptography, lasers and directed 5,000 energy systems, acoustic and sen- sors technologies, marine technology, robotics, ceramics, and high per- 0 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 formance metals and alloys. Even urban planning and architecture are NOTE: Europe includes France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. mentioned in the list. Asia includes China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The result has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of visa Fig. 4. Natural science and engineering doctoral degrees (source: [2]). applications from foreign scientists that are being sent to Washington for Three complications have con- Asian consulates, must screen as security clearance – from 1000 in tributed to the difficulty encountered many as 200 applicants in just a few 2000 to 20 000 in 2003. Many visa by many foreign scientists and stu- hours. The waiting time for inter- applicants will trigger a Visas Man- dents in obtaining visas. The first is views can in some cases be extended tis review even though their work simply the high caseload of consular by many months poses no security threat to the U.S. officers who, in some European and Second, the legislation that created

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 | 47 the Department of Homeland Security lengthy delays in processing a visa ty, 100 students were denied visas. (DHS) took “visa policy” away from application. Anyone who has ever Other students, admitted for study to the State Department but retained the filled out a government form, or the United States, have suffered long consular officer corps to make day-to- filed income taxes, knows how easy delays in being readmitted to the day decisions about issuing visas. The it is to make a mistake, and so the U.S. after leaving the country briefly officials who issue visas, who typical- change in law itself means that for family reasons. Aside from secu- ly are junior members of the foreign many well-deserving scientists and rity reviews, a particularly onerous service, are unable at times to access students will be denied entry. burden on students from poorer computer records maintained at DHS The wholly predictable result has nations is the so-called 214b require- or obtain quick answers to questions been that the number of visas issued ment that students must prove their about visa policy. to students and scientists has intention to return to their country Third, and most important, con- declined precipitously in recent upon completion of studies. In view sular officials have few incentives, years. Prior to the September 11 of the fact that fully 80% of Chinese and very powerful disincentives, to attacks, the number of applicants for students remained in the U.S. in the hurry the process along. In a change student (F1) visas steadily increased, decades of the 1980s and 1990s, this made by the U.S. Congress after the but an increasing number of these has been problematic at best. 1993 attacks on the World Trade applicants were rejected as well, These requirements have created Center, consular officials may be leaving the numbers of student visas great hardships to many students. subject to criminal penalties if they issued each year relatively steady. One of us (Lerch) has personally grant a visa to a person who subse- Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, intervened in more than 200 visa quently commits a terrorist act in the U.S. government dramatically cases, most of them concerning sci- the United States. While these sanc- decreased the number of student (F) entists or students who were lawful- tions apply only if a consular offi- and exchange (J) visas it issued. Oth- ly working or studying in the U.S., cial is found to have acted in willful er visa categories decreased as well. who left the country for various rea- disregard of the law, no official Students and scholars from the sons and were denied re-entry. would want to be put in the position People’s Republic of China have Examples include a married Chi- of having to raise such a defense. found it particularly difficult to nese student couple in the U.S. who Even minor problems with an appli- obtain visas. In a 2002 survey by the returned to China following the cant’s paperwork, or uncertainty on American Institute of Physics1 of death of his parents in an accident, the part of the official whether an 291 students who had accepted an and a Russian woman who had applicant needs to be screened for offer of admission by a physics worked for 11 years in the U.S. security, can lead to denial or department of an American universi- Department of Energy’s Ames Lab- oratory, who went to Germany on family business and was not allowed Table I to return [5]. One of our undergrad- Trends in International Graduate Applications: 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 uates recently had trouble re-enter- Application Changes Application Change ing the country because of security 2003-2004 2004-2005 concerns triggered by her major (bioengineering and finance), which US Domestic and Permanent 0% –1% shows the lack of specificity of the Resident Technology Alert List. International –28% –5% In part as a result of difficulties in Country of Origin obtaining visas, there has been a China –45% –13% major shift in the number and India –28% –9% national background of internation- Korea –14% 0% Middle East +4% +6% al S&E students in the U.S. A recent (2005) survey by the Council of Field of Study Graduate Schools (CGS) reported a Business –24% –8% 5% decline in the number of inter- Education –21% –3% national graduate applications to Engineering –36% –7% U.S. universities between 2004 and Humanities –17% +2% Life Sciences –24% –1% 2005 (Table I). This continues a Physical Sciences –22% –3% decline in first-time graduate enroll- Social Sciences –20% –4% ments every year since 2001. A

Source: [14] 1 Survey conducted by [4].

48 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 2004 survey by the Association of attend traveled with multi-entry visa Thus, a professor who gives a talk American Universities (AAU) [6] or were already in the U.S. about a controlled technology at an reported that 51 out of 52 AAU international meeting (or even at a members experienced a decline in “Sensitive but domestic meeting if overseas visitors graduate applications, and a majori- Unclassified” Information are present), or merely shows an over- ty of AAU members reported Another major impediment to Amer- seas visitor around the lab, would declines in new international stu- ican S&E enterprise has been the rise require a deemed export license. A dent enrollment. Smaller effects of controls on what the government saving grace, for many university were found at the undergraduate considers to be “sensitive but unclas- researchers, is the exemption from level, with 46% of AAU respon- sified” information. The statutory Export Administration Regulations dents reporting a decrease in inter- basis for such controls derives from (EAR) of fundamental research that is national student enrollment while the Export Administration Act and intended to be published in the open 33% reported an increase. Arms Control Act. This Act regulates literature. However, the government’s Scientists from overseas have “deemed exports”(defined as the definition of fundamental research is commonly faced difficulties in release of controlled technology or narrowing. According to recent inter- obtaining visas to attend confer- technical data that conveys informa- pretations of government policy, a ences in the United States. In view tion to a foreign entity or individual government-funded project stands to of lengthy processing times of three months or more, the American Physical Society currently recom- mends that individuals from “sensi- As WWII drew to an end, Americans tive” countries such as China submit might have been forgiven for a their visa applications six months before a conference date in the U.S. mistaken impression that science Visa problems were a major factor began and ended in the U.S. in the decline of Chinese and Russ- ian participants at the biannual International Symposium in Lepton in the U.S.). The lists of controlled lose its status as “fundamental Photon Interactions (LP). At LP- technologies are extensive, and dif- research” if the sponsor stipulates any 1999 held at Stanford, 12 of 16 ferent sets of regulations apply to restriction on publication or dissemi- invited Chinese citizens and 7 of 25 commercial technology (adminis- nation of the findings of the research, invited citizens of the former Soviet tered by the Commerce Department) or if the investigator agrees to exclude Union attended. At LP-2003 at Fer- and military technology (adminis- non-U.S. citizens from meetings with mi Lab (near Chicago, IL) only one tered by the State Department). Vio- project sponsors. Losing that status of about 20 invited Chinese and 5 of lation of export controls can lead to would require an investigator to apply 20 invited Russians attended. stiff penalties including fines or for a deemed export license for the Almost all of Russians who did criminal sanctions. research, which might delay a project

Safety First: A Checklist for Researchers Officials at the University of California and beyond say there are several key steps researchers should take to keep their projects free of deemed-export controls: • Publish early and often to ensure that your research qualifies as “publicly available.” • Do not accept restrictions on access to or dissemination of information, including informal “handshake” agreements with project managers. • Do not provide citizenship, nationality, or visa status information to project sponsors or other third parties, or agree to background checks for project participants. • Do not attend meetings from which foreign nationals are barred. Source: [13].

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 | 49 for months or longer. This has led the used in university research, al laboratories. Even in the three University of California at Berkeley to e.g., high-end computers, national laboratories that conduct offer guidelines to researchers to keep oscilloscopes, and fer- weapons research, the vast majority their research free of deemed export menters, are included in the of research is unclassified and in the controls (See box). controlled list…. Security public domain. The weapons labs More rigorous enforcement of would have to be implement- have had many visitors who have deemed export controls is in store ed to ensure in such cases that conducted scientific and engineering for universities. In March 2004, the non-licensed foreign mem- business. All of this has now come to Inspector General of the Depart- bers of and visitors to the a halt. What will happen to the ment of Commerce issued a report campus will not have access Brookhaven National Laboratory, entitled, “Deemed Export Controls to controlled equipment. This for example, which has a billion dol- May Not Stop the Transfer of Sensi- interpretation eviscerates the lar investment and 10 000 users, half tive Technology to Foreign Nation- EAR fundamental research of whom are foreign? als in the U.S.” [7], and took the exemption. It will have a position that controls apply to chilling effect on university Restrictions on research equipment that has poten- research and education as Scientific Collaboration tial dual-uses, whether or not it is well as compel discriminato- and Publication being used for fundamental ry treatment of foreign A bizarre episode, involving the research. The report calls for a new nationals on campus.” ability of scientific journals within policy that requires a deemed export reach of U.S. law to publish articles license for employees or visitors If these regulations come into from authors in several countries, who were born in countries to which effect, the day may soon be at hand has recently concluded. This saga began shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when the IEEE, after reviewing U.S. laws regarding trade U.S. scientists and engineers now embargoes, essentially withdrew all account for less than one-third of member services to members in embargoed countries (including the world’s scientific papers. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, until recently Sudan and Libya). The IEEE, unannounced, stopped pub- the export controls apply (China, when students in U.S. universities lishing papers from authors in these Cuba, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, will have to wear color-coded iden- countries and in 2002 requested a North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, tification badges, with students born ruling by the U.S. Department of the Sudan, and Syria), regardless of in China, Cuba, India, Iran, Iraq, Treasury on the matter. their present citizenship. In March Israel, Libya, North Korea, Pak- A subsequent series of rulings by 2005, the Department of Com- istan, Russia, Sudan and Syria (even the Office of Foreign Assets Control merce, Bureau of Industry and though they might presently be U.S. (OFAC) of the Department of the Security, published an advanced citizens) being denied access to par- Treasury created confusion and anxi- notice of rulemaking in the Federal ticular instruction or research ety among scientific and other schol- Register that would implement opportunities, depending on the arly societies. In its first ruling (Sept. those recommendations [8]. controls that are in effect for their 2003), OFAC said that journals could The implications for U.S. sci- countries of birth. One might publish papers from authors from ence are troubling. As Robert Hardy assume that plenty of high-end embargoed countries, but could not from the Council on Governmental computers, oscilloscopes, and fer- "edit" them (or even correct their Relations concluded in his Novem- menters are found elsewhere in the English) without a license. A later ber 2004 assessment [9]: world, out of reach of U.S. deemed ruling (April 2004) allowed limited export controls. Overly broad editing but forbade "collaborative “[T]he most immediate issue restrictions on access to such equip- interactions" between authors in is the discussion of the “use” ment by foreign-born scientists in embargoed countries and U.S. schol- of EAR [Export Administra- U.S. labs will only damage the ars that result in co-authorship. Need- tion Regulations] – controlled country’s science without any bene- less to say, many jointly authored equipment by foreign nation- fit of improved security. papers appear every year (more than als at universities and the fun- The effects of controls on “sensi- 200 in 2003 with U.S. and Iranian co- damental research exemp- tive but unclassified” information authors), and the ruling would, obvi- tion... Many items routinely are particularly severe for the nation- ously, criminalize many American

50 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 scientists. In December 2004, the Association of University Profes- research damage our relation- publication issue came to a happy sors] welcomes the Treasury ships with allies…Once [sci- end. The U.S. Treasury issued a "gen- Department's recognition that entists] begin to boycott U.S. eral license" that allows "U.S. per- restricting scholarly exchanges does conferences or avoid sabbati- sons to freely engage in most ordi- not contribute to international secu- cals in the U.S. due to the dif- nary publishing activities with rity,” says Roger Bowen, general ficulties they face or in soli- persons in Cuba, Iran, and Sudan" secretary of the organization. “But darity with those who face (and presumably other countries on we still oppose the notion that the them, the nation will be the embargoed list as well). federal government has any right to gravely harmed. The finding by OFAC was a clas- sic case of bureaucratic overreach- ing, and constituted one of the gravest threats to the integrity of In the wake of the terrorist attacks U.S. scientific freedom in decades. of 2001, the United States OFAC’s ruling was taken in response to an inquiry by IEEE. government undertook a rushed And whereas IEEE chose to accept the OFAC adjudication that obliged effort to increase security. publishers to seek government license before publishing such material (a form of prior restraint on regulate the exchange of informa- ■ Restrictions on the dissemina- publication that is seemingly in ten- tion between individuals in two tion of research results under- sion with the First Amendment), countries, even by granting a 'gener- mine the close synergy many other scientific publishers al license.' Congress has spoken on between research and educa- ignored the order. this matter: information and infor- tion that make our system In the face of pending litigation mation materials are exempt from great and propel our leader- (including a complaint filed by Iran- trade embargo laws” [10]. ship in innovation… ian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi), ■ When restrictions are not OFAC reversed its original ruling in Limiting Damage carefully considered and December 2004, and granted a “gen- to U.S. S&E Enterprise weighed, absurd examples of eral license” for publications to edit In a powerful statement in 2003, government controls create an and publish manuscripts submitted M.I.T. Vice President Alice P. Gast atmosphere of distrust or con- by authors from embargoed coun- [11] described ways in which gov- tempt within a community of tries. However, much damage had ernment controls will damage the researchers…. been done to American science in U.S. S&E enterprise: ■ Hindering our ability to general and to the IEEE in particular. recruit the best and brightest Prominent European scientists and ■ “The control of information international students and engineers protested the 2003 OFAC restricts its dissemination scholars harms our productiv- ruling, and more than 5000 members domestically as well as inter- ity and leadership in science of the IEEE around the world signed nationally. This undermines and technology.” a petition protesting that “discrimi- our system of peer review, nation on the basis of nationality or competitive proposal evalua- According to Gast, three major country of residence goes against the tion, and collaboration, and needs have to be addressed: improv- principles of an international scien- removes the serendipitous ing dialog between government and tific organization.” In the aftermath discoveries arising from casu- universities, ensuring openness in of the Iraq invasion, a number of al access... research while protecting national European scientists called for boy- ■ The restrictions of research security, and developing clear and cotts on U.S. publications. Had the results discourage young peo- effective immigration policies. 2003 OFAC order been enforced by ple from pursuing research in These problems have hardly the courts, European and Asian jour- heavily regulated fields. If the escaped the U.S. science and engi- nals would have rushed to replace restrictions and processes to neering communities, but have been U.S. journals, creating immediate pursue research become too subject to considerable high-level damage to the U.S. science and engi- onerous, scientists will discussion (if not much public out- neering publishing enterprise. migrate to other work… cry by the universities). Particularly However, the issue is not fully ■ Controls on information and urgent is the need to improve the resolved. “The AAUP [American international participation in visa process, which presently causes

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005 | 51 unconscionable delays even to well- used by the Visas Martis program. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA 19104 qualified applicants with a long Finding an appropriate balance -6392; email: [email protected]. track record. To be sure, the U.S. between openness and security will edu. Irving A. Lerch is the Chair-Elect government has made efforts to be a difficult process and one that is of the Forum on International Physics, reduce some of the delays. Accord- subject to bureaucratic over-reaching The American Physical Society, and a ing to a February 2005 statement by by the government. The United States member of the Board of Trustees of the Government Accountability has a valid interest in not having its Americans for UNESCO. He works in Washington, DC; email: ialerch@ verizon.net. Any monopoly the U.S. might have Acknowledgment once had on science and technology The authors thank Wade Robison, from Rochester Institute of Technol- around the world has evaporated, ogy, for helpful comments on an and the U.S. now depends on earlier draft of this article. scientific ideas and manpower that References [1] International Symposium on Technology and originate outside its borders. Society 2004 (ISTAS`04), June 17-19, 2004, Worcester, MA; http://www.wpi.edu/News/ Conf/ISTAS/worcester.html. [2] NSF National Science Board Science and Office, the present delay for receiv- science used against it in a terrorist Engineering Indicators – 2004, National Sci- ing clearance under Visas Mantis attack. But overly broad restrictions ence Foundation, Washington, DC, 2004; has been brought down to about 15 on scientific communication are, if http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/start.htm/. [3] T. L. Friedman, The World is Flat; A Brief days, from an average of 67 days in anything, even more damaging to the History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, 2003; the government has also country. If students, scientists, and NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. [4] American Institute of Physics, AIP Report, extended clearances to allow scien- firms wishing to start research labora- June 2003; http://www.aip.org/statistics/ tists to exit and reenter the U.S. for tories cannot find adequate collegial trends/reports/international.pdf./ [5] J. Dawson, “Post-September 11th visa woes one year without having to undergo environments in the United States still plague international students and scientists,” additional Visas Mantis reviews. they will simply go elsewhere, and Physics Today, June 2003; http://www.physic- And at least one senator has pro- the United States will suffer. stoday.org/vol-56/iss-6/p25.html. [6] Association of American Universities, posed legislation to exempt students By its immense investments in Washington, DC; http://www.aau.edu/home- from the 214b requirement (i.e., the S&E over the years and its histori- land/SurveyResults-IntlStudentEnroll/ PR=/#10/-10-2004.pdf. requirement to prove that they cally open policies for admitting for- [7] Inspector General, U.S. Department of intend to return to their home coun- eign students, the U.S. has raised the Commerce, Final Inspection Report No. IPE- tries after their education); the like- bar for science and engineering and 16176, Mar. 2004, [8] “Proposed rules,” Federal Register,vol. 70, no. lihood of passage is remote. exported both the aspirations for 58, Mar. 28, 2005; http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/ More needs to be done. In a technical excellence and well- 2005/pdf/05-6057.pdf. [9] R. Hardy, “Export controls and universities: report released in May 2005, the trained students to institutions Licensing research?” Council on Governmen- Committee on Science, Engineer- throughout the world. By imposing tal Relations, Washington, D.C. , Nov. 10-12, ing, and Public Policy of the Nation- unnecessary barriers to students of 2004; http://206.151.87.67/docs/NACUA.doc. [10] R. Bowen, “Restrictions on scholarly edit- al Research Council [12] called for those students seeking to enter the ing dropped,” American Association of Univer- “clear procedures that do not unnec- U.S., we stand in danger of cutting sity Professors, Mar./Apr. 2005; http://www. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3860/is_2005 essarily hinder the flow” of interna- off access to the fruits that we our- 03/ai_n13635316. tional students. The committee rec- selves have produced. The U.S. has [11] A. P. Gast, “The impact of restricting information access on science and technology,” ommended a variety of changes, for little to gain by discouraging the M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, 2003; http://www. example, changing visa require- globalization of knowledge, since aau.edu/research/Gast.pdf. ments to allow international stu- that process is already well along. To [12] Policy Implications of International Grad- uate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the dents to attend scientific meetings return to the quotation by Thomas United States,National Research Council, abroad without fear of being denied May at the beginning of this article, Washington DC, 2005; http://www.nap.edu/ books/0309096138/html. reentry to the U.S. and extending we need to encourage the prolifera- [13] “Safety first: A checklist for researchers,” The the duration of Visas Mantis clear- tion of scientific training worldwide, Berkeleyan,Jan. 27, 2005;http://www.berkeley. ances for international students and not scientific isolationism. edu/news/berkeleyan/2005/01/27_acfreedom .shtml. scholars from all countries. It also [14] H. Brown and M. Doulis, “Findings from recommended that scientists partici- Author Information 2005 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey,” Council of Graduate Schools, Washing- pate in revising—and we hope nar- Kenneth R. Foster is with the Depart- ton, DC; http://www.cgsnet.org/pdf/CGS2005Int- rowing—the Technology Alert list ment of Bioengineering, University of lAppRep.pdf.

52 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | FALL 2005