The scientific community might face government censorship of research publications if lawmakers decide to classify some research results as “sensitive but unclassified” information under a post-Sept. 11 federal security law.

Historically, scientists have decided what information was safe to publish. But at a Feb. 15 conference in Denver, editors of more than 20 scientific journals announced a pact to censor material they believe could compromise national security, regardless of scientific merit.

“In the past, the government used the classification system to control the dissemination of information. Institutions had clear guidance and could elect to either engage in classified work or not,” Peter Dallos, Northwestern’s interim vice president for research, wrote in an e-mail. “Northwestern’s position was not to engage in classified work.”

As fears of threats to national security skyrocketed after the Sept. 11 attacks, lawmakers began to question scientists’ judgement and added a mandate to the Homeland Security Act for protection of “Sensitive Homeland Security Information.”

“Our various administrative offices are working on the development of an appropriate policy,” Dallos said.

Research results might undergo government review prior to publication if they are classified as sensitive. But universities are left guessing because no one is sure what the term means yet.

Federal officials have not established a clear meaning for the term “sensitive but unclassified,” said Robert Hardy, associate director of the Council on Government Relations, an association of research universities that monitors key issues relevant to federally funded research. The government is now studying the term’s meaning.

Because of the uncertainty, many institutions simply are avoiding proposals whose contracts ask that the government be allowed to review the findings before allowing them to be published.

Weinberg Associate Dean John Bushnell, who oversees the school’s research, said faculty are not sure how the new regulations will affect them.

“My guess is that Northwestern faculty will be deciding for themselves whether or not they want to undertake research whose results might not be publishable,” Bushnell said.

John Walsh, McCormick associate dean for graduate studies and research, said that to his knowledge no McCormick researchers have been affected.

“I think that it is also fair to say that NU will not work on projects that cannot be published,” Walsh said. “This policy is a hallmark of academia and on this item NU is not alone.”

Scientists said government censorship could stifle the free flow of ideas and limit what research projects institutions will take on, claiming the best way to preserve national security is to maintain the policy of self-censoring.

“Self-policing and awareness is probably the best answer and better than control by the government,” Hardy said, adding that the government is not equipped to judge science.

But some researchers feel even the pact the journal editors made is too unilateral and that the threat posed by publishing is not that great.

“I think that these journals print basic fundamental research and that it’s highly unlikely that information in science journals would be directly usable by a terrorist,” said biochemistry Prof. Amy Rosenzweig.

Rosenzweig said terrorists could just as easily find the same information on the Internet.

“I don’t think censoring scientific journals would make a difference,” she said.

The Daily’s Sarah Halasz contributed to this report.