AAAS Science and Human Rights Program

Current Issue | Past Issues | About the Report

Report on Science and Human Rights

Winter 2002 Vol XXII, No. 1

Meeting Addresses War on Terrorism’s Implications for Science & Human Rights

The events of September 11 and their aftermath have profoundly affected the scientific community, as they have every other segment of society, and have stimulated a process of reflection and self-examination on a range of concerns regarding the future conduct of science and the rights and responsibilities of scientists. Human rights concerns, for example, include the potential of government restrictions to impede the ability of research facilities and institutions to engage in international collaborations. Colleges and universities are experiencing renewed debate about academic freedom and proposals to monitor foreign students on their campuses, and there are fears that renewed racism and xenophobia might be part of the legacy of September 11.

On December 18, the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program and the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program organized a one-day symposium to highlight these issues and evaluate how the changed landscape is affecting scientific freedom and human rights. This symposium, “The War on Terrorism: What Does It Mean for Science?” was the largest public discussion to date of the impact of September 11 on science and scientists, attracting more than 300 participants from scientific societies, research facilities and colleges and universities.

The program began with a keynote address by newly appointed Presidential Science Advisor Jack Marburger, followed by morning and afternoon panel presentations on issues of human rights and scientific responsibility respectively. Three months into the War on Terrorism, public responses were still taking shape, and the speakers’ ideas and conclusions were necessarily preliminary, in keeping with this. For the most part, the speakers emphasized continuity in the midst of change, and reaffirmed the core values and continued relevance of scientific inquiry and the free exchange of ideas.

During the morning session on human rights, panelists presented anecdotal evidence that, at the moment, the fear of intolerance may be greater than the phenomenon itself. Louis Goodman, Dean of the School of International Service at the American University, reported that more than 80 students from the Gulf States have left school and returned home at their parents’ insistence, because of parents’ fears of reprisals and violence-this despite a general mood of reason and calm on campus. Dr. Rashid Chotani, an epidemiologist working on bioterrorism issues at Johns Hopkins University and a naturalized US citizen originally from Pakistan, reported that he personally has experienced little or no adverse reaction to his ethnicity or religion, although other Muslim scientists in the United States and Europe have reported incidents of violence directed at them. Panel member Robert O’Neil of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression voiced concern about academic freedom and free expression on campus.

The fourth panelist during the morning session was Anne Witkowsky, Director of the Commission on Science and Security, a federally appointed commission charged with making recommendations to the Department of Energy in response to the Wen Ho Lee case. She reported that the attacks on September 11 did not significantly alter the Commission’s analysis and recommendations. The Commission’s research indicated that national security can be protected in a climate of trust between scientists and security professionals.

In the afternoon, experts in the fields of nanotechnology, biomedical ethics, cryptology, physics and engineering gave their perspectives on how notions of scientific responsibility are evolving. Panelists discussed the question of scientists’ responsibility for the use of their discoveries, whether they have a duty to contribute to national security, and how the September 11 attacks may be reshaping the principles of conduct guiding scientists. For more information on this session and to download an audio file of the entire symposium, please visit the Scientific Freedom and National Security website at http://www.aaas.org/spp/scifree.

The large turnout at this event demonstrates the scientific community’s concerns regarding issues of scientific freedom and responsibility in the aftermath of September 11. The question and answer sessions following the presentations were uniformly lively and represented divergent points of view. It was also clear that a continued discussion of these issues is needed. Over the next few months, many security policies will be instituted and debated, as the War on Terrorism continues. Events like the December 18 symposium are an important way for the scientific community to participate in the national debate and articulate its concerns to policymakers.