necessity for free communications within the science and technology community. First, it should be understood that there are no procedural problems associated with information which has been clearly assigned a security classification by the appropriate governmental authority. Such information should not be published in unclassified periodicals or presented at open meetings. The IEEE editors and program chairmen have developed systematic procedures to avoid this possibility. It is IEEE policy to require all authors to certify that the papers they submit for publication or presentation have been cleared by the appropriate authorities within their organiza tions. However, difficulties arise when authors submit for publication or presentation information considered releaseable which is later declared classified or otherwise not publishable by a Federal agency representative. The actual clearance process through which these papers go varies considerably depending on the organization with which the author is affiliated. In industrial companies the usual practice is for all papers to be first cleared by company management to ensure that no proprietary nor classified information is being divulged. If there has been an external sponsor, such as the Department of Defense, clearance by a Federal program manager is usually also a part of the process. Since more than 60% of IEEE authors work for private companies, it is evident that these companies have developed techniques for their employees to actively participate in open technical communication without harming the company's proprietary Interests. University-based authors usually have a less formal clearance procedure depending on the sponsorship of their research. In any event, for all IEEE papers, the author is required to sign a statement at the time his paper is submitted to the IEEE that appropriate clearance has been obtained. Thus problems do not arise between the IEEE and authors. It is when a third party intervenes that problems arise. minated. It is noteworthy that the industry-based IEEE members operate with information, some of which is restricted because of its proprietary considerations and some of which is freely disseThese professionals contribute effectively to the open information system operated by the professional societies and yet do not damage their company's interests. If they did, companies would not continue their direct and indirect support of professional societies. The fact is that the leading U.S. technology-based companies encourage their employees' active participation in professional society publications, meetings, and other activities. It is evident that the dual objectives of protection of a company's commercial Interests and the dissemination of new and state-of-the-art technical information are attainable. While the details of an industrial process may not be openly disseminated, the fundamentals of the process are usually open for public dissemination. Incidents such as the widely publicized forced withdrawal of a large number of papers at the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference in the summer of 1982, the threatened forced withdrawal of papers at a number of IEEE conferences, and other such incidents, have led to difficulties between governmental and professional society representatives. In fundamental terms, the IEEE's relationship is with the author of a paper and through the author to the author's organization. When an external agency such as the Department of Defense asserts that some of the author's information should be restricted from open dissemination, the issue is really between the author and the agency, not with the IEEE. However to clarify what actually happens, should like to describe a few incidents in detail and then seek to draw some general conclusions. One such incident involves an article which was submitted by an external author for publication in the IEEE Spectrum last shredded immediately. Upon questioning, the Army representative identified three statements as being classified. The Spectrum staff investigated the origins of these three statements and found that two statements had been published in an unclassified widely disseminated Army publication entitled, "1982 Weapons Systems," and the third was from public testimony of the Army Chief of Staff to the 97th Congress. When this information was presented to the Army representative, it was agreed that the two published phrases were not really classified but that the Chief of Staff's testimony had been reclassified. The explanation was offered that sometimes unclassified information can be put together in such a way as to be reclassifiable. The issue was not pursued further since the article did not meet the technical standards appropriate for Spectrum. However, the incident provides an opportunity to examine the effect that such actions can have on the scientific and technical publication community. Many authors of technical articles confronted with such a statement by a military representative would have withdrawn the article. In this case, a full-time editor of Spectrum who is not readily turned aside followed up and found that the reasons for withdrawal were at best questionable. The usual technical author who does not devote his full-time - - to paper-writing would tend to avoid topics that might be disapproved by a Federal agency, whether the information was classified or not. Another incident occurred last year in connection with an IEEE-sponsored International Test Conference in Philadelphia. Five days before the Conference was to open and after the conference publication had been printed, an official of Texas Instruments, Inc. requested, by telephone, that three papers written by TI engineers on Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) circuits be withdrawn because the U.S. Air Force Systems Command considered the release of these papers to be potentially damaging to U.S. interests. The authors, who are all IEEE members, had believed their papers were cleared having followed the usual procedures. Apparently the government reviewers did not decide until very late, that is until five days before the conference and after the Conference Digest had been printed and copies supplied to reporters, that the papers should not be published. The Conference managers were asked to excise the papers from the already printed Conference Digest and to ask reporters who had received pre-publication copies to return them. The Conference managers required that before taking these steps a written explanation of the reasons for removing the papers be given; that the authors themselves request removal; and that an agreement be made to pay the costs of destroying portions of the already printed record. In response to these requirements, a re-review of the papers by the Air Force resulted in a decision that the original papers could be presented as planned. Another incident occurred In 1982 in connection with the EASCON Conference held in Washington and sponsored by the IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society. Just before the Conference opened the chairman was asked by an Air Force representative to destroy all Conference |