Embargo makes it illegal to edit articles from rogue nations

By Mary Curtius
Los Angeles Times

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

WASHINGTON — For U.S. publishers, changing so much as a comma in an author's work can be more than a delicate process. It can be criminal — punishable by fines of up to $500,000 or jail terms as long as 10 years.

In a move that pits national-security concerns against academic freedom and the international flow of information, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control recently declared that publishers cannot edit works written in nations under trade embargoes. Although publishing the articles is legal, editing is a "service" and it is illegal to perform services for embargoed nations, the agency has ruled.

One publisher decided to challenge the government last week — opting to risk criminal prosecution by editing articles submitted from the five embargoed nations: Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Cuba.

Weighing the risks

"I decided that the risks of damaging our publishing program now outweighed the risks of being in violation of the law," said Robert Bovenschulte, president of the American Chemical Society's publications division. The society publishes more than 24,000 articles each year in various scientific journals, and 60 percent are from foreign nations, Bovenschulte said.

"By not publishing articles coming from the five countries under trade embargo, we were, in effect, in violation of our own ethical guidelines that say that the basis for deciding what to publish is the quality of the science in the material and excludes the national origin of that material," Bovenschulte said.

If the government decides to prosecute, he said, "I think we are going to be in good company."

Other publishers are choosing to follow the letter of the law.
 
"We are an ethical operation," said Michael Lightner, vice president for publications of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). "We operate under the laws of the countries in which we do business." His journals will publish articles from embargoed countries in unedited form.

The different responses reflect the confusion and anxiety in academic circles over the government's new interpretation of the law.

Policy denounced

Some have denounced the Treasury policy, issued Sept. 30, as a violation of a 1988 legislative amendment that barred the president from limiting the flow of informational material from embargoed nations. Several groups have appealed to President Bush's science adviser.

In a statement issued Friday in response to questions from the Los Angeles Times, that adviser, John Marburger III, indicated unease with the regulations.

Marburger said he supports "the use of economic sanctions against state sponsors of terrorism," but added, "I'm concerned about the impact interpretations of such sanctions may have on scientific publishing and, therefore, scientific openness. We are working on this issue and hope to achieve a satisfactory resolution."

Richard Newcomb, director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, said the office does not see its ruling as involving First Amendment rights or inhibiting academic exchanges. Rather, he said, the regulations are a technical interpretation of how Congress intended embargoes to be enforced against rogue states.

"This was a straight-up ruling," Newcomb said. "... It is something we can regulate."

But the notion that publishing articles does not involve editing them is mind-boggling to many in the business.

"We were really stunned to find out this was a legal issue," said Bovenschulte of the American Chemical Society. He said his initial reaction was to impose a moratorium on articles from embargoed nations. But the society instead decided to risk running afoul of the law.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company