Hi!  Having worked for the government for several years before I came here,
I would reassure you that the export restrictions are much more geared
toward technology that, in the wrong hands, could threaten the US than in
any sort of free speech or political dissent of any kind.

Claire McCullough

____________________________________________
| Dr. Claire L. McCullough, PE
| Professor of  Engineering
| University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
| 615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga TN 37403
| Voice: (423) 425-4352 Fax: (423) 425-5229
| E-mail: [log in to unmask]
| Vis et Virtus
|____________________________________________ 


-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Shela Van Ness
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Deemed Export Control???

Tom Bodkin brings up an excellent point. As a sociologist about to present a
paper at a conference in Toronto, where many foreign nationals will be in
attendance, I too would like to know where the line is being drawn in the
sand. Much social research could be bent into the national security net if
it is unreasonably defined. The issue also raises questions about free
speech. If a social scientist critiques policy or describes unpleasant
outcomes of events in the United States will this become seen as unpatriotic
sedition? These are concerns for all of us in academe.
Shela Van Ness
Sociology

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Bodkin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:25:17 -0500
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Deemed Export Control???

I assume everyone received the Grants Office's email reminder about the
protection of research information, especially against "foreign nationals,"
or even a conference where foreign nationals may be in attendance.

Does this bother anyone in the least bit?  (I'm not making any suggestion
about the Grants Office, I'm talking about the subject matter.)  The email
dealt with what would seem fairly straight-forward topics of national
security, such as the obvious topics of nuclear or military research.  But
what of other topics and where is the line?  In today's world where even
knowledge about another culture, e.g., the Taliban or Kurds, is and will be
used by our federal government to their advantage, it would seem that there
is no research that could not be construed to fall under "national
security."  Even the seemingly innocuous research conducted by cultural
anthropologists or sociologists, and their eventual publication, could be
construed as "breeching national security."  What if a "foreign national" at
UTC is conducting research on American culture?  Would that put them at risk
for "spying," especially in the wake of the so-called Patriot Act.  Would a
foreign national have to apply for approval for research that an American
citizen would not?  Where is the line between this "deemed export control"
and "intellectual" or "academic freedom?"  When dealing with nuclear physics
I can understand a little more, but it seems that in today's world, even
someone's research on subways systems (sociology) or urban water treatment
plants (environmental science) would have to run through the "deemed export
approval process."  These are suspected targets, are they not?

As a forensic anthropologist, I conduct research on methods to identify the
dead; research that could be used by the American military's Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology (AFIP) to identify bodies or aid in cause of death
determinations of war victims (both sides).  Although I am adjunct faculty
and my research is mostly conducted under the rubric of the medical examiner
system, this "deemed export control" requirement makes me feel like anything
I present at a conference is something that our military/government would
potentially use, and therefore potentially lay "national security" claim to.
And you can bet there are plenty of foreign scientists at the forensic
meetings I attend (all very nice people I might add).  

Where is this line?  Or do we just have to run everything by the US gov't
before researching or presenting our findings?  In my opinion, this
announcement is disturbing to my intellectual freedom, even though it may
have been on the books long before this email.  My responsibility to
disseminate scientific information for the good of humanity supersedes any
worldly governmental requirement.  

I'm not in the middle of any such research (well, I don't think) but I would
like to hear other's comments about this, and where the line is between what
research needs to be protected and what doesn't.  This announcement makes it
sound as if everything we (researchers, in whatever field) do "could be used
against us."  

Tom Bodkin, MA, F-AAFS
Forensic Anthropologist, Hamilton County MEO
Adjunct, Dept. of Sociology, Anthropology, and Geography