880 



formation and guidance. In a nation like ours, where 

 knowledge is valued and the search for truth is considered 

 among the noblest of human endeavors, the scientist 

 naturally and properly commands great respect. With that 

 respect, however, comes responsibility. 



Too often in recent years we have seen scientists with 

 well-deserved reputations for creative achievement and 

 intellectual brilliance speaking out on behalf of political 

 ideas that unfortunately are neither responsible nor partic- 

 ularly brilliant. 



It is not surprising that scientists will have strong views 

 on such technically complex matters as nuclear weapons, 

 arms control, and national defense. But the core issues in 

 dispute here are really not technical, but political and 

 moral Scientists should not expect their words to have 

 special authority in nonscientinc areas where they are, in 

 fact, laymen. Scientists are not specialists in the field of 

 world politics, or history, or social policy, or military 

 doctrine. As citizens of a free society, they have every 

 right to take part in the pubfic debate. But they have no 

 special claim to infallibility. 



CHALLENGES TO OUR WAYS OF THINKING 



The great intellectual adventure of the scientific revolu- 

 tion beckons all of us — scientists, government leaders, 

 and all Americans — to march ahead together. In 

 collaboration we can achieve a better and deeper under- 

 standing of these new developments and what they por- 

 tend. The changes occurring all around us have far- 

 reaching implications not only for our personal lives, but 

 also for the conduct of our foreign policy, for national 

 security, and indeed for the very structure of the interna- 

 tional order. And as we confront these changes, we must 

 heed Einstein's observation: Perhaps the greatest chal- 

 lenges we face are to our ways of thinking. 



The Age of Information Technology. One of the most 

 revolutionary recent developments is what Walter Wris- 

 ton has called "the onrushing age of information technol- 

 ogy." The combination of microchip computers, ad- 

 vanced telecommunications — and a continuing process of 

 innovation — is not only transforming communication and 

 other aspects of daily life, but is also challenging the very 

 concepts of national sovereignty and the role of govern- 

 ment in society. 



The implications of this revolution are not only eco- 

 nomic. First of all, the very existence of these new tech- 

 nologies is yet another testimony to the crucial importance 

 of entrepreneurship — and government policies that give 

 free rein to entrepreneurship — as the wellspring of tech- 

 nological creativity and economic growth. The closed 

 societies of the East are likely to fall far behind in these 

 areas — and Western societies that maintain too many 

 restrictions on economic activity run the same risk. 



Second, any government that resorts to heavy-handed 



measures to control or regulate or lax the flow of elec- 

 tronic information will find itself stifling the growth of the 

 worid economy as well as its own progress. This is one of 

 the reasons why the United States is pressing for a new 

 round of trade negotiations in these service fields, to break 

 down barriers to the free flow of knowledge across bor- 

 ders. 



For two years the Organization of Economic Coopera- 

 tion and Development (OECD) has been considering an 

 American initiative for a common approach to this prob- 

 lem. Today we are very close to obtaining a joint state- 

 ment by OECD governments pledging themselves to: 



• maintain and promote unhindered circulation of data 

 and information, 



• avoid creating barriers to information flows, and 



• cooperate and consult to further these goals. 



Even here there are dilemmas, however. Government 

 efforts to prevent the copywriting of computer software 

 only reduce incentives for developing new types of soft- 

 ware and inhibit progress. We need to understand cleariy 

 the crucial difference between promoting the flow of 

 information and blocking innovation. The entire free 

 worid has a stake in building a more open system, because 

 together we can progress faster and farther than any of us 

 can alone. 



This points to another advantage the West enjoys. The 

 free flow of information is inherently compatible with our 

 political system and values. The Communist states, in 

 contrast, fear this information explosion perhaps even 

 more than they fear Western military strength. If knowl- 

 edge is power, then the communications revolution 

 threatens to undermine their most important monopoly — 



We are reminded . . . that 

 only a world of spreading 

 freedom is compatible with 

 human and technological 

 progress. 



their effort to stifle their people's information, thought, 

 and independence of judgment. We all remember the 

 power of the Ayatollah's message disseminated on tape 

 cassettes in Iran; what could have a more profound impact 

 in the Soviet bloc than similar cassettes, outside radio 

 broadcasting, direct broadcast satellites, personal compu- 

 ters, or photocopy machines? 



Totalitarian societies face a dilemma: Either they try to 

 stifle these technologies and thereby fall further behind in 



SPRING 1985 13 



