NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a replacement for repealed resolution #2. The original author, Bazalonia, has allowed me to submit it and launch a telegram campaign.

Freedom of Scientific Research

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

RECOGNISING the many benefits of scientific research such as, medical drugs, procedures and practices, more environmentally friendly technologies, More efficient and effective time-saving devices,

BELIEVING that scientists should be able to research any legal topic without undue restrictions on the research or the results of that research,

UNDERSTANDING that scientific advances that are made for the betterment of the life of any persons should be available to all UN nations,

The United Nations General Assembly hereby,

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
- 'scientific endeavour' as any scientific theory, procedure, law or any goods derived from scientific research within that UN Member nation, not including any weapons, weapon components, weapon systems, blueprints or technologies whose purpose is of a destructive nature,
- 'scientific research' as one or more experiments carried out under the methodology of the Scientific Method to gain data and test a hypothesis,
- 'scientific equipment' as any equipment used to aid in scientific research.
- 'areas of research' as any topic, methodology or practice that is to be researched or can be used during the research process,
- 'scientist' as any person performing scientific research in an honest and straightforward manner with both the government as well as any person taking part in the scientific research,

2. ENCOURAGES nations to promote research into any legal area of research without placing unnecessesary restrictions on that research or any scientific endeavours resultant from such research,

3. MANDATES that governments take the following steps to facilitate scientific research by:
a. ensuring that there are no unnecessary restrictions for buildings where scientific research is performed, apart from restrictions that ensure safety of the building, the people in it and the environment around it,
b. ensuring that obtaining adequate scientific equipment is not prohibited or excessively hampered by government regulations, excluding circumstances where there are specific and substantial safety issues involved,
c. reevaluating restrictions on materials used during scientific research and remove or loosen restrictions on as many materials as it is safe to do so,

4. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES governments to streamline policies and procedures for the legal exportation of scientific endeavours, taking into account international and national Intellectual Property laws,

5. REITERATES governmental rights to determine whether certain areas of research are legal or illegal within their sovereign territory,

6. REITERATES governmental rights to regulate or prohibit distribution of explosives or other dangerous materials, such as radioactive isotopes, that may be used during scientific research, given that these dangerous materials are not prohibited by international legislation.

Authored by: Bazalonia

3. MANDATES that governments take the following steps to facilitate scientific research by:Since you mandate these we have some concerns on how they read to us.
a. ensure that there are no uncessary restrictions for buildings where scientific research is performed, apart from restrictions that ensure safety of the building, the people in it and the environment around it,We would see some concern over what is and what is not a necessary restriction, such as building one on sacred grounds or in protected forests. As these are not safety in nature so would have to go..

b. ensure that obtaining adequate scientific equipment is not prohibited or excessively hampered by government regulations, excluding circumstances where there are specific and substantial safety issues involved,What about trade tarriffs on such items as we would have to remove them as they are not safety in nature so..!?

c. reevaluate restrictions on materials used during scientific research and remove or loosen restrictions on as many materials as it is safe to do so,
.

Here we don't ban eating human flesh because of a saftey issue but because of moral beliefs.. thus we would have to remove that ban.. or loosen it..

Here we don't allow abortions simply for the fetus to be used to provide material for some medical procedure to help another person.. This is not a safety issue but moral one also... thus we would have to remove or loosen our laws on such and allow it under the name of scientific research.

AS you may in the first parts mention only if it legal.. This is the part that mandates what we do the rest means little.. and it don't consider current laws; just says we have to loosen or remove them unless they are in place for safety reasons. Which all are not...

5. MANDATES that any scientist wishing to conduct research in an area of research that is illegal in their home nation may relocate (as well as their Immediate family) to another UN Member nation that does not have bans on such scientific research and is willing to accept their family and them,We will not allow this to happen as we feel this is a matter of national security.. As there are reasons for laws to ban something and our citizens not to get into them.. All it would take is one scientist not happy with our decision to ban something he has been working on because we found it a danger to use... and them joining forces with our enemy and..

Also the term immediate family needs to be defined.. As Family isDefinition: Family Noun 5. An association of people who share common beliefs or activities; "the message was addressed not just to employees but to every member of the company family"; "the church welcomed new members into its fellowship".not just the wife and kids... thus anyone working with him could be considered his immediate family and thus go and we have to let them go with him.

Since you mandate these we have some concerns on how they read to us.

Oh, wonderful!

We would see some concern over what is and what is not a necessary restriction, such as building one on sacred grounds or in protected forests. As these are not safety in nature so would have to go..

Erm, no. Scientific buildings would still have to be acquired through the purchasing of the land they are to be performed on--they still have to follow the laws, which, hopefully if your country believes in private property including real estate, includes theft as a criminal act. Scientists can't just go to, say in RL, the Taj Mahal, and say "this MUST be a laboratory because of Resolution ???". They would have to purchase the land legally first. So, yes, I would say that national laws that don't have anything to do with scientific research should be deemed a "necessary restriction".

What about trade tarriffs on such items as we would have to remove them as they are not safety in nature so..!?

Restrictions, as in countries banning the trading of them. A high tax or large tariff on traded items doesn't qualify as a "restriction". If you cannot afford to trade the items, sorry.

Here we don't ban eating human flesh because of a saftey issue but because of moral beliefs.. thus we would have to remove that ban.. or loosen it..

Here we don't allow abortions simply for the fetus to be used to provide material for some medical procedure to help another person.. This is not a safety issue but moral one also... thus we would have to remove or loosen our laws on such and allow it under the name of scientific research.

What? Your not making any sense. This proposal isn't mandating that you legalize abortion, believe me, I would know, for I'd be against such a proposal. It's requiring you to loosen restrictions on scientific materials. Unless you have a law banning the holding of a syringe, I doubt this will be of much trouble.

We will not allow this to happen as we feel this is a matter of national security.. As there are reasons for laws to ban something and our citizens not to get into them.. All it would take is one scientist not happy with our decision to ban something he has been working on because we found it a danger to use... and them joining forces with our enemy and..

Ok, I think I may actually understand what your saying in this one. If I am reading you correctly, then I believe your worry is that a scientist with technology not avalable in one country (which happens to be your enemy), can relocate and give this exclusive technology to your enemy country. Ok, I can understand that concern.

Isn't a drafting stage wonderful? Even with that post we've found a way to make this proposal better! :)

Actually, it does mandate that you allow the collection of embryonic stem cells through clause 3c, which may qualify as abortion.

Isn't a drafting stage wonderful? Even with that post we've found a way to make this proposal better! :)Always glad we could be of some help even if we don't know how we did it..

As far as the other that clause on SAFTEY is the only reason that one can restrict or even ban something.. Moral reasons don't fit safety..

Tarriffs are a mild restriction in that to do something you have to pay them thus making you first have to find the funds to do it. Thus restricting you in some way from getting materials or property to do research on... since you have to take time from that research to get those funds and thus can't use that time on the research.. A seatbelt restricts you from getting out of your seat until you unbuckle it... thus would a trarriff restrict you from research until it paid. Thus since not a saftey issue one would under this have to remove it or loosen it..

As for the fetus being used in research... again only for safety reason can we restrict it otherwise we have to remove or loosen restrictions. Moral reason is not safety reason...... you only allow restrictions for safety reasons not others...

A nation simply feels it is not right to take a fetus and use it for research thus restricts it... There is no valid reason to do this for saftety and why should we say it's because it hurts the fetus or mother when others will debate that and that not why we restrict it.. we simply don't believe it right. Thus you have allowed fetal research where moraly we believe it wrong and it not even a matter of saftey..

Also laws on the ownership of property such as land and buidlings and even medical devices are not made for safety reasons but to allow ownership of those items.. Thus since there is no saftety issue we must remove or loosen those laws to meet the mandates set here.

"home-grown scientific endeavor" sounds like rhetoric. Get rid of "home-grown".

We should also add a clause 8: BANS all protectionist devices on the trade of scientific materials.

We should also add a clause 8: BANS all protectionist devices on the trade of scientific materials.

No. Beakers, test tubes, chemicals, cultures, all sorts of things are considered scientific materials. There's no reason these deserve free trade whatevers.

Actually, it does mandate that you allow the collection of embryonic stem cells through clause 3c, which may qualify as abortion.

That is if you consider embryonic stem cells to be "materials". Thoughts on an amendment?

Edited "home-grown".

That is if you consider embryonic stem cells to be "materials". Thoughts on an amendment?We do under this definition of the word material..
Noun
The tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object;

Then if you want to consider fetus as a living person from conception then this definition appliesA person judged suitable for admission or employment


6. REITERATES governmental rights to determine whether certain areas of research are legal or illegal within their sovereign territory,If I read this right the only thing close to covering governmental rights was your mandating that they can do this only based on safety issue. As there is nothing else in your proposal that lets governments restrict any form of scientific research but for a saftey issue. If laws estabished are not based on safety issue then they must by mandate of section three be loosened or removed..

3a...apart from restrictions that ensure safety 3b...excluding circumstances where there are specific and substantial safety issues involved 3c...or loosen restrictions on as many materials as it is safe to do so,As Safety is clearly the only reason one can restrict scientific research...

Also believe that ammendments to one once they are voted on and in place can't be made until the old one is replaced.. Also that this one must stand on it's own not getting 'ammended by' or 'ammending' another resolution that could get repealed and leave it worthless. Since this is only a draft and changes can be made to cover any issue then you would not be ammending it now just making drafting changes.

5. MANDATES that any scientist wishing to conduct research in an area of research that is illegal in their home nation may relocate (as well as their Immediate family) to another UN Member nation that does not have bans on such scientific research and is willing to accept their family and them,

Even if they're currently facing trial on criminal charges, or they have already been convicted of crimes and the sentence would otherwise keep them from emigrating? And what if they're currently doing 'national service'?

Even if they're currently facing trial on criminal charges, or they have already been convicted of crimes and the sentence would otherwise keep them from emigrating? And what if they're currently doing 'national service'?

how about this edit? I believe this also covers the consideration about exclusive technology in the previous posts.

5. MANDATES that any scientist wishing to conduct research in an area of research that is illegal in their home nation may relocate (as well as their Immediate family) to another UN Member nation that does not have bans on such scientific research and is willing to accept their family and them, given that no other reason exists to deny those wishing to relocate.

5. MANDATES that any scientist wishing to conduct research in an area of research that is illegal in their home nation may relocate (as well as their Immediate family) to another UN Member nation that does not have bans on such scientific research and is willing to accept their family and them, given that no other reason exists to deny those wishing to relocate.Well, that just generates a titantic loophole allowing nations to never let scientists leave. "You asked to perform $research. That is a felony. Report to Gulag #19a7."

Also, don't people already have a right to leave their country? I thought there was a Resolution on that... Right of Movement, or some such thing...

Also, don't people already have a right to leave their country? I thought there was a Resolution on that... Right of Movement, or some such thing...

Don't recognize the title, but if there is such a resolution, I don't see much of a need for this clause anymore.

Also, don't people already have a right to leave their country? I thought there was a Resolution on that... Right of Movement, or some such thing...

Whatever it was called, it failed to pass... :(

"End Slavery" gives the right to travel within one's own country. Ator People tried a "Global Emigration Rights" proposal, but it never reached quorum.

That's all I can think of.

I must have been thinking of "Global Emigration Rights". So, nevermind, I guess. I do still think the clause is flawed, and could probably be removed anyway.

After all, sneaking out of opressive countries is the only exercise those pencil-necked geeks get!

I must have been thinking of "Global Emigration Rights". So, nevermind, I guess. I do still think the clause is flawed, and could probably be removed anyway.

Agreed, clause removed.

Any thoughts over an amendment to clause 3c?

Those scientists, who illegally perform scientific research in their home nation, should have the items of their research confiscated and the scientist possibly prosecuted for their actions.

Those scientists, who illegally perform scientific research in their home nation, should...possibly prosecuted for their actions.

Isn't that what happens when something is illegal?

Isn't that what happens when something is illegal?

As long as they can't just emigrate to escape that prosecution (which would be harder for them now that you've dropped the emigration clause), yes.

Unless it violates civil law and not criminal law or federal law (which I doubt greatly) then all that will happen is a big fine.

Thanks to everyone who assisted in this drafting process.

I plan on submitting this mid-day tomorrow. Any last comments?