NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Scientific Freedom"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #2
Proposed by: Pauli the Great

Description: UN Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: There are a variety of reasons and factors why the Scientific Freedom Resolution should be repealed:

1.This resolution does not take into account what scientists could be researching as this theoretically allows rearch into chemical and biological weapons rather than in worthwhile areas of research such as vaccinations etc.

2.The morality of individual nations where stem cell research is questioned for example. This is why if nations want this resolution to remain they should do be able to do it by a referendum and the United Nations has a duty to prevent a majority feeling being restricted, which ever way the country may feel. This way nations that welcome scientific research will have a safer, secure and superior environemnt for work rather than a hostile, relunctant environment in naitons where this resolution is resented.

3.Repealing the resolution would be benecificial for all, particularly the scientists themselves. Also this Act is outdated this is nearly two years old and received a much lower vote count than would be expected now so its validity has to be tested, which ever way the vote may go.

4.Finally this resolution forces free trade on nations and those who want to move technology forward and have free trade should ahve the choice not have it forced on them.

So for these reasons I request that this resolution is repealed.

I have posted this so that this can be adequately discussed so that delegates will feel like they know what they are supporting and this thread will gain support for such a worthwhile proposal. My views are fairly clear above. So please post your opinions

Repeal "Scientific Freedom"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Should be fun. Let me get my coffee before I rip this to shreds, pour the shreds into the bonfire-sized pile of similar attempts, and then dance naked around it while chanting to pagan gods.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #2
Proposed by: Pauli the Great

Description: UN Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Standard stuff. Maybe we ought to have people not post this anymore.

Argument: There are a variety of reasons and factors why the Scientific Freedom Resolution should be repealed:

Maybe. It depends on if I see anything new or if this is just a rehash of arguements we've already killed.

1.This resolution does not take into account what scientists could be researching as this theoretically allows rearch into chemical and biological weapons rather than in worthwhile areas of research such as vaccinations etc.

It doesn't stop you from legislating what is meant by "peaceful" and "responsible," but I doubt you'll meet anyone who considers biological weapons to be "peaceful." So, try legislating what qualifies as those two.

2.The morality of individual nations where stem cell research is questioned for example. This is why if nations want this resolution to remain they should do be able to do it by a referendum and the United Nations has a duty to prevent a majority feeling being restricted, which ever way the country may feel. This way nations that welcome scientific research will have a safer, secure and superior environemnt for work rather than a hostile, relunctant environment in naitons where this resolution is resented.

Going by the margin under which the Stem Cell Research resolution passed, the majority feeling is the opposite of this. What you are talking about is a minority feeling. And if those scientists do not like the environments, they can always go to other nations that support the issue.

3.Repealing the resolution would be benecificial for all, particularly the scientists themselves. Also this Act is outdated this is nearly two years old and received a much lower vote count than would be expected now so its validity has to be tested, which ever way the vote may go.

It received the majority of the votes back then and attempts to repeal it have repeatedly failed to reach quorum. Considering the way the Stem Cell Research resolution passed, I think you'll see a similar proportion of votes today.

4.Finally this resolution forces free trade on nations and those who want to move technology forward and have free trade should ahve the choice not have it forced on them.

It doesn't force you to trade at all, so this arguement has no basis. It just says trade may increase.

So for these reasons I request that this resolution is repealed.

I have posted this so that this can be adequately discussed so that delegates will feel like they know what they are supporting and this thread will gain support for such a worthwhile proposal. My views are fairly clear above. So please post your opinions

They are clear. And, considering the UN voting history, not supported. They are also a rehash of arguements we have already had and shot down.

I must advise against supporting this.

If science is controlled by the government, then the nation will never progress forwards. Governments are guided by the groups who give them the most money, and consequently would be most likely to decide on what scientists can and can not research based on who ever gives them the money.

From this you can get strong religious groups banning all sorts of research on "moral grounds" - contraception methods, sexually transmitted diseases, methods for abortion and so forth. Or a huge company that has a monoply on a cancer cure might pursuade the government to stop other scientists researching better methods, so the company can protect it's profits rather than the people.

All in all science should be free from the interference of government.

So I stand by this resolution.

If science is controlled by the government, then the nation will never progress forwards.

That's absolutely right. That's why things like, oh, the numerous government funded scientific advancements that occured during the space race between the USA and the USSR never happened.

That's absolutely right. That's why things like, oh, the numerous government funded scientific advancements that occured during the space race between the USA and the USSR never happened.

Tyrollia is right. Most scientific research that occurs today is funded by the government, and most scientists are hired by the government. How can we say that government shouldn't have a say in what their paid employees are working on? In my opinion, government should have the right to broaden or restrict rights in any area in which it has given funding.

That's absolutely right. That's why things like, oh, the numerous government funded scientific advancements that occured during the space race between the USA and the USSR never happened.

And the USA's history in stem cell research is second to none I take it?

The government made money out of the space race, and got to say "screw you" to the other nation.

And this is the NSUN - if you had a nation that totally opposed prostitution do you think that the government would be happy to fund scientific studies in to ways to make it safer, or would they just say "that is immoral and wrong and we won't fund it" instead giving money to "good christian causes" like curing people of being gay?

Tyrollia is right. Most scientific research that occurs today is funded by the government, and most scientists are hired by the government. How can we say that government shouldn't have a say in what their paid employees are working on? In my opinion, government should have the right to broaden or restrict rights in any area in which it has given funding.

Because if the government is not the open-minded group of people that you all seem to think it is, then all sorts of things could be banned. Which is not a good situation.

I'm going to paste the text of Resolution #2 here, so that we can all see what it is that's trying to be repealed.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #2
Scientific Freedom
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
*
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Genius

Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.

Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius:

Chris Meyers
The Aboolot
Protector of Genius
Defender of Freedom
Friend of the Free Realms

Votes For: 3,075
Votes Against: 1,336

Implemented: Thu Dec 26 2002

And this is the NSUN - if you had a nation that totally opposed prostitution do you think that the government would be happy to fund scientific studies in to ways to make it safer, or would they just say "that is immoral and wrong and we won't fund it" instead giving money to "good christian causes" like curing people of being gay?


Because if the government is not the open-minded group of people that you all seem to think it is, then all sorts of things could be banned. Which is not a good situation.

You're absolutely right. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that I support this repeal in any way, shape, or form. If we restrict what people are allowed to study in the name of Science, then afterwards we ought to start up the ol' book bonfires again, because that's pretty much what it's the equivelent of. I simply felt that the statement saying Science funded by the Government will never lead to progress was slighlty erroneous.

However, we're in complete areement that Science should not be controlled by the government. No one group should be able to say what can, or can not be researched. The government has it's priorities, but so do other groups. If Science was simply left up to funding from large companies, for example, then we'd see just as much stagnation as if it was only funded by the government.

Which is why the system under we have now under Resolution #2 works so well. If my government wants to increase research into Stem Cells, or if our people are demanding Fusion Power, then New Tyrollia can bankroll state labs to start working on these projects. At the same time, if a pharmacutecal company wants to try and find a cure for AIDS, they can fund their own labs as well. Right now we can support any scientific endeavours we see fit, but no one can repress any particular field. Which is how it should be.


(OOC: BTW, apologies if I was a little condensending in my first post. It was fairly late, and I had misread your post and thought that by 'standing by this resolution' you meant you were supporting this repeal. So really, it looks like we're only arguing because we both mistook each other as supporting the opposite side. ;) As someone whose working towards a degree in Science, and is currently involved with several research projects, I can be a little touchy when I think people are trying to bind the hands of progress. Hope there's no hard feelings.)

You're absolutely right. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that I support this repeal in any way, shape, or form. If we restrict what people are allowed to study in the name of Science, then afterwards we ought to start up the ol' book bonfires again, because that's pretty much what it's the equivelent of. I simply felt that the statement saying Science funded by the Government will never lead to progress was slighlty erroneous.


(grin) I think that my statement was not the right way to phrase it. Maybe "that if science if funded by the government there is the potential for no progress in the society" or the likes :}


(OOC: BTW, apologies if I was a little condensending in my first post. It was fairly late, and I had misread your post and thought that by 'standing by this resolution' you meant you were supporting this repeal. So really, it looks like we're only arguing because we both mistook each other as supporting the opposite side. ;) As someone whose working towards a degree in Science, and is currently involved with several research projects, I can be a little touchy when I think people are trying to bind the hands of progress. Hope there's no hard feelings.)

De nada :}

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown,
"Ha, Nazi, Schmazi!" says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vhere zey come down?
zat's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude,
Like the widows and cripples in Old London town,
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

You too may be a big hero,
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.
"In German or anglish, I know how to count down,
Und I'm learning chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.


:)

I think people tend to miss what this resolution actually does (or rather, doesn't do) - I've had to explain this several times, so here's a previous post I made:

the original resolution simply says "By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase."

Note that only the freedoms of "peaceful and responsible" research are protected - if your government deems research to be irresponsible (perhaps ethically irresponsible) or non-pacifistic, it is free to prohibit that research.

In fact, the wording of the original resolution means it doesn't even force you to protect the freedom to research of peaceful and responsible scientists. It says what will happen if we protect those freedoms, and reads as a recommendation to member nations, not an order.

Therefore, it isn't a problem.

Although I don't agree with some of the arguments posted by the repeal proposer, I will support the repeal. I want it repealed, and his wording is of no consequence as a repeal.
The Kingsland

Well what I'm thinking regarding the stem cell research would really only deal with the specific resolution regarding that but I have heard that nothing has come of embryonic stem cell research while adult stem cell research has produced many good outcomes...I wonder if it is something we should research and put together a repeal for the stem cell resolution?

Although I don't agree with some of the arguments posted by the repeal proposer, I will support the repeal. I want it repealed, and his wording is of no consequence as a repeal.
The Kingsland

Although the delegate from New Tyrollia respects the opinion of the Kingsland, might we ask what the reasons would be for this desire?