Classified research: The inside story By )AVE CITIUDWIN CLASSIFIFD RETSEARCH is alive and well at the Uni- vetsity. Scientists and engin- eers heir are conhinuing several do,,n srcret proects to improve American military effectiveness despi'e a camnairn lest term to rid the University of such war research. In guarded laborOlories they are d-vroping better methods of drtecting troop concentra- tions and movements for im- proving missile capabilities, and enabling offensive aircraft and missiles to perform their mis- sions without fear of attack. One of the reasons classified research on campus is allowed to prosper is a watchdog com- mittee supposedly supervising such activity, which, in the words of former committee member Michael Knox, 'con- tinues to be an ally of the mili- tary research establishment." This committee is scheduled to present a report to Senate Assembly Monday, reviewing its own procedures and possibly suggesting some changes. From its inception the com- mittee has worked in secret, its meetings closed and all state- ments about its activities fun- nelled through t h e group's chairman, dentistry Prof. Ger- ald Charbeneau. The Daily, however, has ob- tained copies of previously con- fidential minutes of the Classi- fied R e a e a r c h Committee's meetings over the last several months. The minutes paint a revealing portrait of a highly conservative but hard-working committee, reluctant to change its proce- dures, broaden its membership or reject proposals for secret re- search by University research- ers. Among the items culled from the committee's minutes are the following: 0 The committee has been under pressure from both op- ponents and proponents of clas- sified research and has develop- ed a strategy of standard re- sponse to their criticism. "We are criticized on the one hand, by those who oppose all classified research of any sort in a university environment," Charbeneau wrote in a memo- randum last December. "These persons point to the fact that we rarely block sub- mission of a proposal as proof we are ineffective, that we are simply not doing our job, or that we are really part of the 'classi- fled research enterprise.' " Charbeneau stated the com- quired number of votes by phone. *The directors of the t w o largest University laboratories involved in classified research on campus requested the com- mittee to stop its project-by- project review of proposals for classified research snd instead periodically review their opera- tions, eliminating prior aproval of projects. "Our present process places exorbitant demands on the time of committee members, and on the time and patience of some members of our research staff," wrote Willow Run Director Wil- liam Brown and Cooley Elec- tronics Lab Director Thomas Butler to the group last October. Butler and Brown raised the possibility that critical research proposals would not be acted on by the committee until after their deadline with possible "tragic consequences." "As matters now stand the committee gets a rather super- ficial exposure to the activities of the research units," the y stated, explaining that it is haz- ardous to judge an overall re- search program in terms of sin- gle projects. The committee's response to the researchers, who a r e still visibly annoyed by the necessity of individual project approva, was negative. . When former Student Gov- ernment Council President Mar- ty Scott attempted to enter a committee meeting, the group fled to another meeting room. "The meeting was disrupted by the presence of Marty Scott, President, Student Government Council, who wanted to observe the Committee's deliberations," the minutes from March 12 state. "The meeting location was changed . . . Mr. Scott was pre- vented from attending the meet- ing by a security guard." * Under pressure, the Radio -Daily-amo ussne Senate Assembly meeting on research issue effort not to d e 1 a y proposals past deadlines and maintains strict confidentiality of its pro- ceedings. * There has been some scrut- iny of projects by the commit- tee, but only three times since its inception in 1968 have pro- posals been rejected and clear- ly military projects have often been approved. For example, last December the committee discussed a pro- posal for a project titled "Re- ducing Detectability of U.S. Mil- itary Vehicles by Remote Sens- ing Devices." The committee reviewed the project summary and found the description "somewhat vague, the relation of the proposed re- search to a weapon or weapon system of some concern and the characteristics of the sponsor unclear," the minutes state. T h e principal investigator, called in by the committee for further information, explained that "the work would be done entirely at Willow Run and that any facility would probably be a tank." "Although the information re- sulting from the research could be used to increase our capa- bility to detect enemy vehicles, he stated that such was not the mission of the research," the minutes continued. In discussions that followed, Knox objected that the propos- al would make weapons more effective and therefore violated University policy against pro- jects "t h e specific purpose cf which is to destroy human life." "Others pointed out that the proposed sponsor (U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Com- mand) is probably no w o r s e than others and should not be a basis for rejection, that the De- partment of Defense u s e s knowledge from many sources- classified and unclassified - in the development of its weapons, that it is not possible in many cases to separate those which have so 1 e military application from those which have little or none, and that this project is at least one step removed from he weaponr," according to the min utes. The proposal was eventually approved by an 8-1 vote with two abstentions. * Several attempts were made within the committee to change the policies under which t h e panel operates but they w e r e defeated. On Feb. 5 Knox moved that the committee not accept pro- jects from the Department of Defense, the results or data of which would be classified. Opponents of the motion ar- gued that they "would not like to see the government deprived of the expertise of those Uni- versity researchers who are en- gaged in classified research," that the University would lose some non-classified research if secret projects were banned, and that some open publications are possible from most projects, Proponents of the motion said it would lead to pressure for lower classification and that openness is desirable at a uni- versity. The motion was tabled, re- considered at another meeting and defeated 9-2. * The committee considered and then rejected proposals to allow the seating of more stu- dents and observers on the com- mittee. Last Dec. 14 Knox moved that an additional graduate student and three undergraduates be put on the committee. "The members in favor of the motion felt that such a move would provide representation from a large constituency; those opposing wondered if under- graduates would have the ma- turity to deal with the issues," the minutes of the meeting stat- ed. The motion was defeated 7-2. In addition, on March 28 the committee considered a propos- al by Ron Fleming. Grad, that two people opposed to classified research be seated as non-vot- ing observers on the committee. The motion was defeated 8-3, although the committee did in- vite social w o r k Prof. Roger Lind, vice chairman of SACUA and an opponent of classified research, to the meetings. Lind later declined the invitation. * Within the committee Knox was barbequed for writ- ing a public l e t t e r criticizing classified military research en campus. The committee passed a reso- lution Feb. 10 stating that the committee was "disturbed by he release of information on the activities and operation of the committee and is of the opinion that the release of the letter by Michael Knox is clearly con- trary to the guidelines of the committee." Romance languages Prof. Guy Merimier submitted a memo- randum to the committee which stated that by writing the open letter, Knox was "taking the lass' in his own hands. "In order to foster his own personal views, Mr.Knox chose the Marxist-Leninist revolution- ary approach which c a n only lead to chaos, confusion a n d disorder," Mermier continued, calling on Knox to resign. Knox declined to do so be- cause he said he felt that by writing a letter expressing dis- satisfaction with research poli- cies he had not violated t he guidelines or done something wrong. * The committee's practice of rounding up the required seven votes to pass a proposal by tele- phone after meetings was criti- cized by committee members. "It was agreed the committee could be criticized for conduct- ing its business this way," the minutes of the Sept. 11, 1970 meeting said. "It was also agreed that absent members lack the benefit of discussion concerning a proposal." Although the committee dis- cussed different ways of approv- ing proposals at the time, it kept the seven vote require- ment and still obtains the re- measures could not be carried out. This arrangement was chang- ed, however, when William Brown was appointed director of Willow Run and reorganized the place. Willow Run continues to receive support for electronics countermeasures research. * Criticism of classified re- search peaked in March and the committee was not spared. Sen- ate Assembly at that time or- dered the group to review its procedures and policies. The committee's report, to be released Monday, will probably not produce recommendations for great changes in the group's operation, if preliminary state- ments are any indication. Last month several of the com- mittee members wrote private statements expressing their views on the committee's policies and few of them called for any ma- jor reforms. "I favor continuation of clas- sified research with proposals to be screened as at present un- der existing research policy guidelines," wrote engineering Prof. Ralph Hiatt. "It can be argued that income tax dollars contribute more to the war than the research effort. In most cases it is easier to convert dollars into death dealing weapons than techniques or de- vices developed in a university research laboratory," his state- ment explained. Medical Prof. Arthur French defended the committee in his statement, saying that military- oriented reconnaissance pro- jects are "an essential way of warning our soldiers (including draftees) of danger to their lives." "In my opinion there is no for- mula which can be used to pre- determine the ultimate principal use, nor the "specific purpose" nor the "clearly forseeable pur- pose" of most of the research re- sults," wrote engineering Prof. Leslie Jones. Political science Prof. Wil- liam Zimmerman, a new member of the committee, wrote that he impressed as to the extent that people could differ in the inter- pretation of the rommittee's present guidelines, especialy the one prohibiting research "the specific purpose of which is to destroy human life." Finally, committee chairman Prof. Gerald Charbeneaa sug- gested in his statement that the Research Policies Committee, an- other Senate Assembly commit- tee, review all classified con- tracts during the past year for an additional test of their ap- propriateness. Charbeneau suggested that if the projects of the past year are deemed appropriate that classi- fied research projects no longer face proposal-by-proposal review and instead a group periodically review contracts after they are already in effect. SO CLASSIFIED research mon- ey continues to flow in, sup- porting University researchers willing to sell their talents and aid U.S. military adventures by developing means to find and de- stroy human beings. They have been supported by a committee that, instead of be- ing a strict watchdog over sec- ret research, has acquiesced to and rationalized their efforts. Protected by secrecy and in- difference, the Classified Re- search Committee will roll on un- til the University community realizes its ineffectiveness and moves to aler or abolish it. 4 Michael Knox Science Laboratory at Willow Run agreed to stop all work in electronics countermeasures, but reneged on the promise when the laboratories were reorganiz- ed. "After 30 November 1970 no further electronics countermea- sures proposals would be submit- ted by the Radio Science Lab," W.R. De Hart wrote to Vice President Norman in April, 1970. "No further countermeasures work would be conducted by the Radio Science Laboratory after 30 November, 1971 by which date the personnel of the Radio Sci- ence Laboratory will have either left the University or be engaged in other work." DeHart complained in the let- ter that the committee's reluct- ance to pass a proposal and its position on other reviews had made it evident that a continued program in electronic counter- 4 Gerald learteneau mittee responds to such criti- cism by saying the group judges each project individually, seeks adequate information on pro- posals, is representative of the University community a n d is not controlled by the adminis- tration or researchers. "On the other hand, we are often looked upon as an obstacle by those who conduct classified research," he said. "Perhaps many would say we are an un- necessary obstacle to free scien- \-tific inquiry which happens to include research in areas o u r government considers sensitive and has therefore imposed a se- curity classification." Responses to such criticism, Charbeneau wrote, include that the committee tries to under- stand the research programs of the laboratories, makes every 420 Maynard Street, Ann Arbor, Mich. Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of the author. This must be noted in all reprints. Saturday, May 15, 1971 News Phone: 764-0552 NIGHT EDITOR: JONATHAN MILLER