NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, i'm the author of the proposal to repeal scientific freedom. I would urge all nations to vote on this bill in order to preserve national sovereignty. The decisions of individual nations are so important in the field of science because science is a very dangerous field, with may unintended consequences as well as ethical questions. Therefore, it should be left up to each nation what kind of research they are willing to allow, rather than have the unlimited research conducted by whomever and wherever they please. Such an industry needs national regulation. Thank you for your time.

Aside from the fact that's a difficult resolution to repeal, you need to realize that there can be as many as 10 different attempts to repeal resolution #4 at any given time. You need to show us the text of your repeal so we know why (and no, the proposal list is not worth adventuring through just to find yours)

Sitting at her desk Lydia started to scan through the day’s proposals on her laptop perusing the responses of the various delegates and the proposal queue. Today there were twelve pages of proposals so far and she only had 45 minutes before her next meeting.

“Oh well, I guess those who have taken the time to send a lovely pre-prepared folder with all their arguments and relevant documents will be the only ones receiving my attention today” she thought to herself.

“Still I guess I will get to the others within the year sometime” giving a resigned look at the pile of proposals and repeal arguments in the corner of her office having been there so long it has become a habitat in itself.

I would argue that this is the kind of topic that should NOT be left to be determined at the national level. Many fields of scientific inquiry inevitably lead to developments with international consequences.

As to whether or not the resolution in question is worthy of remaining on the UN's statute books, well, I regard it as flawed and deserving of repeal. However, my nation will not support a repeal unless it makes a case that we find to be appropriate.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The resolution in question doesn't actually force you to grant scientific freedom.

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: 3075

Votes Against: 1336

Implemented: Thu Dec 26 2002

Look at the bit I've bolded. The rest is irrelevant.

All this resolution actually does is say that scientific freedom for peaceful and responsible scientists would be a good thing for technological progress and trade. It [b]endorses[b/] scientific freedom (and only for peaceful and responsible scientists, at that), it doesn't enforce anything.

"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."

I would have to completely disagree with the last poster. By keeping the language so ambiguoius, it is inherently dangerous. First, let us consider "ensuring" insofar that it does indeed force member nations to accept "peaceful and responsible scientists" and allow them to research just about anything. There are no provisions defining what exactly constitutes a Peaceful and Reasonable scientist. There are no provisions limiting the subjects to be researched, just so long as the scientists themselves meet some formula of "peaceful and responsible" and there is no recourse for governments that may find the research personally, ethically, or morally objectionable. To use Traumtal as an example, the nation has decided that cloning is ethically reprehensible, and as such, have banned such reasearch within our own country. We do not attempt to force our beliefs on others, but we also are pragmatic enough to realize that if a FOREIGN scientist decides to set up shop in our relatively peaceful land, we have no substantive recourse against them, other than to frown and say, awww, we don't like you doing that.

That this resolution was ever passed in the first place is simply amazing, and a repeal would certainly be in good order.

Grossherzog Troy Kramer
Federation of Traumtal

Sorry, but you've missed the point. Look carefully at the phrasing - it is a prediction of the possible effects of allowing scientific freedom, not an order to allow it.

"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."

I would have to completely disagree with the last poster. By keeping the language so ambiguoius, it is inherently dangerous. First, let us consider "ensuring" insofar that it does indeed force member nations to accept "peaceful and responsible scientists" and allow them to research just about anything. There are no provisions defining what exactly constitutes a Peaceful and Reasonable scientist. There are no provisions limiting the subjects to be researched, just so long as the scientists themselves meet some formula of "peaceful and responsible" and there is no recourse for governments that may find the research personally, ethically, or morally objectionable. To use Traumtal as an example, the nation has decided that cloning is ethically reprehensible, and as such, have banned such reasearch within our own country. We do not attempt to force our beliefs on others, but we also are pragmatic enough to realize that if a FOREIGN scientist decides to set up shop in our relatively peaceful land, we have no substantive recourse against them, other than to frown and say, awww, we don't like you doing that.

That this resolution was ever passed in the first place is simply amazing, and a repeal would certainly be in good order.

Grossherzog Troy Kramer
Federation of Traumtal

Simple - declare that cloning research is irresponsible because of the moral rammifications - and boom, you can ban cloning research.