Washington

The United States is preparing draft guidelines to control the dissemination of a new category of 'sensitive homeland-security information', which could include blueprints of nuclear power plants or research on bioterrorism.

White House officials discussed the plans with representatives from scientific and academic communities on 22 August. But Kathryn Harrington, a spokeswoman for the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), says that an actual policy will not be released for several months.

Scientists have fretted since September that the government would take draconian action to restrict the publication of scientific information following last autumn's terrorist attacks. Although attendees of last week's meeting say that the administration's ideas on sensitive homeland-security information did not seem overly restrictive, they caution that they have yet to evaluate a specific proposal. Harrington says that this is because the proposal is still being developed by the Office of Management and Budget, at the request of Governor Tom Ridge, director of homeland security. The OSTP is helping the budget office with scientific aspects of the plan.

Some of those who attended the meeting say they are not opposed to the idea of the government taking formal steps to protect certain information. They add that they are pleased that the administration has included them in early discussions. “It's much better for them and for us to have the chance to discuss things before the plane takes off,” says Terry Hartle, a vice-president at the American Council on Education.

But Hartle and others are worried that they left the meeting with little clear idea of just what the administration considers to be sensitive homeland-security information.

“The community is very concerned about what information is going to be involved,” says Janet Shoemaker, head of public affairs at the American Society for Microbiology. For instance, she says, the administration could take steps to protect 'dual-use' research, such as data on deadly pathogens. “There may be good reason to treat some information as a different category,” she says, “but we don't want to restrict information that could lead to scientific advancement or medical benefits.”

Some meeting participants say they got the impression that the policy will be aimed more at government-owned strategic information — such as plans of possible terrorist targets — than at basic research done in the universities.

Attendees say that government officials seem to be interested in creating a new category of sensitive information primarily because it would be cheaper than fully classifying the information.

Participants also discussed the dilemmas that would accompany a new category of sensitive information, such as how it would be handled at scientific conferences. “Would you deny access to certain people at the meeting, or ask them to leave the room if it came up?” asks Rich Harpel of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. “It was very unnerving to think about the way this might actually play itself out.”

But computer-security expert David Farber of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia — who didn't attend the meeting — says that researchers in his field often sign non-disclosure agreements with industry and that some meetings have long been closed to foreign researchers.