Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Science

Scientific Research Encountering More Restrictions 537

Posted by michael from the death-ray dept.
vab writes "MSNBC is running an article that details how the MIT AI Lab, the birth place of the free software movement, walked away from a $404K study because the government wanted to restrict participation by foreign students. The article talks about further restrictions the US Government is trying to impose in the name of homeland security and how other research institutions are reacting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientific Research Encountering More Restrictions More

Scientific Research Encountering More Restrictions

Comments Filter:

  • Foreign students (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:51AM (#5005927)
    I'm glad MIT did the right thing and walked away from this study. It is although somewhat difficult to tell whether they did this out of a principled stand or if they did it simply because they have so many foreign students that they wouldn't be able to pull it off unless they used them. That quite possibly could be the case.

    There's no reason to believe that some college student from Hong Kong is a terrorist. Sure there are some terrorists out there, but I doubt they're sweating their midterms at some university. To deny foreigners the ability to work on some stuff isn't just slightly racist, it's outrageously stupid since there are some unbelievably bright people who come to the US from other places for school.

    In the financial services industry, most people have to be bonded - that is the FBI gets your fingerprints and they do some sort of rudimentary background check on you. Would that placate the "homeland security" wolves? At any rate, it would be more information on foreign students than they have on most Americans.

    Sometimes I think that homeland security is the process of a bunch of people staring at a collander and trying to decide which hole to patch first. Sure it's possible to keep the total morons from pullling off something big (or burning you in the same way they did before) but how many people out there really think that with anything less than a fascist state, it's possible to secure the country against someone whose well funded, clever, and out to get the US?

    • Re:Foreign students (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anne_Nonymous ( 313852 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:56AM (#5005973) Homepage Journal
      >> It is although somewhat difficult to tell whether they did this out of a principled stand or if they did it simply because they have so many foreign students that they wouldn't be able to pull it off unless they used them.

      According to a nice inverview on NPR this morning, it was the principal of the thing.

      http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/index.html

      (I don't think there's a direct link yet this morning)

    • Re:Foreign students (Score:5, Insightful)

      by burNtchicken ( 636861 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:02AM (#5006051)
      The trend is disturbing, and in one specific sense I think you're right. They're trying to patch holes, or alleviate symptons, instead of attacking the source of the problem. Is anyone in government asking what the source is?
      If a bunch of people are out to get the U.S., then why are they doing it? With all the anti-U.S. sentiment that I hear in some discussion groups, are we doing something wrong?
      It's not that we shouldn't patch holes in our security, because we should. It just seems to me that nobody is addressing the policies of our country which have made us a target. Maybe we're doing something wrong, and maybe we're not, but nobody in the government is bothering to ask.
      It's like we're the automatic moral authority.

      • Re:Foreign students (Score:4, Funny)

        by kin_korn_karn ( 466864 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:08AM (#5006099) Homepage
        the position of the government is this:

        "We're right. Why? Because. Don't make me invade you! Nyah"

      • Re:Foreign students (Score:5, Insightful)

        by plugger ( 450839 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:20AM (#5006239) Homepage

        Very insightful, but when you say 'Maybe we're doing something wrong', you make the same mistake as those who hate Americans. You, and most of your compatriots, are doing nothing wrong. It's your government's policies which are causing anger abroad.

        I'm at work at the moment, so I won't explore the idea that apathetic populations are responsible for their government's excesses. That isn't a dig at the USA btw, I live in the UK and we're quickly catching up with your country's low voter turnout and general disinterest in the things done in our name.

        • Re:Foreign students (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:43AM (#5006438)
          You don't have to explore the idea. I know that populations are responsible for their government's policies. Unfortunately, while it can be attributed partially to apathy, there is a general feeling here that there is nothing we can do about our governments problems (ie. corruption, etc.) Like it's more or less too big and out of our control.

          I unfortunately, am just peeking out of my hole and beginning to educate myself on what I can do about the problems with my government. And I'd have to say it's rather intimidating, and I don't think most people are up to the task. Most of us feel free to bitch about our government, but not really do anything. Nobody really cares that much.

          I know personally that for most of my life I've been content to work to pay the bills, and screw off (Watch TV, play video games, go to a bar, whatever). Most people I know are the same. I've met a good amount of people in my life, and I don't know one person that does more than vote occasionally. Nobody even writes their representatives. I mean, I'm sure people do, but I've never met those people.

          In my, albiet limited, experience, the mindset of this country is not one of concern in how our country turns out, or what we can do to make sure that it stays a worthwhile place to live for ourselves, and future generations. The mindset is generally more selfish.
          • So you're saying you're apathetic about apathy?

            Millions of us do vote, and almost exactly half of those who voted did not choose this President, nor were they apathetic about their choice.

            Voting is technically irrational, that is, the benefits do not outweigh the trouble of doing it. But as the last election demonstrated, sometimes it's a good thing to be irrational. (OK, Florida sort of showed that your vote does AND doesn't count, but do show up. :)

            BTW, an easy way to get involved is to simply donate some money to one of the many orgainzations that worry about watching gov't 24/7, or merely doing good things where gov't does not. They won't think you're apathetic.

            And even arguing here is political involvement...

      • Re:Foreign students (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ErikZ ( 55491 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:55AM (#5006518)

        What if it's because we're doing something RIGHT? What if by accepting the best and brightest from all over the world, we're leaving these heavily armed countries with the dregs of humanity?

      • Re:Foreign students (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tassii ( 615268 )
        If a bunch of people are out to get the U.S., then why are they doing it? With all the anti-U.S. sentiment that I hear in some discussion groups, are we doing something wrong?

        But what if we aren't? (We are going out of our way to piss people off btw, but the argument must go both ways.) Sometimes you just have to face up to the fact that some people need to hate. The Nazi's did it in WWII, the Taliban did it until we stepped in and most terrorist organizations are doing it as we speak. Yes, many of these organizations started with a principle and a goal, but too quickly those that thrived on hate rose in power and soon the message was tossed out the window and hate took over. Look at the Islamic Jihad in Palestine. If the Israelis split their country down the middle and created the Palestinian State, they would still find a reason for suicide bombers to go into Israel, even tho their proported purpose has been accomplished. The leaders thrive on the hate and see no reason to give up their personal power just because a little thing like peace tried to break out.

        It's not that we shouldn't patch holes in our security, because we should. It just seems to me that nobody is addressing the policies of our country which have made us a target. Maybe we're doing something wrong, and maybe we're not, but nobody in the government is bothering to ask.

        That's because the people in power here as well are thriving on conflict. Lets face it, if it wasn't for Sept 11 and the following "war on terrorism", GW's approval rating would be in the toilet. That's one of the reason's that the Iraq thing has 'suddenly' become so important. Those in power need something to distract us from the porblems at home. What politian said "Nothing like a nice little war to distract the people from the real problems"?

      • Re:Foreign students (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Melantha_Bacchae ( 232402 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @12:54PM (#5006975)
        burNtchicken wrote:

        > They're trying to patch holes, or alleviate
        > symptons, instead of attacking the source of the
        > problem. Is anyone in government asking what the
        > source is?

        Nope. Our fearless leader listens to his political advisors, but not his policy advisors. So he, and the rest of the government, fixes perceived holes and symptoms, as the people stampede in panic (driven on by the media), and people like Ashcroft and Poindexter try to use the stampede to further their little power trip.

        Three women, wise, courageous, and loving, dared to speak out. If they had been listened to, part of 911 could have been averted, and Enron and Worldcom could have pulled out of their nose dives, lives and fortunes could have been saved. But no one listened, and now it is far too late.

        > If a bunch of people are out to get the U.S.,
        > then why are they doing it? With all the
        > anti-U.S. sentiment that I hear in some
        > discussion groups, are we doing something wrong?

        Al Qaeda is run by a madman, they don't need reasons to hate anybody. As for the rest, try reading some foreign newspapers (many have English versions on the web), and they will give you an earful. Everything from Iraq, to our position on Israel (and supplying the weapons they use to kill kids), to the misbehavior of our troups in the many places they are stationed (South Korea is furious over one of our vehicles running into two of their girls), to our general stance as the world's greatest bully (er, superpower). Our nation may be founded on great ideals, but we aren't exactly measuring up to them these days.

        > It's not that we shouldn't patch holes in our
        > security, because we should.

        We can't. Even if we became a totalitarian regime, the country is just too big, we don't have the money, and it would disrupt our infrastructure too badly. We could have fixed the existing communications problems and upgraded the FBI's computers, but that would have been too boring to get funding for.

        "Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
        When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power."
        Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

      • Re:Foreign students (Score:5, Insightful)

        by irix ( 22687 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @12:55PM (#5006980) Journal

        If a bunch of people are out to get the U.S., then why are they doing it?

        The U.S. is the world's superpower. The only country with economic strength and the ability to project military power. People are going to hate you because:

        1. The U.S took the other side in some international dispute.
        2. They resent their culture being pushed aside by U.S. pop culture.
        3. They are jealous of the standard of living in the U.S.

        I think if you look you'll find that dislike of America boils down into one of those three categories. I am Canadian, and despite the fact that we have a theoretically higher standard of living, you'll find reason #2 is most likely why someone from Canada dislikes the U.S. - we know everything about American culture, they know nothing about ours.

        The problem is, when you are the world's superpower, it is hard to hide from these problems. Isolationisim was tried in the 1930s, but that didn't work out too well.

        Sure, the U.S. has made foreign policy mistakes - maybe even lots of them - but there aren't any magic solutions that will make this all go away.

        • Re:Foreign students (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LazyDawg ( 519783 ) <`lazydawg' `at' `hotmail.com'> on Friday January 03, 2003 @02:34PM (#5007776) Homepage
          Yeah, I'm a canuck too, but you missed a valuable point in your list:

          4. The Yanks keep accusing us of providing an easy way-in to their country for terrorists and undesirables.

          Like, my God, when are they going to notice/remember that EVERY SINGLE ACT OF TERRORISM on the US has come from within their own borders? Remember Tim McVeigh? He was a Yank. Remember the crazy hijackers from November the Ninth 2001? They were living for quite some time in the States, if not full-blown Yanks themselves.

          And here's another point you missed:

          5. Yanks' economic domination of all of their neighbours and big trading partners.

          There's something very upsetting about having to well oil for the Yanks up here, then sell it to the States, then buy back processed oil products from the States again. Our fresh water is not our own, our trees and minerals aren't ours. I'd be a lot less upset at our neighbours to the south if they weren't so freaking colonial.

          Eventually, I hope, countries with some economic power over the States band together and say "fsck you, America!" and stop making losing trades with them, in spite of all the economic treaties we've signed.

      • Nail. Head. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PatientZero ( 25929 )
        If a bunch of people are out to get the U.S., then why are they doing it? . . . are we doing something wrong?

        The short version is that with WW2 the US swapped places with the UK. The US provoked Japan into attacking it, as 80% of Americans didn't want to enter the war, because it saw that Japan was quickly building its own empire. Industrialization had been going strong in the US for a century, and the capitalists needed markets in which to sell products. The US came out of the war with a built-up industrial base, and an excuse to build military bases throughout the globe. Europe was decimated, leaving America the world's only superpower.

        Since that time, we've worked to expand our economic sphere, as empires are wont to do, throughout Asia and South America. Through the CIA, the US has sponsored and/or outright led several military coups: Chile, Indonesia, Guatemala, Panama, and many more. The latest -- failed! [narconews.com] -- attempt was Venezuela this past April.

        Why would the US do this? Do Americans hate other people? Of course not. That assumes that Americans make choices which affect the US's foreign policy. I certainly wasn't asked about whether or not I wanted to overthrow the overwhelmingly democratically-elected president of Venezuela. But Venezuela controls a lot of oil, and capital needs oil (resources). So capital made that choice for me. Can you think of another country that controls a lot of oil? Hint: it starts with "I" and ends in "raq."

        The fairy tale that terrorists hate all of our freedoms is so amazingly idiotic, I'm shocked that anyone buys into it. Yes, that's a sad statement on our citizens. Do you really think bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere thinking, "Stupid Americans! Why can't I have my MTV?! I'm so jealous." No, he's pissed because the US has military bases in what he believes to be the holy land of all Muslim people (over a billion world-wide). Whether or not we stop supporting Israel (his other beef), I think we at the very least should pull out of Saudi Arabia just to appease one sixth of the world's population. That's just common sense if not common courtesy.

        It's easy to get cynical or give up when you look upon the world stage and see what the US does to other countries and peoples (1.5 million dead in Iraq due to economic sanctions). I just hope that by talking with others we can wake up enough people to take back control of the country. How? I wish I knew, but I'm convinced it's not going to happen through the ballot box.

        You can go read any number of political essays and books yourself, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that our touted two-party system is not really a one-party system: the capital party. No, I'm not socialist or communist, though those systems haven't really been tried in the real world. I've been reading more about anarchy [anarchy.org]* and know that, once we stop hating each other for silly reasons, it's the way to go. The only question is can we get there?

        Me? I'm actually hopeful.

        * If you think Anarchy means mob rule or no order, you don't understand anarchy. Neither did I. Start skimming the FAQ, but the basic tenant is that you are a sovereign individual and should not be giving up your power to anyone.

        P.S. For a good history of the US, I highly recommend A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Preset [amazon.com] by Howard Zinn. I'm only up to the Civil War (and the other Civil War), but it's very good so far.

    • Bully for MIT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:44AM (#5006441) Homepage
      If the gov't wants security checks, and in some cases that's reasonable (remember all the military work MIT has done, most famously during WWII), that should get them on EVERYONE. Stop this xenophobic insult now.

      Aside from the philosophical problem with accused foreign citizens mindlessly, need we remind the NSA of all the wonderful homegrown dangers we have managed to grow in the U.S., from Timothy McVeigh (& Nichols) to the Unabomber to the Columbine shooters to John Walker Lindh to this DC sniper bastard Muhammed, and that's just the last ten years. And and those are just the killers; don't forget double agents Aldrich Ames (CIA) and Robert Philip Hanssen (FBI). Even if you are sympathetic to some of these, consider the rest.

      My argument is that if you're going to be paranoid, do be equal opportunity about it out of respect for logic and fair play. Look in your own backyard.

      • homegrown terrorists (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zogger ( 617870 )
        --I'm more concerned over home grown terrorist like robert mcnamara, henry kissinger,both the clintons, george the elder, king george the present, rumsfield, cheney, the hierarchies in the democratic national committe and the republican national committee, the membership of the council on foreign relations, the members of the tri-lateral commission, and various criminal gangs and cartels inside the various combined workgroups of the military/industrial complex who profit from war and drug smuggling in the private sector, especially banking, and the spook, law and justice "communities".

        Hegelian dialectic is alive and working daily to bring a fascist reality to the US. It don't matter what label or name these gents go by, a dictatorship "system" that lies chronically, steals everything that ain't nailed down, and uses their positions for personal and secret profit are way more of a danger than anything else.

        Now this viewpoint doesn't negate the possibility and probability of various other foreigners being up to "no good". I take that as a gimme as well. It's reality, there ARE foreign bad guys here and also domestic low level independent nutjobs. We got a population of around 270 million or so, law of averages comes into play. I just think it's better to have th.. ..list to reflect more serious potential threats and dangers, to go down to slightly less serious,to less serious and so on. History has shown just over and over again that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the history of the 20th century shows that citizens of various countries around this ole whirrled have a much higher odds-on probability of being exploited/murdered/enslaved by their own governments and "connected ones" then by "outsiders". For every person killed by a "foreign invader" in the 20th century, there's 5 to 10 killed by their own nation's power structure once they became absolute tyrants.

        IMO, having watched politics and "current events/news/history" as a major interest since the late 50's/early 60's, I'd say that the US has well more than it's "fair share" of power mad dictators or dictator wannabe's,from the very highest levels to local levels, very public to very private, governmental and business, and it's official pronouncements have been full of lies and misdirections.

        Just since I've been a teenager I've watched *someones* get away with whacking a president-JFK, to starting a decades long war-for-profit based on a total lie -nam war with the gulf of tonkin fairy tale, to shafting it's own vets -agent orange was a "myth" and "all in their heads", and gulf war syndrome was "in their heads", to experimenting on their own people by aerial and ground spreading of chemical, bioliogical and radiological agents-something they denied for years and finally admitted. And so forth and on and on, way too many examples to list. Heck just the federal reserve perpetual debt note scam is big enough to prove how much people get lied to and brainweashed into believing the lies.

        The gestalt is-the old cliche is true, for a basic rule of thumb, when a politician's lips are moving..well, take it with several large handfuls of salt. Right now, IMO again, we are being lead down the dictatorship path with lies much more deep and sinister than minor accounting lies at enron, and those were large enough. That's chump change to what's really going on now with this "war on terrorism".

        Anyone's MMV obviously, just fool me once, shame on you, fool me 4873 times, shame on me. Learn from history or repeat it, binary choice.

  • the beginning (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bivouac_2000 ( 253526 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:51AM (#5005933)
    Unfortunately, though, I think this is only the beginning of the government asking for some national exclusivity when it comes to research projects. And, I think it will eventually spread it's way into the private sector. It's sad, really.

    • Re:the beginning (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MeanMF ( 631837 )
      But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance

      They don't care about national exclusivity, they just want to run background checks on foreign students to make sure none of them were hanging out in Osama's camps before starting to work on the projects.
    • What you're describing sounds eerily like the way a certain Fatherland handled corporations and such back in the 30s/40s.

      Draw your own conclusions.

  • In MIT (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TimeReliesOnLadyLuck ( 634991 )
    Federal funding controls the research, evidentally.
    • Federal funding controls the research, evidentally.

      I think America has reached a point where the private sector can fund a lot of research on its own. Except for may be military applications most of the research can be done private sector. So the only way I see feds controlling the research is through "regulations" and not funds.

      • Um, no. If by the private sector you mean "corporations", that's absolutely wrong- American corporations are (usually) not especially good at basic research (Bell Labs being the exception that proves the rule). Or if you mean "private funding", you're also wrong- there isn't much of it. Certainly for biomedical research the bulk of funding comes from government agencies, and the overwhelming majority of basic research is being done with this money. So federal funding continues to be the lifeblood of academia.

        Case in point: my employer (big university) was recently told that they had to let JAG recruit at our law school (despite the USAF's refusal to sign a non-discrimination pledge because of "don't ask, don't tell") or lose nearly $300 million per year in federal money, almost all of which goes to our med school, and virtually none of which goes to the law school. The administration caved- they didn't have a choice.

  • This is A Good Thing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pave Low ( 566880 )
    I don't think it's unreasonable that foreign students be restricted from participating. After all, it's my tax dollars paying for this, and I would expect my government to provide for their own citizens before some foreigners who presumably will take their knowledge back to their home countries.

    Like it or not, their are things in this country we restrict non-U.S. citizens from doing, and that is a good thing. They can't work for many government agencies or contractors. They are our guests, and they shouldn't expect that we give them the keys and the kitchen sink.

    This summary is just trolling by the submitter and michael to stir some shit up.
    • A saying, from whom I can't remember: "We're all immigrants, or from families there of, we just got here at different times."

      Without foreigners, the US would not exist, and without more foreigners, it can not grow, change, or have any right to call itself the land of the free.
      • Sure we're a country of immigrants, that's hard to disagree with. But there's a difference when you have people who do not claim citizenship in a country wishing to use government funds. I agree that naturalized foreigners should have every right as a citizen born here, however visitors should not expect to have all of the benefits of a naturalized citizen.
    • The students pay for their education by working long hours on the projects. the money doesn^t pay the students but the hardware.

    • Re:This is A Good Thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by No Such Agency ( 136681 ) <abmackay@@@gmail...com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:16AM (#5006196)
      They are our guests, and they shouldn't expect that we give them the keys and the kitchen sink.

      No, it's more like "they're your guests, and you won't let them help you do the dishes because you're afraid they might steal the silverware, despite having no evidence at all to suggest they would". Yes, I'm stretching the metaphor but I feel it had to be said. "Foreign" does not equal "future terrorist" any more (or any less) than "U.S. citizen" does. We've forgotten McVeigh and Nichols *so* quickly. And the anthrax mailer remains mysteriously at large...

    • The problem is that if all research funds require no foreign citizens at all, then there are consequences that will backfire very badly, such as:

      1. It will decimate the number of graduate students.

      Note that there is a significant portion of foreign graduate students, most of which are hanging about the funds for their TAs or RAs. Cutting their funds simply send them fleeing.

      2. This will in turn bring many research projects ground to halt.

      Since there are a lot less graduate students, researches will ultimately understaffed, and thus will bring it to halt. Of course this will recover as the animo from US students to continue to graduate studies grows.

      3. This makes other countries advance in their research.

      See #1. Lots of other countries like Germany, Australia, UK, and so on still use foreign grad students to do research. Not to mention if China will follow the same path.

      • Not to mention if China will follow the same path.

        How likely do you think it is that China will become a mecca for foreign grad students in the way that the USA is? Maybe 20 years from now if there are massive changes, but it is not likely to happen in the near future.

        Out of curiosity, where are you from? Are you a foriegn student studying in the US?

    • WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I am applying to grad school, and currently work with scientists from all over the world. Without the huge number of talented foreigners who come to the US to study science, our nation's system of basic research- probably the best in the world- would be fucked. Read through any issue of a top-ranking biomedical journal, find every article written at an American institution, and see how few of them lack any conspicuously foreign (usually Chinese) name.

      There is nothing wrong with reasonable security measures; the story doesn't tell enough for anyone to judge whether the NSA was being more paranoid than normal. However, to suggest that the US should look out for US students first is shortsighted and ignorant. The reason we have so many foreign students is because kids here don't want to go to grad school- they want to go to law school, med school, or simply get rich. I was a biology major at an Ivy League school, and very few of the other biology majors in my class intended to go to grad school.

      The NIH (and others) do not pay for fellowships for foreign students and postdocs, which is appropriate. What you're suggesting, however, seems to be that the NIH should give priority to projects that are led 100% by American citizens. That's, like, almost none of them.

  • Case in point: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slalderma ( 631395 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:56AM (#5005978)
    I was a grad student at Texas Tech until a few months ago and one of my prof.s had funding from US DOD to study dispersion of chem./bio. warfare agents. The project was multi-year and for 90% of the project, no foreign national was allowed to work on it. That was finally overturned, however, mainly because there weren't enough Americans to work on it.

    The project was new just before Sept. 11th and I'm not sure I can blame them for their restrictions at the time. I think they finally figured out that, at least in this case, it didn't matter who worked on the project. It wasn't going to propogate information about how to make delivery agents more effective, just how they interact with urban, rural, etc. environments.

    That and Lubbock isn't a hotbed for terrorists if you know what I mean. Cow-tippers, yes. Foreign spies, no.
    • That was finally overturned, however, mainly because there weren't enough Americans to work on it.

      You make a great point. Graduate students actually represent a significant part of the labor pool in academic science - they are not just trainees, but they also do a large fraction of the actual work. As mentioned in the article, about half of the graduate students in the US working in physical sciences are not US citizens. In other words, without foreign students it'll take twice as long to get the work done. I'll bet that it's a similar fraction for biological sciences and for postdoctoral researchers (another class of "trainees") as well.

      By and large, US citizens are simply not as interested in getting into science. Most grad students get pretty jaded when they see that a career as an academic research investigator is frequently less about the science itself and more about politics and nonsense related to obtaining research funding. People who don't truly love the science and can put up with this kind of rat race usually wind up in more lucrative careers.

    • That and Lubbock isn't a hotbed for terrorists if you know what I mean. Cow-tippers, yes. Foreign spies, no.
      I guess you've never read The Cobweb [sfsite.com] by Stephen Bury (pen name for Neal Stephenson when he writes with his uncle). BTW, it's not a great book, definitely not as good as their previous book, Interface [ooblick.com]. Interface is a hoot.
  • "I mean, the government wants to just "check" research so that no one can use it as a weapon... as an upstanding American who loves his country AND science, I see nothing wrong with that. After all... America owns science that it creates... just look at all the patents."

    "Ya pinkos."

    (Quickly scurries into patented asbestos-lined flamewar bunker, and braces for incoming fire)

  • Bravo!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by byron150 ( 124304 ) <jpturcotte@@@elysiancomputers...com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:57AM (#5005991)
    I for one congratulate MIT!!! It was a bold move to stand up to something as blatantly wrong as what the government was trying to do. Security must not be gained at the sacrifice of our morals. What does that say about us as a society, our nation who claims to lead all others in progressive thought. We welcomed these people to our land when no other country would take them. France gave us a statue embodying the princple. Now we want to send them away because we think all people of a race would also wish us harm. Extremists come from all races, and someday a white female American will do something terribly destructive which will result in the loss of thousands of lives. What will happen then? The government steps in and calms us down and tells us that we can't trust each other and will therefore take away every personal freedom we have in the name of making us secure? I'll spend a cold day in hell before I allow that to happen to me. So yeah, GO MIT!!!!

    • Re:Bravo!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KludgeGrrl ( 630396 )
      There is also a more pragmatic reason to applaud MIT's decision, namely that research universities (and please note, I'm not referring to *all* colleges and universities) ought to try to attract the very best minds in order to have the very best programmes.

      It is not merely the professors and texts that comprise an education, but the interaction of the students' minds. By limiting the students on the basis of geographic origins (this discussion of "race" that has slipped in seems sloppy) the university will limit the quality of education for all its students. Period. And that would be a bad thing.
    • There was NOTHING wrong with what the Government did. The UNITED STATES Government has a right to take care of it's own citizens first. MIT should be ashamed of itself for turning away Americans from the position it gave foriegn students! This has nothing to do with personal freedom. The US Government is funding the money, and they have a right to decide who works on it. If MIT doesn't like it, then they will lose MONEY and grants. They will change their tune when they start losing a lot of research money!
      I think the Government should make a law prohibiting Colleges and Universities from taking any foriegn students when there are American students who want the education--especially when financial aid is concerned! They need to be putting Americans first--not the other way around.
      It's a sad day when MIT doesn't have enough American students to do research. MIT should be ashamed of itself that they turn down Americans and take foriegn students, who leave the US, to be educated ahead of American students!!!!

  • This could be useful for tenure review (Score:5, Funny)

    by vaxer ( 91962 ) <sylvar&vaxer,net> on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:58AM (#5006003) Homepage
    I can see it now...

    The committee has noticed that you don't appear to have published any research in the last five years. Is that really so?

    Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you all.


    Yes, I've definitely got to get me one of them Real Genius grants.

  • Really? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Izang ( 569135 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @10:59AM (#5006018)
    MSNBC says: "But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance, forcing the school to turn down the money in September, Powell said." You say: "MSNBC is running an article that details how the MIT AI Lab, the birth place of the free software movement, walked away from a $404K study because the government wanted to restrict participation by foreign students." Sounds like they are just checking for ties to terrorists. Where does it say that foreign students are restricted from participating?

    • Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)

      by byron150 ( 124304 )
      He actually quoted the tagline for the article, when reading the article later you find out that they simply wanted to screen them. I don't like it much better then total restriction but if you want to blame someone, blame MSNBC for attempting to get your attention by misleading you initially.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:26AM (#5006293) Homepage

      restrict [reference.com]: To keep or confine within limits.

      Limit, not absolutely prohibit.

      NSA screening would deny access to some people based on the probability of them being or becoming hostile. What criteria would the NSA use to determine whether to label each student "potential terrorist"? Would that be open to scrutiny or appeal?

      Seems pretty limiting to me, at least in principle, and that's the position under discussion.

  • We have to be more careful about who is using the information being worked on by scientists. Though it is critical that the study/data be released so that others can improve on that work, it is also critical that information not fall into the wrong hands. Imagine China/Pakistan/North Korea having satellite technology 20 yrs ago. It would have been a very different world. I think restrictions are necessary now-a-days.

    • Re:In a post September 11, 2001 world... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mark_lybarger ( 199098 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:03AM (#5006058)
      slow down there cowboy... when i grew up, i learned that people kill people. then somewhere along the way, that's been converted into guns kill people. and now you want us to believe that information kills people?

      i have got to get into a new line of work!

    • Re:In a post September 11, 2001 world... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot@org.gmail@com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:08AM (#5006102) Homepage Journal
      >Imagine China/Pakistan/North Korea having satellite technology 20 yrs ago. It would have been a very different world.

      Yes, imagine it. Satellites would finally be cheap enough today that one of the many freedom groups in China could afford to put one up in the air and the PRC would finally get its eyes opened up. Wouldn't it be nice!
    • Though it is critical that the study/data be released so that others can improve on that work, it is also critical that information not fall into the wrong hands. Imagine China/Pakistan/North Korea having satellite technology 20 yrs ago.

      Yeah. Like, imagine if someone had gone to Afghanistan 20 years ago and taught a bunch of insane fanatics to build bombs.

      Or someone had sold poison gas-making technology to mad Iraqi dictators.

      But that would NEVER happen, would it?

  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeanMF ( 631837 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:02AM (#5006048) Homepage
    But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance

    They didn't want to restrict anybody from working on anything - they just wanted to run backround checks on non-citizens working on the projects. Is that really such a big deal??

    • Re:RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)

      by byron150 ( 124304 )
      Hey buddy RFTL(Read The Fucking Tagline) MSNBC's catch line for the article said exactly what the poster did. True he should have read it first and then posted his story, but really I blame MSNBC for instigating it just to catch readers attention.
  • The bottom line is that if you take someone's money - the government's, a corporation's, a foundation's, etc - you are implicitly or explicitly agreeing to the strings attached. Seldom is there a "free lunch". If there is money being offered, there is usually a reason why. I'm not entitled to have free money come raining down on me. Why should a wealthy institution like MIT? They know the game.

    If I offer the FSF a $20,000 grant to develop a "Foo" software package for me, provided they design it how I want, the FSF is certainly free to turn that money down and do their own thing (or do without a Foo package). But that doesn't make me an evil man for asking the FSF to write a program that meets my needs if I give them a donation to do so. Similarly for the government.

  • In a related story (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:08AM (#5006101) Journal
    Theodore Postel is also winning some points on his concerns about technology snafus under the guise of national security. Check out this story:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-530647,0 0.html [timesonline.co.uk]

    • The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is considering an investigation into accusations that fundamental flaws in the proposed "Son of Star Wars" system have been covered up.

      After months of demanding an inquiry into the affair, Ed Crawley, the chairman of MIT's aeronautics and astronautics department, has reversed previous refusals and recommended an investigation.

      The issue in question goes to the heart of missile defence technology, an article of faith among many Republicans and a key plank in Mr Bush's 2000 presidential manifesto.

      Dr Postol and fellow critics say the ability of an interceptor missile to distinguish between an incoming warhead and the decoys likely to accompany it is deeply suspect. Any such doubts would cripple the credibility of the system.

    Again, all as a matter of national security, and which did not make a splash stateside. The story at the link is much more detailed.

    So what is the government going to do about this outbreak of integrity in the halls of learning?

  • Sounds familiar. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:09AM (#5006118) Homepage Journal

    2003: You must use Americans for this important work.

    1941:You must use blonde haired, blue eyed Germans for this important work.
  • President Bush signed a law last summer prohibiting students from countries considered sponsors of terrorism from working with germs and toxins most likely to be used for bioterrorism.

    I'm a computational biologist, but not an expert on biological weapons, by any means. Let me say at the outset: the government has no business regulating scientific inquiry. I'm sure other people will argue this point eloquently and what they may say about AI research applies to biology as well.

    It's a good idea to keep something in mind - the history of the entire field of computer science is heavily intertwined with the rise of the modern intelligence apparatus here in the US. Likewise, nuclear technology. The same is NOT true of my field (biology.)

    However, while you can use your m4d sk1llz to annoy uncle Sam, they're not really dangerous. The danger is in NCB (non-conventional) weapons:

    1) Nuclear weapons technology is already restricted up the wazoo.

    2) Chemcial weapons technology requires a great deal of industrial infrastructure. The cat is out of the bag. All sorts of foreigners know chemistry. The oil industry is incredibly secretive anyway. Government intrusion into chemical engineering is unlikely.

    3) Biological weapons are extremely difficult to make. HOWEVER, my colleagues and I are doing our best to make molecular biology as easy as possible. There's a shortage of technicians; we train people without discriminating against Pakistanis. Advances in the field make molecular biology easier, quicker, cheaper and increase your yield.

    The point is that molecular biology technology, used only once in a successful terrorist context (the Anthrax, mailed by a former Marine who had no trouble getting clearance; you know he's guilty), is POTENTIALLY the most dangerous of all. The only reason I don't need security clearance to do molecular biology is because Uncle Sam failed to get in at the ground floor - molecular biology has always been very much an international effort. Of course, US military labs remain the exception.

    So, we (biologists) need to be ready and determined to resist the intrusion of security concerns into our laboratories; the pressure to do so will be fierce.

  • America's rise as a superpower... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...was catalyzed by an influx of foreign-national brainpower from abroad during the thirties, forties, and fifties.

    Einstein was given a post at Princeton in 1930 but didn't become a citizen until 1935; Enrico Fermi didn't become a citizen until 1944, Werner von Braun didn't become a citizen until 1955...

    Meanwhile, Hitler's scientific efforts were hampered by the exclusion of Jews, doubtless for good security reasons.

    If the United States had been more cautious in monitoring the politics of scientists and more careful in security concerns, J. Robert Oppenheimer would probably not have been allowed to lead the Los Alamos project. It was certainly his personal leadership as much as Groves' that contributed to the ultimate success of that endeavor. Both Germany and Japan had scientists puttering around on atomic bombs, but only the U.S. had scientific leadership--determined to see the project culminate the production of a weapon.

    If the United States starts to discourage participation by foreign students and scientists, we abandon one of the historic sources of our leadership and risk falling behind.

  • What? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Walson ( 559696 )
    "The Justice Department demanded the right to approve before publication a study on physical abuse of college women," ~from the article

    What does this have anything to do with homeland security? I think they're getting a little paranoid if you ask me. This whole homeland security thing is based on fear. Isn't that what the terrorists want? To strike fear into the hearts of "non-belivers", make us panic and do stupid things like approving scientific studies before their released. that's censorship if you ask me. Everyone needs to calm down about all this "Osama's gonna get us" crap.

  • <rant>
    This is why you vote Democrat, and then write your senator with "I'll be keeping my gun, thank you." The change in "government" policy is simply the difference between the Clinton and GWBush administrations' respective foreign policy philosophies.

    The Clinton era policy was based on "engagement." I'm not sure where the GWBush people are coming from. The idea of engagement is that international politico-economy is improved, and so is the global politico-economic position of the US, when we get *more* involved with foreign economies. Macroeconomists talk about "growing the pie." Engagement is like growing the global pie so the US piece gets bigger too.

    GWBush policy people seem to think "we're doing just fine thank you, and we don't want you doing any better, so we're taking our ball and going home." Oh, and try to get all the arabs against Saddam Hussein (Iraq has no oil, just Mecca) because it's like destabilising islamic international relationships to destabilise OPEC strength, so that Texan and Alaskan oil barons can get invited to the price-of-energy (price-of-everything) control meetings. "If OPEC isn't about arabs, it's just about oil barons, and aren't we all in the same boat? So let's stop giving money to the blow-yourself-up mad-at-the-world poor muslim martyr-wannabes and get back to making ourselves rich and locking-in the status-quo! See: this is how WE maintain the status-quo..."
    </rant>
  • Every time we bought and installed a US made supercomputer, part of the contract insisted that we prevent access by students from a list of countries provided by the DoD.

  • ... in the Department of Defense: US citizenship is a prerequisite for doing certain types of work. And this is not a post-9/11 (how Katzian) change. Foreign nationals have been restricted in this manner since (IIRC) the Cold War - possibly longer than that.

    Besides, if the gov't is sponsoring the research, the gov't is the customer. Doesn't the customer usually have some say over what happens with deliverables, e.g. publication/distribution?
  • .. will not be over "weapons of mass destruction". It will be over oil, and then ideas. This administration WILL continue to erode rights until corporate America holds ALL the cards. We can all see this. It is time to do something about it.

    Put the chimp out the door in '04.

  • MIT is very concerned (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Pim ( 140414 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:19AM (#5006228)
    I was at an informal dinner of 40 or so MIT professors a couple weeks ago. (My landlord caters the event, and I help him out sometimes because I'm interested in the restaurant business.) The theme of discussion was the difficulty foreign students are now having getting visas to come to MIT.

    In the company of only their peers and an eavesdropping busboy, the group was candid and unguarded. Almost everyone had a story of a student who had been hindered by the stricter immegration rules. One expressed doubt that MIT could "be MIT" under these circumstances. Jerry Sussman--co-author of "the only good book on computer programming" (quote from a Slashdot favorite I won't name) and all-around brilliant and creative guy--said he's "been depressed for the last year". Man, that made me want to cry.

    This convinced me that the problem is real, that it is hampering the advancement of learning--and that it could even lead to the unseating of the US as the center of the learned world.

  • Before you agree with the US govt on this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:21AM (#5006240) Homepage
    ...pay attention to who's saying the government is wrong: Sheila Widnall. From 1993-1997, she was secretary of the Air Force, arguably the most technologically advanced of the four branches of the US military. For those not up on US government, the Secretary of the Air Force is the civilian head of the US Air Force. All the generals answered to her; she answered only to the Secretary of Defense, who answers to POTUS. She would have had authority and responsiblity for all the research funded by the Air Force, so she's seen both sides of this (though I don't know to what extent she micromanaged it).

    She makes a VERY good point that what the government should do is to determine what's classified research and what's not. It's reasonable to restrict the participation of foreign nationals in classified research, but the concern with this grant was that it was for unclassified research.

    For you cynics, note that this grant wasn't for that much money (only half a million) and was probably chosen to send a message because they didn't much want to do it anyway and it wasn't enough money to worry about.
  • Those who have the gold get to make the rules.

    If you don't like these restrictions, then get your own funding and do your own project where you get to make the rules. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with prohibiting non-US citizens from doing US research into defense initiatives.
  • and they couldn't find it for some reason...

  • If you're publishing, even if you're just verifying other's results, you're doing science. If you're keeping it to yourself, even if you're breaking new ground, you're doing research.

    It's a subtle distinction, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. And in the end, ten people doing published science benefits us more than a thousand doing independent - therefore probably redundant - research.

  • everyone should remember history (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    the line between patriotism and fascism is a slipery slope. Everyone needs to look at history closely and realize we're rapidly sliding down that slope unless we pull our collective heads out of our butts. A person's religion, color, language or nationality does not equal their allegiance. The best way to protect freedom isn't to kill all your enemies, but to learn from them. Violent expression doesn't happen overnight. People should realize we making the same mistake our ancestors made and learn from it, not do the same exact thing. I'm sure the founding fathers of America would be more proud if society collectively works to improve freedom democracy. Not colonize a country in the name of democracy. That just smacks of the holy crusades.

  • How long before soldiers with "HS" appear? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @11:48AM (#5006460)
    I mean, it's only a matter of time before our version of Hitler's 'SS' show up here...with 'HS' (Homeland Security) on their lapels. Think it can't happen? I'll bet that the citizens of Germany in the 1930's thought that too. We have unchecked paranoia in this country..and that's very dangerous, especially when the Government is using it to control its citizens.

  • more accurately... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @12:18PM (#5006682)
    "When the Soviet Union tried to keep its research secret during the Cold War, their whole scientific apparatus atrophied," said former Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall, now an aeronautics professor at MIT.

    When the Soviet Union tried to keep its research secret, the research moved overseas. Restrictions on foreign nationals, visa restrictions, and secrecy are the best way for the US to ensure that research moves to Europe, Japan, and China. With secrecy, researchers won't generate the publications that advertise that a country and a lab is first rate. With visa restrictions, educated foreigners will increasingly look for jobs overseas, where they are more welcome than ever, or just stay at home and try to make things work there. Hiring restrictions on foreign nationals for "secret" projects further reduce available jobs and further drive them away.

  • If you take Caesar's money. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @01:07PM (#5007054)
    you belong to Caesar. It's a concept simple enough that it was expressed by a simple bookshelf builder who grew up out in the sticks two thousand years ago.

    Once upon a time the great private universities were the bastions of independant thinking, but a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum. They started takeing Caesar's money. A little aid here, a little aid there, and then the big money, government contracts.

    This has created on odd state of affairs where a private institution has a public face presenting public knowledge, and at the same time a public face creating very, very, VERY private knowledge.

    Or worse, presenting as public knowledge that which it is payed to present as public by Ceasar. Do you really need it spelled out that some of that "knowledge" lacks a bit around the edges in the "truth" department?

    When a government contracts for science the government OWNS that science. I mean this quite literally.

    If you wish to do science, or engage in ANY free thought for that matter, the solution is obvious and simple. Don't take Caesar's coin.

    The poet laureate, by accepting the the coin and protection of the Lord is compelled by his very state to write only that which is pleasing and/or flattering to the Lord. If you don't think this happens in science you are naive. The poet who rejects the Lords money may say anything he wishes, although his life may otherwise be somewhat harsher.

    Which way to go is a choice. Choose wisely, if not well.

    KFG

  • Reverse Brain Drain (Score:4, Informative)

    by dprice ( 74762 ) <daprice@nOspam.pobox.com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @02:00PM (#5007456) Homepage

    The January Wired magazine has an article about stem cell research and cloning in China. The combination of the US government restricting foreign students from participating in certain research and also restricting certain kinds of biological research has caused a brain drain of Chinese researchers from the US to China.


    During the 1980's and 1990's, many Chinese researchers would study in the US, and many would stay in the US after graduating. Now some of those researchers that have been living and working in the US have been moving back to China. New students are staying in China to study since they are developing their own labs backed by the Chinese government.


    As the US keeps adding restrictions, they (Congress, etc.) actually encourage foreign countries to develop their own research capabilities that the US cannot control, except by threats like in the case of Korea and Iraq. It will make those countries less dependent and more isolated from the US which will give the US less bargaining power in future diplomatic relations.


Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close