NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

CONSIDERING that science is the glass through which we perceive the world, and;

NOTING that when that glass is distorted, it twists our understanding of the ways in which we might progress;

REAFFIRMING the sentiment of the UN Resolution "Scientific Freedom", but;

REALISING the dearth of actual concrete proposals coming from said resolution;

FURTHER NOTING that academic freedom can only be guaranteed by independent reseachers, and;

NOTING WITH REGRET that private funding of public research facilities can compromise the independant nature of these researchers, to the detriment of their research, yet;

REALISING that private enterprise needs academics in order to maintain a competitive advantage, and;

REALISING that at times, academics may not have sufficient funds provided to carry out research that may be to the benefit of all mankind;

1. DESIGNATES an "independent academic" as one who is not currently employed, funded, and paid to work on a particular topic or idea;

2. AFFIRMS the right of independent academics to pursue any line of thought or research that they wish, as long as their research does not contravene UN resolutions;

3. AFFIRMS the right of independent academics to share information and research with each other;

4. CONDEMNS those private enterprises who carry out their research at government expense in public facilities as opposed to their own expense at their own facilities;

5. ENCOURAGES all nations, members and non-members, to promote and fund independent academics;

6. REQUESTS that an independent UN Commission be set up to consider the matter of funding for independent researchers who are following promising lines of research yet are unfortunately too underfunded to continue to follow said line of research, to be entitled the "UN Commission on Funding Research."

Thoughts? Additions? Ideas? Criticisms? Just a little thing I was playing about with, because it always annoyed me how empty the second ever resolution was. I'm not sure what category it should go into at the moment, or what strength it should be.

The United Nations,

CONSIDERING that science is the glass through which we perceive the world, and;

NOTING that when that glass is distorted, it twists our understanding of the ways in which we might progress;

REAFFIRMING the sentiment of the UN Resolution "Scientific Freedom", but;

REALISING the dearth of actual concrete proposals coming from said resolution;

FURTHER NOTING that academic freedom can only be guaranteed by independent reseachers, and;

NOTING WITH REGRET that private funding of public research facilities can compromise the independant nature of these researchers, to the detriment of their research, yet;

REALISING that private enterprise needs academics in order to maintain a competitive advantage, and;

REALISING that at times, academics may not have sufficient funds provided to carry out research that may be to the benefit of all mankind;

1. DESIGNATES an "independant academic" as one who is not currently employed, funded, and paid to work on a particular topic or idea;

2. AFFIRMS the right of independant academics to pursue any line of thought or research that they wish, as long as their research does not infringe on rights affirmed in previous UN Resolutions;

3. AFFIRMS the right of independant academics to share information and research with each other;

4. CONDEMNS those private enterprises who carry out their research at government expense in public facilities as opposed to their own expense at their own facilities;

5. ENCOURAGES all nations, members and non-members, to promote and fund independant academics;

6. REQUESTS that an independant UN Commission be set up to consider the matter of funding for independant researchers who are following promising lines of research yet are unfortunately too underfunded to continue to follow said line of research, to be entitled the "UN Commission on Funding Research."

Thoughts? Additions? Ideas? Criticisms? Just a little thing I was playing about with, because it always annoyed me how empty the second ever resolution was. I'm not sure what category it should go into at the moment, or what strength it should be.

I like it. No, really, I do. Stop looking at me like that. ;)

Damn. Can't you flame or something? Any publicity is good publicity. :p

I don't know that total freedom in this respect is going to be popular given that this would include the right to clone humans (not something I necessarily oppose in principle, but many do), genetically engineer humans, create lethal strains of bacteria resistant to all antibiotics etc.

True... how about instead of "rights affirmed in previous UN resolutions", I just say "rights affirmed in UN resolutions". That way, if the majority of UN members feel that these things that you raised, or others you haven't mentioned, are immoral and worthy of resolution, they can do so, and the limits on what academics can do will change accordingly.

Mind you, scientists in more nations whose citizens and governance would have problems with, say, cloning, would probably have the same code of ethics as the citizens of the nation, and would probably not partake in such research. This proposal states that you have the right to do whatever you want (within limits), not that you actually have to do it.

That said, are there any resolutions that deal with the points you made? Is there not a biological warfare resolution?

Well, until such time as suitable resolutions are passed, such research would still be legal. And some research would contravene UN resolutions without contravening rights specifically, so it should definitely say "as long as their research does not contravene UN resolutions". And it is not necessarily true (in fact it's pretty unlikely) that every single "independent academic" in a nation will subscribe to the majority's moral code.

Oops - you are right that nations are bound to eliminate biological weapons, however, nothing's been said about chemical, radiological and nuclear weaponry.

I think what's needed is some provision in this resolution, rather than relying on future resolutions to close gaps. I'm not sure exactly what form this could take.

And it is not necessarily true (in fact it's pretty unlikely) that every single "independent academic" in a nation will subscribe to the majority's moral code.

I never said they'd all subscribe to the "moral code", I just put forth that as a subsection of the population, you will get a large number of scientists who do think the same way as "most people". After all, they are people. They are all influenced by their surroundings and their society.

You wanted flames? Would you settle for intelligent criticism?

This should be a national issue, not an international one. It doesn't accurately reflect the state of affairs in any number of UN nations. I'm speaking as the Delegate for an Oligarchical Conglomerate of Corporate States, and the conditions just don't apply to us. With a little thought, I think that other governments such as Sultanates, Communists, dictatorships, and the like would find this an equally bitter pill to swallow.
1. DESIGNATES an "independant academic" as one who is not currently employed, funded, and paid to work on a particular topic or idea;This clause denies the concept of serendipity by tying the concept of independence to specific projects or topics. Many times a targeted line of attack proves fruitless, but the work generated turns out to apply to something entirely unexpected or unrelated. The mere fact that a given researcher is not currently employed does not give him carte blanche over projects he might have worked on previously, nor does it override the corporation's interest, nor that of the shareholders. Intellectual property is more than a simple employment contract.2. AFFIRMS the right of independant academics to pursue any line of thought or research that they wish, as long as their research does not contravene UN resolutions;Ignoring for the moment the very concept of independent academics (such a class does not exist in our nation - even our universities are for-profit parts of various corporations), our Corporate States reserve the right to direct research into avenues appropriate to our national values, such as they are. It's not for the UN to decide to designate a single, specific portion of our research staff as independent of national control.3. AFFIRMS the right of independant academics to share information and research with each other;Research is proprietary to the companies that fund it. Why should we remove the concept of ownership from intellectual property? We paid for the research, we should reap the benefits. Even if a citizen-employee left Frisbeeteria to work elsewhere, the research he did while here belongs to us, not to him. Would he have had access to multi-million @currency@ labs and equipment if our shareholders hadn't provided them? Ideas are more than simple concepts - they are collaborations between multiple scientists, administrators, and researchers, all in a matrix of funded facilites and appropriate environments. To say that the thought belongs to any one of those alone is to assign disproportionate value arbitrarily.4. CONDEMNS those private enterprises who carry out their research at government expense in public facilities as opposed to their own expense at their own facilities;In our Corporate States, government facilities ARE private facilites. You would seek to condemn our economic model and way of life? Again, this is a one-size-fits-all statement in a world of multiple sizes and shapes5. ENCOURAGES all nations, members and non-members, to promote and fund independant academics;I think I've laid out ample reasons why it would not be in our nation's best interest to encourage this sort of behavior.6. REQUESTS that an independant UN Commission be set up to consider the matter of funding for independant researchers who are following promising lines of research yet are unfortunately too underfunded to continue to follow said line of research, to be entitled the "UN Commission on Funding Research."This part alone we would be willing to back. This has an appropriate international flavor to it, and it might even behoove us to make contributions ... assuming all UN nations would have access to the fruits of such labors.

In a nation where academics are a separate sub-class of research and have separate rules of behavior, this proposal might make sense. In nations where research belongs to the collective population or to an individual monarch, such a proposal sets up Independent Academics as minor noblility, independent of government oversight.

I may tackle your assumptions at a later date, as some of them are equally flawed, but for now I'll leave you with this:

This is a National Issue.

Damn. Can't you flame or something? Any publicity is good publicity. :p

Sorry. Normally I would scream "national sovereignty" but I didn't really feel up to it.

The United Nations,

CONSIDERING that science is the glass through which we perceive the world, and;

NOTING that when that glass is distorted, it twists our understanding of the ways in which we might progress;

REAFFIRMING the sentiment of the UN Resolution "Scientific Freedom";

FURTHER NOTING that academic freedom can only be guaranteed by independent reseachers;

REALISING that private enterprise needs academics in order to maintain a competitive advantage;

REALISING that at times, academics may not have sufficient funds provided to carry out research that may be to the benefit of all mankind;

1. DESIGNATES an "independant academic" as one who is not currently employed, funded, and paid to work on a particular topic or idea;

2. AFFIRMS the right of independant academics to pursue any line of thought or research that they wish, as long as their research does not contravene UN resolutions;

3. AFFIRMS the right of independant academics to share information and research with each other;

5. ENCOURAGES all nations, members and non-members, to promote and fund independant academics;

6. REQUESTS that an independant UN Commission be set up to consider the matter of funding for independant researchers who are following promising lines of research yet are unfortunately too underfunded to continue to follow said line of research, to be entitled the "UN Commission on Funding Research."

Thoughts? Additions? Ideas? Criticisms? Just a little thing I was playing about with, because it always annoyed me how empty the second ever resolution was. I'm not sure what category it should go into at the moment, or what strength it should be.

I've deleted the portions of the text that I didn't like. I'm hoping that didn't change too much of your goal here, but it can illustrate what my government prefers.

Category? Hmmm ... well, I've though that the exchange of information is kind of a "Free Trade" issue.

Interesting, but another problem to be added to the list is animal (or for that matter, human) testing - this would prevent nations from putting limits or safeguards on such testing.
Sadly, I'm too tired to think of a way around this - sorry!

By the way, it's "independent" not "independant"

You wanted flames? Would you settle for intelligent criticism?

Far more welcome, of course. ;)

This should be a national issue, not an international one. It doesn't accurately reflect the state of affairs in any number of UN nations. I'm speaking as the Delegate for an Oligarchical Conglomerate of Corporate States, and the conditions just don't apply to us.

Yes, I don't think the conditions do apply to your particular style of governance. But the ones that don't apply to you aren't really the strong ones that mean those clauses are enforced in your nation anyway, and the ones that are enforced, since they don't apply, are irrelevant to the continued running of your nation in the particular way it does. I realised that my original UN Resolution - far, far stronger than this one - would hurt capitalist economies beyond repair, hence all the stuff about "independent academics", making a distinction between those that have to work in secrecy, like those working for private enterprise, and those that don't.

With a little thought, I think that other governments such as Sultanates, Communists, dictatorships, and the like would find this an equally bitter pill to swallow.

Have you made the same argument against Habeas Corpus? Anyway, that aside, noting the various resolutions to increase human rights and the furtherment of democracy, especially the Resolution #8 which asks for a modicum of democratic control at (at least) one level of governance, means I don't technically think you can be a dictatorship/autocracy in the UN - at least, not one that we would recognise as a dictatorship/autocracy.

This clause denies the concept of serendipity by tying the concept of independence to specific projects or topics. Many times a targeted line of attack proves fruitless, but the work generated turns out to apply to something entirely unexpected or unrelated. The mere fact that a given researcher is not currently employed does not give him carte blanche over projects he might have worked on previously, nor does it override the corporation's interest, nor that of the shareholders. Intellectual property is more than a simple employment contract.

I agree that this clause has a lot of problems. If you, or anyone, can think of a better way to phrase it, by all means, tell me. It was the best I could come up with to prevent all academics gaining complete academic freedom - hurting all businesses in the meantime. Anyone that can think of a better way of putting it, let me know.

Research is proprietary to the companies that fund it. Why should we remove the concept of ownership from intellectual property? We paid for the research, we should reap the benefits. Even if a citizen-employee left Frisbeeteria to work elsewhere, the research he did while here belongs to us, not to him. Would he have had access to multi-million @currency@ labs and equipment if our shareholders hadn't provided them? Ideas are more than simple concepts - they are collaborations between multiple scientists, administrators, and researchers, all in a matrix of funded facilites and appropriate environments. To say that the thought belongs to any one of those alone is to assign disproportionate value arbitrarily.

Where, exactly, does it say in my resolution that private companies should share research with each other?

In our Corporate States, government facilities ARE private facilites. You would seek to condemn our economic model and way of life? Again, this is a one-size-fits-all statement in a world of multiple sizes and shapes.

I take the opposite view. Since they are private facilities, they are using their own resources, and as such they aren't using a public facility, and so do not come under criticism of this clause.

I think I've laid out ample reasons why it would not be in our nation's best interest to encourage this sort of behavior. [quote]

So... don't. It says "Encourages", not "Demands".

[quote]This part alone we would be willing to back. This has an appropriate international flavor to it, and it might even behoove us to make contributions ... assuming all UN nations would have access to the fruits of such labors.

Ah, indeed. I think that it would be so, that all UN nations would benefit from the funding of the research, accessing the fruits of the researcher's labours.

I'm hovering between Free Trade and Furtherment of Democracy at the moment, definitely not strong, though.

Myopia, noted, although I thought it was one of those tricky ones where it could be both.

Myopia, noted, although I thought it was one of those tricky ones where it could be both.

Nope, I even checked www.dictionary.com