Half of the people seem to be saying "Go ahead and publish, you will be fine, a clearance is not a hinderance." That is what I originally believed upon entering in to this discussion.

The other half, seem to be saying "The research you do may need to be classified depending on what you uncover, even if you use totally unclassified materials as your source." I can understand that if I get on wikipedia and figure out how to make a nuclear bomb, I should not publish it. (I would argue that it would be unethical to do so, anyway.) However, other than things that would directly endanger peoples lives, if the information is out there, it is better to let the light shine on it, and talk about how to deal with it than to try and hide it and hope it goes away.

My assertion is that the confusion that exists here is the actual problem. Because people are unsure as to what is legal and proper, they become reluctant to deal with potentially sensitive topics. Non-spooky types don't want to talk about it, and spooky types don't want to talk to the non-spooks. This is most unfortunate, because the most important topics to direct our full efforts against are the sensitive ones.

The solution, I feel is to clarify and publicize the requirements to remove the misunderstanding, miscalculation, and confusion about this topic. However, I am unsure as to where begin, although I liked where Entropy started to go with his comments.