Los Alamos Blocks Researcher Access to Archives
Updated Below
Los Alamos National Laboratory will no longer permit historians and other researchers to have access to its archival records because Los Alamos National Security (LANS), the private contractor that now operates the Lab, says it has “no policy in place” that would allow such access.
“Policies that had previously applied to the University of California relating to the disclosure of information directly to you are no longer applicable,” wrote Judy Archuleta of the Los Alamos Information Practices Office to Alex Wellerstein, a graduate student at Harvard.
Mr. Wellerstein had sought copies of Lab records on the history of nuclear secrecy policy and he had been led to believe that access to such material would be granted, in accordance with past practice.
“Because LANS is a private company, the policies that applied [previously] are no longer in place,” she said.
“No policy is presently in place that authorizes the direct disclosure of the information you seek,” she wrote.
Instead, Mr. Wellerstein was told that he should pursue his research through the Freedom of Information Act.
“The FOIA process, however cumbersome, currently provides the only means of accessing our records,” wrote Roger A. Meade, the Los Alamos Archivist/Historian on April 17.
But FOIA requests are poorly suited to archival research since they can easily take years to process and must specify in advance the records that are sought.
In effect, when it comes to historical or other public research, the Los Alamos archives are closed for business.
It’s “terrible news” for scholars, said Hugh Gusterson, an anthropologist who has studied the culture of the nuclear weapons labs.
Update (5/24/07): See Los Alamos Says Lab Archives Now Available to Researchers.
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”
Ask people what worries them most right now, and they’ll say the cost of living and their livelihoods, not climate change. But those concerns are not separate.