Secrecy of Science: Public Access vs. National Security

In summary: I think I need definitions for basic science and fundamental science.I would say that basic science is the exploration of the natural world and fundamental science is the exploration of the natural world that leads to the development of new theories.
  • #1
pallidin
2,209
2
Note: Please DO NOT post speculative comments without some type of scientific validation.

Anyway, here's my comment/question: With the advances in physics, I accept that there are some technologies which are kept from the general public due mostly to national security concerns; such as advanced fighter/bombers, nuclear weapons, intelligence gathering techniques, etc...

OK, fine, I'm OK with that.

But can we(the general public) have access to the underlying science involved, or must that underlying science remain "secret"?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I believe that the underlying science is already public knowledge. It's how that science is applied that comes under the secrecy cloak.
 
  • #3
Danger said:
I believe that the underlying science is already public knowledge. It's how that science is applied that comes under the secrecy cloak.

This isn't always the case. I remember someone from I believe LLNL came to our university and talked about the Star Wars program back in the day. He was on a team working on developing a laser for the program. Through their research, they did happen to actually discover some rather basic science. Of course, it was all classified so they couldn't report it. The funny part was how a few years later, he was at a conference and apparently someone presented their discovery of the same bit of science. He thought it was quite funny that this guy was giving a presentation on this discovery that he had helped discover years earlier but was classified information :rofl:.
 
  • #4
I stand corrected. Thanks, flightless one.
 
  • #5
Pengwuino said:
Through their research, they did happen to actually discover some rather basic science.

What does this mean? What gap was there in basic science to discover?
 
  • #6
zoobyshoe said:
What does this mean? What gap was there in basic science to discover?

I really can't remember, it was a few years back. At the most I can say it was something that you obviously didn't have to be specializing in designing weapons to discover it since the person at the conference wasn't even working in industry i believe.
 
  • #7
It may have been basic science, but I'm sure it wasn't fundamental and was highly specific to the application; such as how two particular materials interact at high temps...
 
  • #8
The Manhattan project is an example of where fundamental/basic science was performed and kept secret. This was critical, since if the fact that nuclear bombs could exist were made general knowledge, it is possible that Hitler would have chosen to build one. From what I understand, Heisenberg actually made intentional errors in theory to help convince him otherwise.

edit: apparently, there is some controversy over that: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/OOF100202.html

Things like stealth were mostly applied science/engineering. The enabling theory was a public-domain Russian paper.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
From what I understand, Heisenberg actually made intentional errors in theory to help convince him otherwise.
At least that's what he claimed afterwards o:)
 
  • #10
pallidin said:
But can we(the general public) have access to the underlying science involved, or must that underlying science remain "secret"?
Some of it must remain secret, because in some cases it is not obvious or it's out of the normal experience such that it's unknown in the public domain.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
The Manhattan project...

Exactly what I thought of when I read the OP. I wonder how long it was before the basic science became known to the public--does anybody know?
 
  • #12
Indeed, and I thank everyone for your comments.

I fully understand and appreciate the need for scientific secrecy as it applies within a global society.
I am rather concerned that some aspects of "higher knowledge" might be inappropriately withheld under the guise of military significance.

This bothers me because, under that context, nearly all special advances could be protected from release under that umbrella. It is "cautiously" comforting to know that scientific "leaks" do occur.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Not sure how "nearly all" advances could be protected from release. It seems just the ones made on projects for the military or other matters of national security would be.

There is plenty of scientific research going on that is not for the military.
 
  • #14
I think I need definitions for basic science and fundamental science.
 
  • #15
That would be new theories vs new applications for theories or additional evidence for theories. Really, it is mostly science vs engineering, but it is a little bit of experimental science not directly tied to theory (like much of materials science).
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
That would be new theories vs new applications for theories or additional evidence for theories. Really, it is mostly science vs engineering, but it is a little bit of experimental science not directly tied to theory (like much of materials science).

Very interesting. Thanks.
 

What is the secrecy of science and how does it relate to national security?

The secrecy of science refers to the practice of keeping scientific information and research confidential in order to protect it from being accessed or exploited by unauthorized individuals or organizations. This can relate to national security when the scientific information has potential military or defense implications.

Why is there a tension between public access to scientific information and national security concerns?

Public access to scientific information is integral to the advancement of knowledge and the development of new technologies. However, in certain cases, this information may also have the potential to be used for malicious purposes, making it a national security concern. This creates a tension between the desire for open access and the need for protection.

How do governments balance the need for secrecy in certain areas of science with the goal of promoting openness and collaboration?

Governments must carefully assess the potential risks and benefits of sharing scientific information. They may put measures in place, such as security clearances and controlled access, to limit the dissemination of sensitive information while still allowing for collaboration and progress in other areas.

What are some examples of scientific information that may be subject to secrecy and national security concerns?

Nuclear weapons technology, biological agents, and advanced military equipment are all examples of scientific information that may be restricted due to national security concerns. Additionally, research on emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, may also be subject to secrecy in order to protect against potential threats.

How does the concept of "dual-use" technologies factor into the secrecy of science and national security?

"Dual-use" technologies refer to scientific advancements that have both civilian and military applications. These technologies can present a challenge for governments as they must balance the benefits of civilian use with the potential risks of military use, and determine the level of secrecy and control needed to protect national security.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
9K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
914
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
742
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top