Erica P. Johnson

New US visa restrictions, prompted by fears of renewed terrorist attacks, present a dilemma to people in science: How does the government guarantee the public safety and yet sustain the free exchange of research and researchers? Many observers say post-Sept. 11 limitations have already put scientific research at risk. Visas are harder to get and sometimes denied. Federal grants arrive with strings attached--restricted participation by researchers from overseas. And some academics fear more of them will pursue careers elsewhere, draining the country of some of its brightest minds and compromising the role of the United States as a leader in scientific ideas and discovery.

"A lot of these students make tremendous impacts on the United States," says Steven Hoch, dean of International Programs at the University of Iowa, where federal authorities last fall refused at least 51 student visas. "They give a tremendous boost to our economy and to our research," says Hoch. "They wind up with jobs that we can't attract Americans for. These are very critical areas where we are losing students, and it could be a very serious problem for American universities."

CONSTRICTED BUDGETS The tighter reins have already influenced research decisions at some institutions. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology last fall rejected a $400,000 (US) computer science grant from the National Security Agency because the agency wanted to screen researchers--presumably to weed out those who might be terrorists--before letting them join the unclassified project. Not every university can spurn federal grants, though. Nevertheless, others balk at government demands to review federally funded research before it is published or publicly discussed. Government has long had authority to impose such restrictions, but the practice is becoming increasingly common since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Rep. Ralph Hall (D-Texas), ranking member on the House Science Committee, worries that if more prestigious colleges refuse federal money for similar reasons, scientific research could be hampered. "[Hall's] position is that prestigious universities with researchers who can do work in areas important for national security should take into account the importance to the nation of doing such research, and perhaps reconsider what their policies are," says a House Science Committee consultant who asked not to be named.

John Marburger, President Bush's science adviser, told Hall's committee last October that scientists must adjust to extra security if the country hopes to deter terrorists. But the "vast majority" of information would remain public, he added. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, says his agency also is deliberating on the role of international researchers in US science. "We do understand that there's a need for security [restrictions]," Zerhouni said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February. "We do not want those to be an imposition on global research or the role of the United States. ... It's a fine balance."

There is little doubt that, since Sept. 11, 2001, fewer scientists are coming to the United States to study or conduct research. In 2002, the United States granted 253,841 visas to visiting scholars, researchers, teachers, and speakers; about 8,000 less than were granted in 2001. The State Department gave 234,322 visas to undergraduate and graduate students in 2002, down by nearly 60,000 from the previous year.

TAPPED LABS If such declines continue, experts say, the country's research institutes will begin to suffer. The most immediate casualty will be the diversity that scholars from abroad bring to this country--whether it's their skills with a second language or the views they bring from another culture. In addition, the pace of research could slow down. Some experts are convinced that research institutes will suffer a brain drain that could hamper the quality of research and eventually hinder US competitiveness. One Chinese student at University of Iowa says he already knows several colleagues who remain overseas because their visas were delayed or denied.

"We believe the US has vast graduate research [opportunities], but if students don't come here, the education level will definitely come down," says Xiang Chang, a 27-year-old biomedical engineering doctoral student. The gap left by such students who pursue careers elsewhere is not likely to be filled domestically, experts say. The pay for postdoctoral researchers or fellows at American institutes can be low. And the cost of living in cities with cutting-edge institutes, such as Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, can be prohibitively high. "We have folks who've spent eight years in school, and ... when they come here to do a postdoctoral project, and to make a name for themselves, it can be difficult to survive on the wages," says Debbie Fountain, special programs manager for the National Cancer Institute's Office of Management.

Postdocs from abroad, on the other hand, are more willing to put up with the long hours and low pay, says Norman Matloff, a professor at Harvard University's College of Engineering, who estimates that many research fellows earn $20,000 to $35,000 a year. But Matloff also takes a cynical view. "You will be told by many people with huge personal vested interests that the loss of the foreign[-born] graduate students and researchers would be devastating," Matloff says. "Without the easy availability of students and researchers from abroad, universities would be forced to pay much better salaries."

Fountain counters that institutes are genuinely worried about the implications for research and for scientists. "A lot of times [they] don't have the opportunities in their country to work on things that are up-to-date, or cutting edge," says Fountain, whose institute each year hosts 700 or more postdoctoral training fellows from overseas.

US State Department officials defend the new restrictions, citing discussions with academics aimed at developing fair immigration policies. "We're still looking for ways that we can improve the management of this work," says Stuart Patt, spokesman for the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs. We recognize there are some inconveniences, but it's at the cost of national security."

FRAGILE RELATIONS Others point out that the government must perform a delicate balancing act, one not helped by the new Department of Homeland Security struggling to get off the ground, nor by an Immigration and Naturalization Service notorious for inefficiency and now in transition--its duties to be split between the newly created Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security. Robert Leiken, director of the Immigration and National Security Program at the Nixon Center, a conservative DC think tank, attributes the broad security precautions to the inability of US spy agencies to cope with the post-Cold War world. "The CIA is so far behind the curve in adjusting to this new world," Leiken says. "When you don't have [adequate] intelligence, you have to use a kind of meat cleaver. And so they are doing things that are going to hurt innocent people."

Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies, says he understands it would be tragic if true geniuses--the future Nobel Prize winners and the undiscovered Einsteins--never came to the United States, or were hindered once they were here, because of post-Sept. 11 restrictions. But, he adds, both the US government and US academics should be more selective. "What we see is all these people going into English programs and community colleges and clogging up the system and making it extremely difficult to design a well-functioning process for genuinely outstanding talents," he says. "There aren't that many Einsteins floating around out there. But there are some, and we need to limit the number of slots available for people who really are going to benefit the US in a significant way."

Dana Wilkie (dana.wilkie@copleydc.com) is a freelance writer in Washington, DC.