WASHINGTON, DC—A growing body of evidence suggests that policies resulting from post–September 11 security measures are having a negative impact on scientific research in the United States, according to speakers at an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting last Friday (April 23).

“To win the war on terror, we may lose our scientific preeminence,” warned David Heyman, director of the Homeland Security Program's Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Widely reported visa delays and restrictions have been among the concerns. John J. McGowan, director of the Division of Extramural Activities at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, pointed to the Council of Graduate Schools Survey, released in March, which reported that graduate school applications from international students declined 32% in the last year. Based on responses from 113 graduate schools, the survey reported that all major countries of origin and all major fields saw declines.

Roughly 50% of the graduate schools reported declines in applications for programs in agriculture or the biological sciences, according to the survey. Almost 80% of graduate schools reported decreases in international applications for graduate engineering programs, and 65% reported declines in physical sciences.

In a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell wrote that in terms of visas, “we are not yet where we want to be, but we are committed to efficiently facilitating the travel of students, scholars, and all other legitimate travelers.” He said that that they recently increased to 1 year “the validity of the clearance granted to certain some scientists and scholars who participate in joint-research programs.” Powell concluded, “When scientists hold conferences in other countries, we lose their brainpower for our institutions.” (Colin L. Powell, Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2004).

Increasingly onerous regulations inhibiting the free flow of scientific information are also a concern, said Alice P. Gast, vice president for research and associate provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She quoted from a report from the Council on Government Relations and the Association of American Universities, released in early April, titled Restrictions on Research Awards: Troublesome Clauses. The report, which surveyed 20 institutions, analyzed 138 instances in which research awards included restrictive language referring to publication or the sharing of information with foreign nationals.

In a few cases, universities dropped awards because of restrictive language. More often, universities attempted to negotiate the language, which, according to the report, was sometimes a burdensome process that delayed funding, often for several months. The report recommended more careful adherence to the spirit of National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD 189). Issued in the mid 1980s and reaffirmed in November 2001 by Condoleeza Rice, NSDD 189 assured that “no restriction may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification, except as provided in applicable US statutes.”

The report also suggests that funding agencies making awards distinguish between basic and applied work done at universities, and “commercialization work” in industry that may be more prone to restrictions. Restrictive government “export controls” on sharing everything from information to equipment to biomaterials with foreign nationals and overseas collaborators are also a growing concern, said Gast. Though in existence for many years, these regulations are causing a higher level of scrutiny since the events of September 11, she said.