Science and Security at the Weapons Labs

A recurring topic in the Rudman report (see FYI #100) and Senate hearings on the Department of Energy weapons labs has been the dual management of the highly sensitive nuclear weapons program and other scientific research. Below are selected passages from this report and a June 23 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing (see FYI #101), which received testimony from one of the report’s panel members, Dr. Sidney D. Drell.

“SCIENCE AT ITS BEST, SECURITY AT ITS WORST” A Special Investigative Panel of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB)

“For the past two decades, the Department of Energy has embodied science at its best and security of secrets at its worst.”

“Within DOE are a number of the crown jewels of the world’s government-sponsored scientific research and development organizations. With its record as the incubator for the work of many talented scientists and engineers - including many Nobel prize winners - DOE has provided the nation with far-reaching advantages. Its discoveries not only helped the United States to prevail in the Cold War, they undoubtedly will continue to provide both technological benefits and inspiration for the progress of generations to come. The vitality of its national laboratories is derived to a great extent from their ability to attract talent from the widest possible pool, and they should continue to capitalize on the expertise of immigrant scientists and engineers.”

"...it will be important for the weapons labs to maintain effective scientific contact on nonclassified scientific research with the other DOE labs and the wider scientific community. To do otherwise would work to the detriment of the nation’s scientific progress and security over the long run. This argument draws on history: nations that honor and advance freedom of inquiry have fared better than those who have sought to arbitrarily suppress and control the community of science.”

“The Foreign Visitors’ and Assignments Program has been and should continue to be a valuable contribution to the scientific and technological progress of the nation. Foreign nationals working under the auspices of U.S. weapons labs have achieved remarkable scientific advances and contributed immensely to a wide array of America’s national security interests, including nonproliferation. Some have made contributions so unique that they are all but irreplaceable. The value of these contacts to the nation should not be lost amid the attempt to address deep, well-founded concerns about security lapses. That said, DOE clearly requires measures to ensure that legitimate use of the research laboratories for scientific collaboration is not an open door to foreign espionage agents. Losing national security secrets should never be accepted as an inevitable cost of obtaining scientific knowledge.”

“Inherent in the work of the weapons laboratories, of course, is the basic tension between scientific inquiry, which thrives on freewheeling searches for and wide dissemination of information, and government secrecy, which requires just the opposite.”

“True to the tradition of international partnership molded by the experiences of the Manhattan Project, the weapons labs have remained a reservoir of the best international scientific talent.”

“Do not forget the primary mission. Preserve and strengthen those agency attributes - including cutting edge research in the most advanced scientific fields - that will attract the finest talent in the nation. With respect to the weapons laboratories, continue to foster their unparalleled lead in intellectual excellence. But never lose sight that protecting the nation by securing its nuclear stockpile and nuclear secrets - through good science and good management - is Job Number One.”

“While maintaining its autonomy, the agency should nonetheless emphasize continued close scientific interaction with the DOE research labs not engaged in weapons-related endeavors. In the semi-autonomous alternative, DOE should also be responsible for ensuring that good relations are maintained between the non- weapons labs and the weapons labs.”

SIDNEY DRELL: ORAL TESTIMONY, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING

“Now I’m talking about the PFIAB report. We pulled no punches expressing our critical finding that for many years DOE has amassed a dismal record of security administration. This record stands in sharp contrast to the excellent, superb scientific and engineering work that is being done in the nuclear complex that DOE manages.”

“Speaking as a scientist with considerable experience and familiarity with the superb technical work being done by the outstanding scientists and engineers at the nuclear weapons labs, I don’t exaggerate when I say it is imperative under any proposed reorganization to protect and preserve this world leadership quality. The nation relies on it for maintaining the effectiveness and the reliability and safety of our nuclear arsenal as we work to reduce nuclear dangers around the world.”

“I also believe, as we expressed in our report, that if we do it right, we can sustain outstanding science by brilliant scientists, and simultaneously achieve excellent security and protection against espionage. It is not an either/or proposition. Of course, there is tension between the openness that is so fundamental to a flourishing scientific culture, and the requirements for protection of national security information, but they are not in irreconcilable conflict. They can be balanced appropriately, and I believe that the structural changes in stewardship of our nuclear arsenal and security proposed by PFIAB can and should achieve that desired goal.”

“I see no serious issue maintaining the very constructive and important collaboration and cooperation between the excellent science labs, the non-defense science labs, and the defense weapons laboratories in this semi-autonomous structure within the Department of Energy.”

“I have always believed in the importance of strong bonds between basic science and science in the service of the nation’s needs. I say that to those who oppose or who have the opposite view, calling for isolating the weapons programs behind higher walls of security from the outside scientific interchange and give and take.”

“I would argue simply that the lessons of history have convincingly proved otherwise. Nations that provide strong support for scientific R&D, research and development, and that honor and advance freedom of inquiry have fared much better than those who have sought to isolate or in any way suppress the scientific community. The greatness of the U.S. national laboratory system, the envy of the world, is proof of that.”

“I don’t know of any scientist in those laboratories who doesn’t have a very high sense of patriotism and devotion to this country. That’s why they are there.”