Repeal "Scientific Freedom"
Libre Arbitre
11-11-2005, 14:42
I am going to submit the following resolution to the UN, and I was hoping that any UN member would give me their thoughts on the proposal that I am going to put forward. Also, I would appreciate support and endorsement from regional delegates.
Repeal Scientific Freedom:
OBSERVING that the resolution "Scientific Freedom" employs numerous examples of language that is so overly vague that it has lost meaning such as "peaceful and respectable scientists", and fruther
REALIZING that the resolution's claims of "technology will move forward and trade will increase" are completely unsubstantiated by the present resolution.
NOTING that no specific definition has been given as to what constitutes "Scientific Freedom" as given by the authors of the resolution,
It can therefore be concluded that this resolution no longer serves a purpose at present and can hereby be repealed.
Powerhungry Chipmunks
11-11-2005, 15:18
Repeal Scientific Freedom:
OBSERVING that the resolution "Scientific Freedom" employs numerous examples of language that is so overly vague that it has lost meaning such as "peaceful and respectable scientists", and fruther
"fruther" needs to be corrected (I'd just run the whole thing through a word-processor's spell-check to be sure).
REALIZING that the resolution's claims of "technology will move forward and trade will increase" are completely unsubstantiated by the present resolution.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "present resolution". Perhaps if you explained this (it might be better left out), I can understand the appeal of this clause.
NOTING that no specific definition has been given as to what constitutes "Scientific Freedom" as given by the authors of the resolution,
It can therefore be concluded that this resolution no longer serves a purpose at present and can hereby be repealed.I think this covers enough of bases on the failure of "Scientific Freedom" to be workable. I'd work the "it's in conflict with current rules by listing names" angle, too if I were you.
Also, I've always been a fan of "REPEALS X resolution" as the last clause. Right now, your last clause doesn't actually repeal "Scientific Freedom", it just says "X resolution can be repealed". I'd suggest making it more specific. But other than that, I think you'd pass on the floor. Good Luck.
SLI Sector
11-11-2005, 15:23
Why not just make a new resolution defing "Scientific Freedom"? Then that resolution would deal with that freedom.
Why not just make a new resolution defing "Scientific Freedom"? Then that resolution would deal with that freedom.
not sure that's possible - I wanted to define abortion, but was told it would be illegal without a repeal.
Gruenberg
11-11-2005, 19:47
I disagree: "Fair Trial" and "Diplomatic Immunity" both passed as definition resolutions.
The trouble in this case is that I rather like being able to define what constitutes responsible scientific research, and I'd be worried a replacement which forced me to recognise certain barbarisms might creep in.
Ausserland
11-11-2005, 20:34
I disagree: "Fair Trial" and "Diplomatic Immunity" both passed as definition resolutions.
The trouble in this case is that I rather like being able to define what constitutes responsible scientific research, and I'd be worried a replacement which forced me to recognise certain barbarisms might creep in.
We hate to disagree with our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg, but "Fair Trial" and "Diplomatic Immunity" are not "definition resolutions" in any meaning of that term that we can imagine.
Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Gruenberg
11-11-2005, 20:37
My apologies. I actually meant "Definition of a Fair Trial", which I think is clearly a definition one. I retract the comment about "Diplomatic Immunity" however.
Love and esterel
11-11-2005, 20:37
Why not just make a new resolution defing "Scientific Freedom"? Then that resolution would deal with that freedom.
Groot Gouda wrote an interesting proposal last month
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9809890&postcount=27
Freedom of Science
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Groot Gouda
Description: The NationStates United Nations,
RECALLING the adoption of Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,
NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolution provides for scientists,
ALSO NOTING that this resolution poorly defines science and scientists worthy of protection,
CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, greater insight into how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,
ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly separate from science,
1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right across UN member nations,
2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,
3. MANDATES that no scientist may be prosecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications, nor unreasonably restricted in any other way,
4. AUTHORIZES individual nations to exempt scientific research from the general UN protection granted in clause 3 that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals or the environment (except where it is the only way greater damage can be prevented);
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;
d. contains plagiarized material or material which by contract was not (yet) to be published;
5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.
Gruenberg
11-11-2005, 20:39
Yeah, see this is my concern. I would hate for something to pass that restricted the choice "Scientific Freedom" affords. Which is why I currently oppose its repeal.
Groot Gouda wrote an interesting proposal last month
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9809890&postcount=27
i totally agree
Gruenberg
11-11-2005, 21:08
Yeah, you really should have used the repeal function. You can't submit repeals as substantive repeals.
Ausserland
11-11-2005, 21:19
Ausserland would certainly support a repeal of Resolution #2. It's an unfortunate example of a resolution that does absolutely nothing. It doesn't even "URGE" or "RECOMMEND" anything.
We would also support a replacement. Something much along the lines of the proposal forwarded by the honorable representative of Groot Gouda would be a great improvement. Although we have some hesitation about specific items in Section 4 of that proposal, we believe it's basically sound.
Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Pallatium
11-11-2005, 21:32
I disagree: "Fair Trial" and "Diplomatic Immunity" both passed as definition resolutions.
The trouble in this case is that I rather like being able to define what constitutes responsible scientific research, and I'd be worried a replacement which forced me to recognise certain barbarisms might creep in.
Oddly enough - I like it for exactly the opposite reasons - so that science can be free to research what it wants without someone telling me that it is barbaric (or morally wrong) to research something.
Gruenberg
11-11-2005, 21:33
Oddly enough - I like it for exactly the opposite reasons - so that science can be free to research what it wants without someone telling me that it is barbaric (or morally wrong) to research something.
Well, sure. That's my point, really: you are free to define what you are allowed to research in Pallatium, and I am free to define what research is permitted in Gruenberg. That's good, I feel.