Full text of MIT Provost Robert A. Brown's email response to Professor Postol's assertion that MIT can begin an investigation into misconduct and obstruction of justice at Lincoln Laboratory with publicly available information:

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

I am writing to respond to your email concerning the statement by Professor Postol that MIT can proceed with the investigation of actions by staff at MIT Lincoln Laboratory without access to classified material.There are a number of reasons why Professor Postol is mistaken in his belief. To understand why, let me give you the following background.

Federal regulations specify how allegations of scientific misconduct are investigated. MIT has its own policies for such investigations, which follow the federal requirements. Under both the federal and MIT rules, when a person makes an allegation of scientific misconduct, there is a two-stage process. First, an inquiry is conducted, to determine if an investigation is warranted. Second, if the report of the inquiry is that an investigation is warranted, the inquiry report frames the questions for the investigation. Those questions may or may not be the same as the ones that had been presented by the person who made the initial allegations. Also, Federal and MIT rules require that inquiries and investigations be conducted in strict confidence, both to protect the integrity of the review process itself and to avoid unjustified damage to the reputations of individuals while the facts are being determined.

In the case of Professor Postol's allegations regarding certain work contained in the POET report, MIT completed the inquiry stage into his allegations in late 2002. Professor Postol has previously disclosed to the media, in violation of the federal and MIT rules that require confidentiality, that the report of the inquiry found that an investigation was warranted. MIT offered Professor Postol the opportunity to read the final Inquiry Report, which included the definition of the issues that warranted an investigation, but told him that, in light of his previous repeated violations of the rule about confidentiality, that he would not be given his own copy of the Inquiry Report. Professor Postol declined to read the final Inquiry Report unless he was allowed to keep a copy of it.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, MIT advised the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), as required by the federal regulations, that the inquiry had found that an investigation was warranted into certain specific questions framed in the inquiry report. (Such a conclusion does not mean that there was any determination that scientific misconduct had occurred, but only that a further investigation into the facts was needed to determine if there was misconduct). At the same time, MIT sent a copy of the inquiry report to the MDA.

The MDA advised MIT that, because it contained classified information, the MDA had classified the inquiry report. The MDA also advised MIT that the MDA would not permit the investigation committee that MIT had appointed to have access to the inquiry report, or to the complete POET report itself, which remains classified. MIT continues to work to obtain permission to allow the investigation committee to have access to the classified materials so that the committee can identify the issues that the inquiry report found warranted investigation, and resolve them.

Because Professor Postol did not read the Inquiry Rreport, he does not know what issues that report framed for investigation. Nor would Professor Postol have seen the complete POET report, because he does not have the appropriate security clearance. Both of these sources, as well as other material, are needed for MIT to proceed with the investigation and Professor Postol does not have access to either of these documents.

I hope you find these comments helpful.

Sincerely, Robert Brown