NationStates Jolt Archive

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL


This proposal invites all nations in the UN to help put scientific research facilities in every nation. At least 3-4 research facilities should be put in every nation. This proposal includes -

1.) A nation that conducts a research should inform every nation of it, so that the nation could prove that it has come up with the idea and no other nation has stolen it.

2.) ATLEAST every nation should TRY to help fund a research

3.) Research cannot be hidden; if it is then the nation that hid it must pay a fine of between $500,000-$10 million for the nation is taking other nations money support and is using it for its own benefit, not others who supported it. Even if a nation pays for its own research, it must inform other nations for this is about helping all nations, not just your own.

4.) Research should be conducted to help, not make a MAJOR negative affect on something and a small positive affect on something else.

5.) If ANY chemicals are used, they shall not be exposed to public OR be sold.

6.) Research should only be conducted in labs or in necessary environments, not in public areas.

7.) Scientists should be professionals only

8.) If a nation wants to improve an idea, they should first ask permission of the nation that produced the idea that they want to improve.

Hi all, I came up with this proposal and I need endorsments to actually make it into a proposal, can anyone please endorse me so I can put this in action?

Please?

Thanks in advance

1.) A nation that conducts a research should inform every nation of it, so that the nation could prove that it has come up with the idea and no other nation has stolen it.


3.) Research cannot be hidden; if it is then the nation that hid it must pay a fine of between $500,000-$10 million for the nation is taking other nations money support and is using it for its own benefit, not others who supported it. Even if a nation pays for its own research, it must inform other nations for this is about helping all nations, not just your own.


Grammar, you used "A" in association with the the inherantly plural noun "research"... It should be "research" and not "a research". In addition, you are using "that conducts" but the structure implies relative restriction of the antecedent, so therefore "which" should be used. So it should read, "A nation which conducts research."


As far as the idea. I disagree. Most research is handled closed doors, to prevent theft... Broadcasting the idea, allows for its theft even more than closing it, and classifying it. Espectially research dedicated to national security and defense concerns.

If a nation pays for its own research, it is the research of that nation, for that people. And it is completely in the scope of their will, and RIGHTFULLY in the scope of their will, to share, or not to share that with other nations, being the owners, and operators of said research.



4.) Research should be conducted to help, not make a MAJOR negative affect on something and a small positive affect on something else.


Completely illogical. If this was the case, no research would be conducted in the first place, since it is only BY research that positive and negative beneficial aspects are learned.


6.) Research should only be conducted in labs or in necessary environments, not in public areas.


What if a necessary enviroment is a public area?


7.) Scientists should be professionals only


Define "professionals"... does this mean independant inventors are banned? If such is the case, wrap it up... Your entire nation is doomed.


8.) If a nation wants to improve an idea, they should first ask permission of the nation that produced the idea that they want to improve.


At least one point I could agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Japanese People

8.) If a nation wants to improve an idea, they should first ask permission of the nation that produced the idea that they want to improve.



At least one point I could agree with.

I agree with everything Tekania writes except for this point, because not even this point can I agree with. If Germany wants to make better cars than the U.S., is it the U.S.'s right to stop them? I'm sure the U.S. is not ready to give up a major industry so easily. This can easily be applied to other situations. In point, Germany should be able to take any idea it can, only with respect to international patents, of course.

I agree with everything Tekania writes except for this point, because not even this point can I agree with. If Germany wants to make better cars than the U.S., is it the U.S.'s right to stop them? I'm sure the U.S. is not ready to give up a major industry so easily. This can easily be applied to other situations. In point, Germany should be able to take any idea it can, only with respect to international patents, of course.

This deals with research, not production. Besides, your example is flawed. In all rights, it would be the US, and Germany asking France, since the first self-propelled "automobile" was made by Nicolas Joseph Cugnot in France in 1769. It was steam powered, and if it were gasoline, not much better, Germany would have it (Daimler and Benz) who developed the operational technologies still used in present automobiles. In all reality, the last point is the only point that lines up with established patent law. The rest is nonsense.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL


This proposal invites all nations in the UN to help put scientific research facilities in every nation. At least 3-4 research facilities should be put in every nation. This proposal includes -

1.) A nation that conducts a research should inform every nation of it, so that the nation could prove that it has come up with the idea and no other nation has stolen it.

2.) ATLEAST every nation should TRY to help fund a research

3.) Research cannot be hidden; if it is then the nation that hid it must pay a fine of between $500,000-$10 million for the nation is taking other nations money support and is using it for its own benefit, not others who supported it. Even if a nation pays for its own research, it must inform other nations for this is about helping all nations, not just your own.

4.) Research should be conducted to help, not make a MAJOR negative affect on something and a small positive affect on something else.

5.) If ANY chemicals are used, they shall not be exposed to public OR be sold.

6.) Research should only be conducted in labs or in necessary environments, not in public areas.

7.) Scientists should be professionals only

8.) If a nation wants to improve an idea, they should first ask permission of the nation that produced the idea that they want to improve.

Hi all, I came up with this proposal and I need endorsments to actually make it into a proposal, can anyone please endorse me so I can put this in action?

Please?

Thanks in advance

I can agree in principle to Article 5 of this proposal, but all the others are unnaceptable in their present form.

Article 1, Article 3 and Article 8 would deny the right to own interlectual property, which is part of the reason for research. Although I do applaud the idea of doing research for the good of the world, I believe it to be impossible in the current world climate.
Article 2 implies that I have to spend money on research, or if necessary I can just lie and say that I am trying to spend money on it. Governments should not be forced to spend their own money on things they deam worthless. (This also applies to the preamble - about being forced to have three or four research places in my nation)
Articles 4, 6, 7 and 8 would destroy innovation. The best ideas have been from people who were not professional - they were just messing around with something and discovered a huge result. Article 4 is subjective about what is a positive and negative effect. A DNA specific chemical weapon would have a very positive impact on my military, but I am not sure anyone else would think so.

These are just my first thoughts on it, and I would be pleased to hear any arguements you might have against them :}

Regarding article 5, "chemicals" is extremely vague and could legitimately be interpreted to cover just about all normal substances, from oxygen to water to iron.

I admit I am a fairly new member to the UN, so I could be wrong about the way proposals and resolutions work, but is this not in contradiction to the "Scientific Freedom" resolution of Dec 26th, 2002?

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL


This proposal invites all nations in the UN to help put scientific research facilities in every nation. At least 3-4 research facilities should be put in every nation. This proposal includes -

1.) A nation that conducts a research should inform every nation of it, so that the nation could prove that it has come up with the idea and no other nation has stolen it.

2.) ATLEAST every nation should TRY to help fund a research

3.) Research cannot be hidden; if it is then the nation that hid it must pay a fine of between $500,000-$10 million for the nation is taking other nations money support and is using it for its own benefit, not others who supported it. Even if a nation pays for its own research, it must inform other nations for this is about helping all nations, not just your own.

4.) Research should be conducted to help, not make a MAJOR negative affect on something and a small positive affect on something else.

5.) If ANY chemicals are used, they shall not be exposed to public OR be sold.

6.) Research should only be conducted in labs or in necessary environments, not in public areas.

7.) Scientists should be professionals only

8.) If a nation wants to improve an idea, they should first ask permission of the nation that produced the idea that they want to improve.

Hi all, I came up with this proposal and I need endorsments to actually make it into a proposal, can anyone please endorse me so I can put this in action?

Please?

Thanks in advance


The following I strongly disagree with:

Article 1. If a nation were to inform every other nation that it is to begin some research there would be no privacy and immediately there would be competition amongst other nations to get the end result.

Article 2. Funding research shouldn't be compulsary to every nation in the UN since many of the countries in the UN are struggling with money. You can't force poor countries to begin funding for research.

Article 3. I disagree with only having research to help every nation. Research to help your own nation should be put before research helping another nation, don't you think?

Article 6. Research, as long as it's safe, can be conducted in any enviroment, not only labs. For instance, if you were conducting research on a person's behaviour in their normal enviroment (etc. their office at work) you would be infringing article 6. if this resolution was passed.

Those are only the ones I strongly disagree with.

Regarding article 5, "chemicals" is extremely vague and could legitimately be interpreted to cover just about all normal substances, from oxygen to water to iron.

I agree, from a chemist's view anything and everything is made up of chemicals. Perhaps "hazardous materials/chemicals" would be better than just "chemicals". In fact, article 5 could be rewritten as:

5.) The use and sale of hazardous materials and/or chemicals to be used in research shall be regulated.

Also regarding article 4, how can a researcher/inventor know what affects or uses his or her work will have on the world? For example, how could the people who pioneered rockety know rockets would eventually be used for making missles? Robert Goddard didn't set out making rockets to create missles. He wanted to use them to explore space, but a lot of what he did went into building early US missle development programs. Wernher von Braun also wanted to use rockets to go into space. Both very brilliant men with good intentions, but clearly their research went on to be used in some horrible applications. Especially in von Braun's case, since most of his earlier research, which built upon Goddard's work, was done developing missles and rocket engines for the Nazis' war effort. Or what about the first man to split an atom? How the hell was he supposed to know people would use the power of the atom to make bombs?

nations do not conduct research
scientists do

this is not a trivial distinction

no nation has a moraly legitimate right to interfere with
universal communication irrispective of national boundries
or idiologies between them.

what is neccessary here is not for a u.n. edict requiring
all nations to fund research but rather a mechanism
whereby to protect and preserve the right and ability of
all scientists, engineers, inovators, tecnologists,
and researchers of all sorts, to communicate freely and
without hinderance or interfearance of any kind,
with one another, wherever they may happen to live, under
whatever idiology, form of government, economic theory or
system of belief.

=^^=
.../\...

nations do not conduct research
scientists do

this is not a trivial distinction

no nation has a moraly legitimate right to interfere with
universal communication irrispective of national boundries
or idiologies between them.

what is neccessary here is not for a u.n. edict requiring
all nations to fund research but rather a mechanism
whereby to protect and preserve the right and ability of
all scientists, engineers, inovators, tecnologists,
and researchers of all sorts, to communicate freely and
without hinderance or interfearance of any kind,
with one another, wherever they may happen to live, under
whatever idiology, form of government, economic theory or
system of belief.



However nations do employ scientists to do research. And the nation in question might want to protect what they are researching, and would have to impose various rules and regulations on the scientists that it is paying to stop them communicating with others. The way you have phrased it would forbid even NDAs to be put in place, which would be unnaccpetable to my government.