Comments
on Task Force for Classified
Research draft report
Email
your comments to the Faculty Senate
(all
comments will be posted unless specifically stated otherwise).
4/1/04
First, I'm always impressed by the amount of time and care put in by
Task Force members, and the sincerity of the views.
Second, it was intriguing to have a discussion with our Office of Tech
Transfer about an issue dealing with an interface with industry, in
which the bottom line was,
"If you and Vanderbilt cannot be guaranteed if or when a result
could be published, then there is no way the university can permit an
activity [access to a useful compound, in this case]".
Let me draw on that to comment that, at the end of the first paragraph
of Background and Recommendations (p. 2), it is implausible that 'classified
research projects . . .. . contributed strongly to the fundamental knowledge
in that area of research' but, more importantly, the assertion has to
be taken on faith (by its nature, classified information cannot be disclosed
to those outside of the discourse, i.e., those without security clearance).
The university mission is not only the generation but the open dissemination
of new knowledge.
Similarly, it seems implausible that the ability of faculty members
(with security clearances) to participate fully in meetings or academic
programs simply because these do not occur in Vanderbilt facilities.
Discussion section (p. 2) - As a faculty member, I was confused inasmuch
as the Task Force is not actually making a recommendation, "No,
we do not think that this change should be made" or "Yes,
we think it is reasonable and appropriate but ONLY if the following
conditions applied . . . " After reading the rest of the document,
my take was that after the first sentence the Task Force (the faculty)
should explicitly state: "The primary recommendation is that the
Faculty Manual on this point should not be changed. However, if it were
to be changed in spite of this recommendation and the prohibition against
classified sponsored research were removed from the Faculty Manual,
certain stringent conditions need to be met." (etc - picks up on
Graduate Students (p. 3) - Apart from the fact that, in the real world,
opening the door WILL lead to some instances of undue pressure on students
to participate in classified research,
a. the anecdote from interaction with the Office of Tech Transfer underscores
the reality that there WILL be instances where a grad student cannot
publish their research (i.e., the results in their thesis)
b. omitted from the discussion is a second reason why there must be
an absolute prohibition against allowing graduate student participation:
the need for a broad and representative base of the faculty participation
in Thesis Committees and the open-ness of the thesis defense. To have
students participate in classified research will mean that only a (small)
subset of faculty will be eligible for sitting on a thesis committee
if there are any classified data (or, that the student cannot be questioned
about all of their data). Moreover, how realistic is it to think that
faculty with openly expressed views disagreeing with the Dept of Defense
(for instance) will have access to security clearances?
Conditions: (p.3) here again, it may be that the Task Force reached
an impasse or could not establish a consensus. However, my reaction
is that text like that outlined above ("The primary recommendation
is that the Faculty Manual on this point should not be changed. However,
if it were to be changed in spite of this recommendation and the prohibition
against classified sponsored research were removed from the Faculty
Manual, certain stringent conditions need to be met) needs to lead off
the section.
item 2: "main campus" seems awfully fuzzy and imprecisely
defined (at most universities, the Medical Center would not be "main
campus" is there a precise definition of vanderbilt's 'main campus"?).
** recommend stating 'separated physically from all currently existing
portions of Vanderbilt University'
page 4, item 3 - fails to take into account that federal grants often
do not provide genuine full cost recovery (because of OMB A-21 circular
or whatever it was called). the sentence ought to read: " . . ..
and a budget be submitted with the research proposal that demonstrates
the overhead generated from the funding is sufficient to fund the program
fully (including genuine complete cost recovery on ALL facilities, depreciation,
AND administrative costs without any input of endowment, tuition, clinically-derived
revenue, or other non-sponsored revenue sources of the university)
Mark Boothby
3/29/04
Many areas of academic research (both basic and applied) have strong
national security relevance and importance. If some aspects of the research
in these areas need to be classified, it should always be the individual
faculty who needs to make decision about contributing to the area or
not. The current policy, which prevents the University to accept funds
for classified research eliminates this choice. In my opinion, those
who choose to accept responsibility for conducting classified research
should be able to do it.
However, the nature of classified research requires careful consideration
of the way it is conducted by university personnel. I agree that openness
of the campus cannot be compromised and faculty and students involved
in classified research should not be exposed to undue legal risk. I
believe that the proposal of the task force is sensible and offers a
practical and safe solution for implementing the policy.
Janos Sztipanovits
Director, Institute for Software Integrated Systems
E. Bronson Ingram Distinguished Professor of Engineering
3/29/04
My recollection of discussions with Chancellor Wyatt are that there
was no restriction on doing classified work, or performing that work
with university facilities. The only restriction was that the university
would no longer hold secret clearances on campus. A number of people
who held those clearances at VU then transferred their clearances to
local companies or agencies. There was no restriction placed on the
research. The need for secret clearances was primarily for access to
information and for admission to classified meetings. The research done
on campus was not classified and results were published in the standard
peer reviewed journals. Any restriction on faculty research is a clear
violation of the principles of academic freedom.
Al Strauss
3/24/04
If a faculty member agrees that a classified research project would
benefit our national security as well as his or her career, the university
should not discourage it. I do agree that it should be conducted off-site,
preferably in a facility administered by an independent entity (like
the Georgia Tech Research Institute). If graduate students want to work
on the project and are qualified to do so, they should do so strictly
as employees of that independent entity, since they will not be able
to include that work in their theses.
Dennis M. Duggan, PhD, DABR
Associate Professor of Medical Physics
Department of Radiation Oncology
3/24/04
I will offer up the view that there is almost no role for classified
research in a university community committed to the dissemination of
new knowledge and not just its generation (or the generation of sufficient
cash flow to pay the bills). if there are substantial restrictions on
timely publication, the research should not use university faculty or
staff time (other than on a basis similar to other non-scholastic consultancy,
hobbies) or use the facilities.
the inherent conflicts are as bad as, or currently worse than*, those
of engaging with a for-profit entity on terms which preclude at least
equal "ownership" of the data or unduly hinder the ability
to publish the results.
* "worse than" - with the current situation, one could almost
see our faculty on trial if a "classified secret" leaked out,
or a foreign national working in the lab ending up held incommunicado
at Guantanamo Bay if classified research info were reported or discussed
at a meeting. with industry, the worst they can do is file suit.
Mark Boothby, M.D., Ph.D.
Dept. of Microbiology & Immunology
3/23/04
I qualify these remarks by noting that I have not been involved in
classified research, but I do spend a fair amount of time on applied
policy questions. When academics address applied questions, they may
develop new methodologies (possibly unclassified) and find shortcomings
in existing methodologies. The interplay between fundamental research
and more applied work seems healthy and beneficial, and something Vanderbilt
should encourage, or at least not discourage.
Luke Froeb
3/22/04
1. The old policy was wise and there is no real need to change it.
2. Graduate students should not be allowed to participate in classified
research under any circumstances, because the results of classified
research cannot possibly be used in their dissertations, as they cannot
be freely discussed with their thesis committee members, published,
or used during public defense of their thesis. As far as individual
and academic freedom is concerned, this prohibition is a lesser evil,
i.e., this limitation of their freedom is minimal and a lot less detrimental
than the limitations their participation in classified research would
entail.
Vsevolod V. Gurevich, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology
3/22/04
Given the talents on this campus, I wholeheartedly endorse the concept
of undertaking classified research with the limitations noted in this
document. Further as a citizen I see real benefit in having such projects
developed using scholarly input from academia.
Diana Marver, PhD
Assoc Prof, VUMC Medical Admin
3/22/04
Vanderbilt faculty are involved in various types of research that have
the potential to help improve national security. To participate fully
in some of these research programs, it is necessary to be able to handle
classified information. However, most of the information generated as
part of classified programs is typically unclassified; often only a
small fraction of the information cannot be published. I believe that
it is advisable to allow classified research after appropriate review,
taking into account conditions in the specific research discipline under
consideration. Full participation in national security-related research
has the potential to increase Vanderbilt's national visibility and may
in some cases lead to new opportunities in related, but unclassified,
research areas.
Ron Schrimpf
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science Department
3/22/04
"Classified research" is not compatible with
the scientific values espoused by the university nor the widely accepted
ethics of modern scientific research mandated, for example, by the IRB.
In both instances, science and ethics, we insist upon transparent, open
and free scientific and public debate of research designs, findings
and interpretations. Since the horrors visited upon syphilis victims
by the Tuskegee case, the Nazi "experiments" on human beings,
and other examples of clandestine research, to the extent that research
is not characterized by transparent, open and free scientific and public
scrutiny it has no place in the university.
Moreover, the very notion of "classified research" in incompatible
with a core value of the university community: academic freedom. To
the extent that scientists or other scholars are constrained in the
dissemination, discussion or debate of the nature and results of their
investigations by the political precepts of the administration of the
moment, they are in violation of the academic freedom of their colleagues.
William L. Partridge
Professor of Human and Organizational Development and Professor of Anthropology
