Travel restrictions instituted by the Cuban and U.S. governments largely in response to pervasive political hostilities have negatively affected scientific collaboration between the two countries. Both U.S. and Cuban scientists consider the decline in scientific and academic exchanges, recently exacerbated by a deterioration in political relations, to be detrimental to science.

These restrictions are contrary to international standards and agreements that guarantee the right to travel and encourage the sharing of scientific knowledge. They hinder the free circulation of scientists and jeopardize scientists’ careers in both countries by excluding them from important international meetings and exchanges.

While legislation provides for exceptions to the travel ban for individuals conducting professional research, its inconsistent implementation has made it extremely difficult for many scientists to pursue such work. This may be due to the fact that individuals who are normally not qualified to judge the scientific merit of meetings, research, or exchanges are entrusted with determining eligibility for travel.

In addition to facing U.S. travel restrictions, Cuban scientists must overcome significant barriers placed by their own government. Institutional requirements are coupled with political determinations made within Communist party mechanisms. Recently, these difficulties have been compounded by further restrictions imposed in response to U.S. legislation on Cuba, including the Helms-Burton Act.

Scientists must develop strategies and mechanisms to work within existing travel restrictions while demanding changes in policies that hinder their right to travel.

Recommendations to U.S. policymakers:

1. The United States Congress should take the necessary action to lift licensing requirements for U.S. scientists traveling to Cuba.

2. While these requirements are in place, the criteria used to determine eligibility should be made clear.

3. Scientists requesting entry to the U.S. to conduct scientific work should be granted visas.

4. No political criteria should be applied to determine visa or license approval for scientific purposes.

5. Decisions on visa applications, whether negative or positive, should be provided to the applicant in writing and in a timely manner. If denied, the reasons should be provided and an appeal process should be implemented.

6. Congressional action should be taken to eliminate a scientist’s status within the Cuban government as a determining factor in the visa-granting process.

7. To be consistent with Statute 5 of ICSU, scientists requesting entry to the U.S. to attend meetings sponsored by ICSU should be granted entry visas.

8. Visa denials should be based on stated policies.

9. Because individuals handling visa and license requests are usually not qualified to determine the scientific validity or purpose of a meeting, questions about scientific importance should be forwarded to a qualified body. Policymakers should institute a system whereby decisions requiring scientific expertise are forwarded to a scientific body, such as AAAS, where recommendations can be made based on sound scientific judgment. Where applicable, government employees should rely on the International Council on Scientific Unions’ certification of a meeting, rather than their own judgment, to guide them in their decisions on visa and license applications.

10. Bodies other than those who initially denied the request should handle appeals.

11. U.S. government officials should maintain records of decisions on visa applications made for scientific purposes, as well as the dates of application receipt and response, for an annual review of the effect of travel restrictions on scientific collaboration. This review should be made available to the public.

Recommendations to Cuban policymakers:

1. The licensing requirement for scientists falling within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, Technology, and the Environment should be lifted.

2. Decision-making authority should be taken away from political party mechanisms where they are likely to be subjected to non-academic criteria.

3. Individuals should be allowed to receive personal invitations from colleagues and organizations abroad.

4. An employer’s role in allowing employees to travel should be limited to evaluating the individual’s performance and job responsibilities within the workplace and how they would be affected by the proposed travel.

5. Former employers should not have the authority to deny an individual the right to travel.

6. Contractual agreements to protect intellectual property should take the place of travel restrictions implemented by employers.

7. Medical students should not be barred from travel abroad.

8. The government’s lack of interest in a particular project should not impede the right of an individual to travel.

9. Restrictions should not be placed on university faculty’s ability to maintain international contacts.

10. Authorities and employers should respond to requests for permission to travel in a timely manner.

11. In no instance should knowledge of an invitation to travel be withheld from the individual to whom it is addressed. Such invitations should not be answered without the knowledge of individuals to whom they are addressed