NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of Scientific Research

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Jey

Description: The United Nations,

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 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

Approvals: 128

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Best UN card ever.

This sounds solid to me. Norderia stands behind you.

Thanks Jey for getting it up there for me...

As the author we of course will vote for

We will once again be in favor of this fine resolution.

WE still feel that since this mandates that we must loosen of remove restrictions only if there are no 'safety concerns' that it will causes us to have to remove or loosen everything... Since many laws that restrict certain acts are not based on some safety issue but a moral one.

Tarriffs on products are a form or restriction no applied based on any safety issue and thus will have to be loosened or removed on all materials used in 'scientific research'

Laws that deal with owenership of land are restrictions in sense and thus since not applied for safety issues would have to be 'loosened or removed' for scientific research.

Most national taxes are not applies for safety reasons so even these would have to be loosend or removed for scientific research.

To restrict something means you keep it from being done forever of for a while... add a tax on something and until that tax is paid you are restricted from doing it.

A fetus is material that could be used in 'scientific research' and since most apply restrictions for non use on moral rather than safety issues they would have to 'loosen or remove' any moral based restrictions and come up with some on safety. Thus it would be a total disregard of the moral beliefs on citizens of individual nations, when they can show no reason to restrict it for safety; nor should they have to.

It may later REITERATES governmental rightsIn clause 5 and 6 but as long as the mandate read the only exception to not 'loosening or removing' a restriction is based on 'safety issues' then those laws based on other issuses will have to either be removed or loosend. AS to my understand what is mandated is what we must comply with.. Not what is
REITERATED as our 'governmental rights' are simply that in this one. Also the term reiterate means to repeat.. And the only thing said in the full proposal about reason for not 'loosening or removing' restrictions on scientific research only says if for 'safety reasons'. So there is nothing repeated on moral beliefs or rights of a government to tax or tarriff since it's not even considered.


Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

*snip*[quote]
Your assumptions are going on a ultra-strict view of the proposal but there are enough vagueries and looseness in the wording to prevent any nation from unwillingly doing such... lets break this down.

Let me alay some fears about clause 3...

part a... emphasis added

[quote]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,

Are ownership and access laws necessary? I would say so...
"Tarriffs" are not a restriction placed on the actual research.. Tarrifs would be a restriction placed on the "scientific endeavour" by the definitions of this proposal

See my answer to Tarriffs... If you can give me a tax that taxes the actual scientific research as defined within the proposal then by all means, but if there is a tax on the scientists.. let's say income tax then even if that was to be included as part of the scientific research, your nation has to have money to pay for all the things it does therefore it could be classed as necessary.

part c


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,


No definition has been used for safe... is it safe for the feotus? IS it safe for the emotional distress it might cause for the family? IS it safe for the society to allow fetouses to be used in such research?

The answer to any of these questions could very well be No...

that way if nations want to butcher themselves by allowing research in this area then they can but nations that want to be of a higher moral order can still do so.

I chose 'REITERATES' because since there are no current resolutions that prevent nations having these rights then the nations have the right to decide for themself and I just wanted to include that in this proposal.

Bazalonia'] I chose 'REITERATES' because since there are no current resolutions that prevent nations having these rights then the nations have the right to decide for themself and I just wanted to include that in this proposal.However you only allow us not to 'remove or loosen' restrictions on saftey issuses.. Other issues are not discussed anywhere in your proposal thus the on reason for not removing or loosening a restriction is safety. Ownership laws are not based on safety issues not are taxes based on these.. Then laws placed on actions due to moral beliefs fail as safety issues. The mandate clause are the teeth of this one and they don't in them say nations can add any taxes on scientific research or tarriffs to the materials used in them. As far as aquiring materials free reign is given when no reason to stop one from taking what they want unless it's not safe to do it. A fetus born dead can be taken in the name of research and used however the researcher desires.. any moral restrictions placed against this must be under the mandates removed since once the fetus is born dead there is no issue of saftety to the mother and the fetus is dead. Heck the same would go for regular adult death as moraly one can't take parts from the dead without some form of consent under current laws.. but since there would be few safety issues to bring in (contagious disease as cause death and even that after death for some is mute) one could take parts off dead and use them for any research as this mandates remove or loosen restrictions that prevetn such actions. And don't say a body part is not material or that a fetus is not material as to some after one is dead that all it is..

You can't repeat what had not been said by you in this proposal and can't relie on other proposals to support yours as they get repealed yours falls apart..

ensuring that there are no unnecessary restrictions apart from restrictions that ensure safetyTell me where it leaves room here for any restrictions other than those that deal with safety. I don't see it here nor anywhere else in this proposal as written.. and you repeat back to this not something outside the proposal..

Bazalonia]Are ownership and access laws necessary? I would say so... Are ownership and all access laws established for a safety issue or other? If there are no safety issues then you are mandated to remove them or loosen them. Period it don't matter if they are nessary or not..
"Tarriffs" are not a restriction placed on the actual research.. Tarrifs would be a restriction placed on the "scientific endeavour" by the definitions of this proposa;.A seat belt delays one from getting out of a seat until you remove it or loosen it... Therefore if I place a tarriff on certain items and you deam they are needed in your research then so long as you don't pay that tarriff you don't get the items.. research is restricted... You try to bring in those items without paying tarriffs and go to prison... research is restricted... there is no safety issue their is a pay issue.. thus we must remove or loosen the pay issue because it's not a necessary safety one but unnecessary..

Are ownership and all access laws established for a safety issue or other? If there are no safety issues then you are mandated to remove them or loosen them. Period it don't matter if they are nessary or not..

it does that is why it says UNNESSASARY restrictions not just restrictions

A seat belt delays one from getting out of a seat until you remove it or loosen it... Therefore if I place a tarriff on certain items and you deam they are needed in your research then so long as you don't pay that tarriff you don't get the items.. research is restricted... You try to bring in those items without paying tarriffs and go to prison... research is restricted... there is no safety issue their is a pay issue.. thus we must remove or loosen the pay issue because it's not a necessary safety one but unnecessary..

A seat belt does not restrict you from getting out of it. A restriction would be if you could not get out of it. Tarrifs SLOW it down but do not STOP it and are therfore not a restriciton.

So far all you have done is bend the proposals and interpret them to mean something else. If you were not determined to find a flaw you would not find them. But now you are interpreting everything in a very stupid way so that there is a problem with it.

Ok, let's take this in the other direction...

If it doesn't mandate the removal of restrictions in areas Zeldon 6229 Nodlez mentioned, does it actually mandate anything meaningful?

Couldn't one interpret "unnecessary restrictions", "excessively hampered", and "as it is safe to do so" to restrict access to equipment at one's whim?

Ok, let's take this in the other direction...

If it doesn't mandate the removal of restrictions in areas Zeldon 6229 Nodlez mentioned, does it actually mandate anything meaningful?

Couldn't one interpret "unnecessary restrictions", "excessively hampered", and "as it is safe to do so" to restrict access to equipment at one's whim?

How outrageous is the whim?

We support it, as it rightly places the decision on acceptable research, not in the hands of scientists or academics, but national politicians.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

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,
Am I right to say that this means unnecessary restrictions of ANY kind should not be placed on scientific research, that restrictions due to safety must always be present (i.e. the constant), and that ALL other restrictions will be placed or removed according to a government's view on what is necessary and what is not to the scientific research (i.e. the variable)?

This, you see, is my interpretation of it and I have therefore found it perfectly justifiable and sensible to vote for the 'Freedom of Scientific Research' resolution.

Am I right to say that this means unnecessary restrictions of ANY kind should not be placed on scientific research, that restrictions due to safety must always be present (i.e. the constant), and that ALL other restrictions will be placed or removed according to a government's view on what is necessary and what is not to the scientific research (i.e. the variable)?

This, you see, is my interpretation of it and I have therefore found it perfectly justifiable and sensible to vote for the 'Freedom of Scientific Research' resolution.

Exactly what what I was trying to achieve with this proposal. safety is a concern and should not be compromised just to make scientific research easier, but there are still many areas where restrictions can be removed or loosened and be done safely.

Quick question. Clause 5 looks a lot like a blocker line to me.

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

As written it will pretty much stop any person writing a proposal that would ban or legalise any branch of research UN wide, or give funding. Is that right, or am I reading it wrong?

If this resolution is nothing more than a fancy worded blocker, then I can't and won't support it.

Dashanzi votes for the resolution.

I think this should be left for each country to decide, and not for the UN to interfere. The freedom of scientific research is not a fundamental right. I agree with everything on this resolution, but not that we should impose it upon others. I will vote against it.

Quick question. Clause 5 looks a lot like a blocker line to me.



As written it will pretty much stop any person writing a proposal that would ban or legalise any branch of research UN wide, or give funding. Is that right, or am I reading it wrong?

If this resolution is nothing more than a fancy worded blocker, then I can't and won't support it.

5 & 6 are I suppose, in essence, blockers. But I ask you do the clauses 1-4 do something? I think they do, others think they do, but the question is do you?

They prevent decleration of an area illegal or legal... but the UN can if the need was to arrise place restrictions on a certain type of research, eg cosmetic testing on animals, but cannot make such research illegal.

The opposite side of this is funding... as long as the proposal recognises the potential of the item to be legal or illegal. Then this proposal would have no effect on a proposal like that.

Communist Endeavors has voted against this resolution. It reeks of a UN attempt to force mandates on the countries under its dominion- and as a pro-sovereignity nation, we will have no part in any such actions.
-Communist Endeavors

Our region likes the bill's IDEA, but we feel the wording is far to general, and needs to be revised so that it is more ironclad for both the purpose of enforcing it, and the purpose of eluding it. Until this happens, Many of us can not vote for this.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic considers this resolution acceptable, especially considering Clause 5 , and has therefore voted 'For'.

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Krankor must regretfully vote NO. We strongly believe in imprisoning scientists until they reveal their secret rocket fuel formula and present our ulimatum to earthlings.

The Republic of Rapscall will not vote for this resolution for the same reasons stated by our collegues from SILOT

Krankor must regretfully vote NO. We strongly believe in imprisoning scientists until they reveal their secret rocket fuel formula and present our ulimatum to earthlings.

Further proof that crack kills brain cells.

Germania V is of the opinion that although this proposal is of no real significance, it is definately a small step in the right direction. We will be voting FOR this resolution.

Why do yo people vote agianst this? This is the chance for science to greatly advance, and you say no?:headbang: Vote yes, like I did.

I think this should be left for each country to decide, and not for the UN to interfere. The freedom of scientific research is not a fundamental right. I agree with everything on this resolution, but not that we should impose it upon others. I will vote against it.

I agree. This is not the purpose of the UN.
I'm also voting against.

The Parliament of Selemantra has deemed this proposal worthy of our vote. Freedom of scientific research is most important to the improvement of the races of our world.

The Principality of Viminal, while believing that scientific research is an important endeavour for the betterment of the human condition, does not hold that it is a fundamental right. Countries should encourage the search for new and innovative knowledge, but in no way should they be beholden to allow it. Believing that research, as outlined in this proposal, is not a universal, human freedom, the Principality of Viminal holds that each, individual nation, rather than the United Nations, is the better judge of what is considered appropriate scientific activity within their own jurisdictions.

We support it, as it rightly places the decision on acceptable research, not in the hands of scientists or academics, but national politicians.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

Deputy Ambassador Sub-Vizier, could you please highlight a few sections of the resolution where you feel that this is placing the decision on acceptable research in the hands of politicians. Also my government, which is still undecided at this point (though leaning in favour), would like to hear why scientists should not have a say in the decision on acceptable research.

Howie T. Katzman

While The Allied States of The West Atlantic Bloc encourage all scientific progress and research, we cannot help but be troubled by the vague definition of "scientific endeavor," while providing important stipulations against the development of advanced warfare technology, does not guarantee any protections from scientific endeavors that could grossly infringe upon the rights of men, i.e. vivisections, chemical and biological research with live subjects, et cetera.

If any clarification could be afforded on this issue, the people of the Allied States would be willing to enter this article for debate in the Allied Councils. Until then, we must respectfully withhold our vote.

~Husam al Din al-Filastini
Senior Councillor of Diplomatic Affairs

We will vote for the proposal at hand as long as no harm comes to animals or humans. No lab testing on animals humans only if they volunteer and are compinsated for the testing.

-Michelle de kamp
deputy of Science For the Eastern Provinces.

The western provinces find them self in accordence with the statements made by Ms. De Kamp and the East.

-Renee Granier
Deputy of Science for the Western Provinces.

Agita appreciates the spirit and intent of this resolution and its drafters, and indeed the people and government of Agita have consistently voted against domestic legislation that would restrict scientific research. We are concerned, however, that this Resolution is too vague regarding the extent to which it is permissible for government to restrict scientific research. We draw to your attention the example of "non-weaponized" chemical and biological agents. It is often the case that research benefitting legitimate, non-destructive uses of such chemical and biological agents will simultaneously benefit those who would use such agents in a destructive manner. It is also often the case that the difference between a "weaponized" and "non-weaponized" agent is but a small procedural step. If this Resolution would interfere with our ability to place restrictions upon non-weaponized chemical and biological agent research, we would vote against it for being overly broad and intrusive in our national affairs. If instead it is the opinion of the Resolution's sponsors that we could limit such research because such restrictions are not "unnecessary" as contemplated by the Resolution, then we would still vote against the Resolution on the grounds that it does not in fact advance freedom of scientific research. In Agita, we believe that all of our restrictions upon scientific research are "necessary," or else we would not have enacted them in the first place. We suspect that other nations feel similarly about their own restrictions, and would also interpret them as "necessary" under the Resolution. Nearly any chemical or biological agent is a safety hazard in the right concentration and context, even oxygen. It would then be left to nations to argue what limitations are reasonable for safety purposes and what are excessive. These are arguments we want no part of, and thus we will vote AGAINST the Resolution. We further believe that this issue may be too complex to ever be an appropriate subject for a UN resolution, at least on this large a scale and this general.

Deputy Ambassador Sub-Vizier, could you please highlight a few sections of the resolution where you feel that this is placing the decision on acceptable research in the hands of politicians.
Certainly Ambassador Katzman. We mainly see Clause 5 as of major importance:
REITERATES governmental rights to determine whether certain areas of research are legal or illegal within their sovereign territory,
From this, it is clear that it remains an issue for national governments - populated by politicians, naturally - to rule on whether a particular area of research is legal or illegal.

Also my government, which is still undecided at this point (though leaning in favour), would like to hear why scientists should not have a say in the decision on acceptable research.
I wouldn't say they shouldn't have a say. We would hope any responsible government would consult with appropriate institutions - perhaps the professional science academies of its nation, for example - before ruling on such issues - and we think the body of the proposal makes this clear. As much as anything, politicians would need to consult with scientists, who would naturally be more in tune with the latest developments in the field.

That said, we think there are good reasons for not placing the legality decision exclusively in the hands of scientists:
Funding. Not all nations have the resources or facilities to have scientists research anything they want, and especially in times of war, crisis, etc., it may be necessary to ask them to concentrate on specific projects.
Scientists should make scientific decisions, not ethical ones. Issues such as stem cell research will likely never be solved through recourse to science alone, because there is an underlying moral element.
Scientists, however well-intended, may conduct hazardous research. There are times when they should be prohibited from doing so, in the greater public interest.
We cannot place absolute trust in researchers based solely on academic credentials. There will be those who will make morally compromising decisions, or who would be willing to conduct questionable research for money, through blind devotion, or otherwise. Much as with any other professional pursuit, a modicum of regulation may be required for a minority, something the majority would have to live with.

We hope this clarifies our position.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

Clause 5 is no blocker.
It simply places the right to decide the legality of research in the hands of the nation's government, not the UN.
This will free up space and time for the UN to do important things instead of worrying about every litttle scientific aspect of every nation in the world.

Land of Midgets supports this noble resolution.

We will vote for the proposal at hand as long as no harm comes to animals or humans. No lab testing on animals humans only if they volunteer and are compinsated for the testing.

-Michelle de kamp
deputy of Science For the Eastern Provinces.


I second this motion. I will submit my vote for this so long as Animal Testing is not included in it. Should that be a motivator for the scientific development, I must vote against this proposal.

Signed Sincerely,
Dictator Mephistophilis
Dictatorship of Mephopolis

Bazalonia']5 & 6 are I suppose, in essence, blockers. But I ask you do the clauses 1-4 do something? I think they do, others think they do, but the question is do you?

They prevent decleration of an area illegal or legal... but the UN can if the need was to arrise place restrictions on a certain type of research, eg cosmetic testing on animals, but cannot make such research illegal.

The opposite side of this is funding... as long as the proposal recognises the potential of the item to be legal or illegal. Then this proposal would have no effect on a proposal like that.

Hmm, our government don't like blockers because we don't agree with putting restrictions on the power of the UN to act. We'll need to think about this one because apart from that, it is a good resolution. Witchcliff abstains for now, but we may make a decision one way or the other near the end of voting.

Kirin, the Reformers
Panyer, the Preservers
Joint Witchcliff representatives to the UN.

Does anyone realize that this resolution would allow unethical scientific practices, since it suggests allowing nations to decide individually what procedures are legal or illegal?

Does anyone realize that this resolution would allow unethical scientific practices, since it suggests allowing nations to decide individually what procedures are legal or illegal?
As opposed to now, without the resolution...where unethical scientific practices are somehow banned?

If you want a resolution banning unethical scientific practices, write it yourself. This is a general resolution on scientific freedom. Good luck with coming up with a universal code of ethics, though.

As opposed to now, without the resolution...where unethical scientific practices are somehow banned?

If you want a resolution banning unethical scientific practices, write it yourself. This is a general resolution on scientific freedom. Good luck with coming up with a universal code of ethics, though.

There's no need to be rude. And there used to be a resolution that banned unethical scientific practices. Assuming that resolution is still active, this resolution would effectively nullify that resolution, and allow UN members to make unethical scientific practices, all in the name of "technological advancement".

On that note, the government of Tarandella votes AGAINST this resolution. While it is a good resolution over all, allowing individual nations to decide what scientific practices are legal or illegal, gives us pause. Were this resolution to be resubmitted without that stipulation in it, we will willingly change our vote.

And there used to be a resolution that banned unethical scientific practices.
Oh? Care to say which one? I don't see it.

Assuming that resolution is still active
Which it is not.

this resolution would effectively nullify that resolution
Not true. New law cannot override existing law in the NSUN.

allowing individual nations to decide what scientific practices are legal or illegal, gives us pause
You want Sheknuites to be able to decide what your scientists can research? Woo hoo!

You want Sheknuites to be able to decide what your scientists can research? Woo hoo!

My point is, that the UN members must maintain a specific level of morality. Unethical scientific practices by UN members, violates the reason for these states being members of the UN, and hinders the UN from accomplishing it's goals.

Thus, it is not recommended to allow UN members to individually decide what scientific practices are legal or illegal.

Clause 5 is no blocker.
It simply places the right to decide the legality of research in the hands of the nation's government, not the UN.

Which (and here's the funny part) is what a blocker is.

My point is, that the UN members must maintain a specific level of morality.

Morality, no. Ethics, sure.

(goddamn phone... -ends post-)

My point is, that the UN members must maintain a specific level of morality.
Oh come on: surely you know the difference between morals and ethics?

Yes, and stop calling me Shirley.

Unethical scientific practices by UN members, violates the reason for these states being members of the UN, and hinders the UN from accomplishing it's goals.
Which goals would those be? What is the "reason" states are members of the UN?

You're making the usual error of assuming your opinion of what the UN, and its members, should do is what in fact the UN and its members must do.

Thus, it is not recommended to allow UN members to individually decide what scientific practices are legal or illegal.
Why on earth not? You're saying that in Sheknu, where we have no history of researching contagions, we should be prevented from banning contagion research, on the grounds that we don't have the right to stop scientists wiping out our entire population? You have a pretty fucked-up view of governance, if I may say.

My point is, that the UN members must maintain a specific level of morality. Unethical scientific practices by UN members, violates the reason for these states being members of the UN, and hinders the UN from accomplishing it's goals.

Thus, it is not recommended to allow UN members to individually decide what scientific practices are legal or illegal.

And what exactly do you see as 'unethical'?

Ethics differ from nation to nation, from people to poeple and person to person. Which is why this resolution places the decision on what is ethical and what is not with the individual governments.

Why on earth not? You're saying that in Sheknu, where we have no history of researching contagions, we should be prevented from banning contagion research, on the grounds that we don't have the right to stop scientists wiping out our entire population?

I don't believe I ever said that. I'm just saying that individual nations should not have the power to determine what scientific practices are legal or illegal. This resolution would allow your nation to develop said contagions, if you find developing them are not unethical/immoral practices. I would feel safer seeing a resolution that states that all unethical (which, btw are immoral as well) scientific practices should be banned in all UN member nations.

Ethics differ from nation to nation, from people to poeple and person to person. Which is why this resolution places the decision on what is ethical and what is not with the individual governments.

This is exactly why I feel that individual nations should not be allowed to control what practices are legal or illegal, based on whether they are ethical or unethical. The UN should develop a resolution that establishes that all unethical scientific practices are illegal. However, doing so would then conflict with this resolution. Thus, preventing this resolution from passing before establishing proposed, is paramount.

I don't believe I ever said that. I'm just saying that individual nations should not have the power to determine what scientific practices are legal or illegal.
Lol! That's exactly what you're saying, though. You do not believe a nation should have the power to rule a scientific practice illegal. Therefore, you do not believe the Mighty Sheknuite Government (all praise and glory! Hail Sheknu!) should be permitted to prevent scientists researching contagions, even when we know they do not have the technology to effectively contain them, and that our population is not immunised against the associated contagious diseases.

This resolution would allow your nation to develop said contagions, if you find developing them are not unethical/immoral practices. I would feel safer seeing a resolution that states that all unethical (which, btw are immoral as well) scientific practices should be banned in all UN member nations.
This makes no sense. For start, "unethical" and "immoral" are different. Ethics is the study of morality: if morality is about separating right and wrong, then ethics is about explaining why we make these distinctions. In general, "ethical practices" conform to an established code of practice; "immoral practices" are those that go against a particular belief. An example:
- the Sheknuite Medical Board (praise and glory heaped upon our venerable physicians! Hail the wise of Sheknu!) has ruled that physician-assisted suicide is ethical i.e. no doctor who assists a terminally-ill patient commit suicide can be charged with misconduct
- this has no effect whatsoever on Sheknuites For Life, an anti-euthanasia lobby that argues that euthanasia is immoral
- therefore, a Sheknuite doctor who assists a suicide could be acting ethically, but immorally.

So, then, there is no universal code of ethics. What I suspect you mean is "all scientists should act in a way I believe is right". That is a far cry from them "acting in a way that is right".

Additionally, I see two problems:
- this resolution would not stop you banning unethical practices
- scientists could simply move to a non-UN country to conduct research.

Hmm, our government don't like blockers because we don't agree with putting restrictions on the power of the UN to act. We'll need to think about this one because apart from that, it is a good resolution. Witchcliff abstains for now, but we may make a decision one way or the other near the end of voting.

Kirin, the Reformers
Panyer, the Preservers
Joint Witchcliff representatives to the UN.

The government of Telidia shares the sentiments of the honourable representatives from Witchcliff. We will take the comments of our esteemed colleagues here under consideration before we cast our vote.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

This Empire does not believe in testing poor defensless animals. As for humans if there old enough to take payment then we don't really care that is their choice. Not children under the age of 16.(With the possible exception of stem cell research which we support fully.) That is the only sticking point the empire will support this action if we can still make laws governed by our own legislature that would ban cruel punishment. If the afforementioned resolution makes it so we can not ban animal testing then we vote no.

Respectfully, Tatiana McCagh- Director of UN scientific affairs for the Empire of Amazonia Warrior Women.

That is the only sticking point the empire will support this action if we can still make laws governed by our own legislature that would ban cruel punishment. If the afforementioned resolution makes it so we can not ban animal testing then we vote no.
The resolution allows you to rule on human and animal testing, banning, restricting, regulating, etc., in your own nation, yes.

Sheknu: excessive comma use in a bite-size package.

I've voted in favor of this Resolution, but Witchliff and Telidia have convinced me to question my continued support.

When the author answers the concern, I'll make my decision.

We hope this clarifies our position.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

Thank you Ambassador Sub-Vizier, as that not only helps clarify your government's position, but it has swayed my government to vote in favour.

Howie T. Katzman

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


What, may I ask, is the point of guaranteeing scientific freedoms if the nation's government gets to decide what research is legal, and what is not?

It's like saying, "All research is allowed! But not if we say it isn't!"

I think it's best to allow countries to decide for themselves what is allowed and what isn't. The authoritarians will do whatever they please, and the libertarians will do nothing of this sort, so basically, because of this clause, this is a resolution for the middle ground, who already think this is a good idea anyways.

Unless this clause is changed, my vote is against. A pity, because it's a good idea.

Just impossible.

Lol! That's exactly what you're saying, though. You do not believe a nation should have the power to rule a scientific practice illegal. Therefore, you do not believe the Mighty Sheknuite Government (all praise and glory! Hail Sheknu!) should be permitted to prevent scientists researching contagions, even when we know they do not have the technology to effectively contain them, and that our population is not immunised against the associated contagious diseases.

No, it's not. What I am saying, is that the UN is in a far better position to tell you what is legal and illegal, than your own government. Your own government would act in the interest of only it's own nation, regardless of the effects your decision(s) would have on another nations. The UN, on the other hand, has the best interests of all its members in mind, and therefore it should be allowed to regulate scientific practices within its member nations.


This makes no sense. For start, "unethical" and "immoral" are different. Ethics is the study of morality: if morality is about separating right and wrong, then ethics is about explaining why we make these distinctions. In general, "ethical practices" conform to an established code of practice; "immoral practices" are those that go against a particular belief.

I'm sorry, but your "definition" doesn't show any distinction between the two. More, if anything, that they are related, ie - one is the study of the other. Either way, it is the same.

An example:
- the Sheknuite Medical Board (praise and glory heaped upon our venerable physicians! Hail the wise of Sheknu!) has ruled that physician-assisted suicide is ethical i.e. no doctor who assists a terminally-ill patient commit suicide can be charged with misconduct
- this has no effect whatsoever on Sheknuites For Life, an anti-euthanasia lobby that argues that euthanasia is immoral
- therefore, a Sheknuite doctor who assists a suicide could be acting ethically, but immorally.[/quote]

Your example makes use of personal beliefs, not fact. Just because an anti-euthanasia group feels that assisted suicides are immoral, does not make the act of assisting suicides immoral. It only means that a group of your people feel it is immoral, but does not speak for your entire nation, let alone the entire world. Therefore, the afore-mentioned doctors cannot be said to be acting immorally. So, your example does nothing to support your case.

So, then, there is no universal code of ethics. What I suspect you mean is "all scientists should act in a way I believe is right". That is a far cry from them "acting in a way that is right".
This is true. This is why I believe the UN should be able to regulate what scientific practices are ethically sound and which ones are unethical, and therefore illegal. By having the UN regulate scientific practices, it creates a universal code of ethics, and prevents any one nation from saying "My way is better than your way" or "My way is the only right way". Granted, there will be nations that disagree, and feel that they should be able to regulate their own scientists, but that could lead to problems between nations.

For example,
Say your nation approves of animal testing, and tests a revolutionary product on them. Then, let's say, your industries attempt to market this product to foreign nations. Well, not all nations will approve of animal-tested products. Therefore, they will not permit your product to be traded within their nation. Thus losing money for your industries. However, if a universal code of ethics, regulated by the UN, exists, then your nation's industries wouldn't suffer the financial loss.

Additionally, I see two problems:
- this resolution would not stop you banning unethical practices
- scientists could simply move to a non-UN country to conduct research.
Again, as I've said, the government of Tarandella feels that the UN is in a better position to decide what is ethical and what is not.

The same second problem would still exist, whether this resolution passes or not. Only, instead of the scientific companies (scientists rarely act on their own these days) moving to a non-UN nation because of a resolution, they would be moving there for cheaper labor and facilities. So, I don't see how allowing this resolution to pass would impact this issue at all.

Delagate of Tarandella, I must take issue with your argument. The U.N. is in no position to create a so-called "Universal Code of Ethics" that could be enforced unilaterally.

As the delegate of The Confederacy of Sheknu stated, not all countries can subscribe to the same ethical set.

A likely situation to demonstrate this:
If this resolution were amended as per your wishes, unless I am mistaken, all U.N. countries would be prohibited from preventing research on a given topic, unless that topic was specified in this U.N. Code of Ethics. Now, enter country XYZ (for example, unrelated to any real country). XYZ is a Christian Theocracy founded, in part, on the principles of Creationism. Under your resolution, XYZ would be unable to prevent evolutionary research. Some, including my personal self, would say "Well... evolutionary research is good, right?". The thing is, what I think about the ethics of evolutionary research does not matter one bit. The Theocracy of XYZ feels it is unethical, they should be able to tell scientists to 'go somewhere that isn't creationist'.

With respect,
The Vira Divakar of The Theocracy of Vamachara Tantra

Om ah hum vajra guru padma siddhi hum

I look at this issue and wonder to myself, is this really something that the UN needs to be involved in?

It seems like this decision should be left to each individual nation. Although I agree with the idea of free scientific research, I don't think it is something I can vote for because I believe the UN is stepping into intranational matters as opposed to international ones. Every country has the right to tax research or restrict it if they wish.

Hmm, our government don't like blockers because we don't agree with putting restrictions on the power of the UN to act. We'll need to think about this one because apart from that, it is a good resolution. Witchcliff abstains for now, but we may make a decision one way or the other near the end of voting.

Kirin, the Reformers
Panyer, the Preservers
Joint Witchcliff representatives to the UN.


It is a hard line trying traverse the line of international law and national sovereignty. The UN is mandated to deal with matters of international significance. Scientific research is an issue that has been recognised in the past as an international issue. Please refer to the now repealed resolution number 7.

Now where the international law interacts with national sovereignty we have to draw a line where the power of UN ends and national soveriegnty ends. We would like nothing more for all the world to abide by the morality and ethics but one this will over-ride many other nations cultures and beliefs (and probably would not get a quorum any way). And this would also happen if someone else tried to develope a "Code of ethics"

Hence why we have included blockers the UN should not have universal power over it's member nations and so we have to draw the line of UN power somewhere and we believe the line should not cover the items listed. If you disagree and believe the UN should have the power to say "This area of research needs to be legal in all UN member nations" or "This area of research is ban and needs to be illegalised in all UN member nations." Can I please have your reasoning why the UN should be able to do this?

We will vote for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to block the UN from considering certain types of proposals?

Would restricting the UN from legalising or banning any type of research fall in that category?

Bazalonia']It is a hard line trying traverse the line of international law and national sovereignty. The UN is mandated to deal with matters of international significance. Scientific research is an issue that has been recognised in the past as an international issue. Please refer to the now repealed resolution number 7.

Now where the international law interacts with national sovereignty we have to draw a line where the power of UN ends and national soveriegnty ends. We would like nothing more for all the world to abide by the morality and ethics but one this will over-ride many other nations cultures and beliefs (and probably would not get a quorum any way). And this would also happen if someone else tried to develope a "Code of ethics"

Hence why we have included blockers the UN should not have universal power over it's member nations and so we have to draw the line of UN power somewhere and we believe the line should not cover the items listed. If you disagree and believe the UN should have the power to say "This area of research needs to be legal in all UN member nations" or "This area of research is ban and needs to be illegalised in all UN member nations." Can I please have your reasoning why the UN should be able to do this?

Because we don't believe it is the right of one special interest group to push their soverignty opinions on everyone and decide for all of us what the UN can and can't legislate on. That is up to the membership as a whole to decide though a majority vote on the floor, and yes, I know you can throw back at us that the membership does decide when it votes on blockers. We find blockers are usually, but not always, used to prevent progressive legislation that some members/groups oppose, when they know an outright ban would never pass.

If the membership don't like what they see, they are quite capable of not supporting a proposal/resolution to quorum or voting against it on the floor, and not allowing it to pass. If something passes a certain group don't like, then there is always the repeal option. A few people have/are using it now to attempt to repeal my recently passed resolution, as is their right.

This is a good resolution, don't think I don't like it. It is just that blocking clause I have a problem with. I haven't decided whether to support this or not yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to block the UN from considering certain types of proposals?

Would restricting the UN from legalising or banning any type of research fall in that category?

It apparently is illegal for Blocker proposals that entire purpose of the proposal is to stop other proposals from coming to the floor. These blockers are just a small part of the overall package.

See Abortion Legalisation Convention, UN Resolution for more info

Am I being dense, or does this resolution do a whole lot of absolutely nothing? :headbang:

The only things it mandates are:

"no unnecessary restrictions for buildings where scientific research is performed. . . ." - "unnecessary restrictions" is ambiguous enough to mean whatever each individual nation wants it to mean, so saying this doesn't do much of anything.

"obtaining adequate scientific equipment is not prohibited or excessively hampered by government regulations, excluding circumstances where there are specific and substantial safety issues involved" - "adequate," "excessively," "specific and substantial" . . . COME ON! Using the word "specific" without SPECIFYING what SPECIFICALLY you mean doesn't do any good; and the other words could mean anything.

"reevaluating restrictions on materials used during scientific research and remove or loosen restrictions on as many materials as it is safe to do so" - Reevaluation will be subjective, and "as many materials as it is safe to do so" means precisely. . . . what?

Other than that, this resolution "ENCOURAGES," "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES," "REITERATES," "REITERATES again," and "DEFINES" a few terms that, considering the irrelevance of the rest of the resolution, are correspondingly useless.

The principle behind this resolution is sound enough (scientific research is all well and good), but it accomplishes nothing, only clutters the UN with another resolution that is plenty of words with no consequential action. It's a waste of space and should be voted down.

It has come to light that each nation may agree upon what the laws regarding animal testing and human testing of scientific practice will be for their own nations. Because of this, I have voted 'yes' on this issue.

I hope that other nations will do the same.


Signed Sincerely,
Dictator Mephistophilis
Dictatorship of Mephopolis

Krankor must regretfully vote NO. We strongly believe in imprisoning scientists until they reveal their secret rocket fuel formula and present our ulimatum to earthlings.Further proof that crack kills brain cells.Are you kidding? That's the best post of the thread!

It's interesting that this proposal has been criticised for being both too strict and too lax. I am of the opinion that this is a "big softy" proposal that will accomplish nothing, but now the author has admitted that it's an intended blocker as well! So it seems that this will not promote any type of scientific freedom in those nations that are already in non-compliance with the spirit of this proposal because of its soft wording. Yet, it will also block future attempts to strengthen scientific freedoms!

I've swung from a tentative no to a full blown NO FREAKIN WAY MAN! I am in full support of resolutions that actually promote scientific freedoms, or those that openly state their intentions to restrict freedoms in the public interest. This resolution would not ensure scientific freedom, yet it would restrict future legislation on the topic. How rediculous!

I really hope that I am wrong on both points, but so far the author has only reassured my doubts. If my interpretation is correct however, it is funny to see how many nations are FOR when they should be AGAINST, and those that are AGAINST when they should be FOR, (example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11335231&postcount=59), example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11330575&postcount=17), example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11331312&postcount=19)) but I won't worry about that unless I really am correct (a scary thought). [/rant]


Couldn't one interpret "unnecessary restrictions", "excessively hampered", and "as it is safe to do so" to restrict access to equipment at one's whim?
How outrageous is the whim?
How outrageous are all of the various nations in NS?


We support it, as it rightly places the decision on acceptable research, not in the hands of scientists or academics, but national politicians.
Hahaha! Oh, you're serious? Well, we would just have to agree to disagree on that subject.
(A real life example follows :eek: don't read further if you're attempting to remain "in character")
Is it promoting scientific research for the Bush administratation to place heavy restrictions around stem-cell practice, funding, and actual research? Can politicians help promote scientific research? Yes, absolutely. Will they? Maybe. Should they be allowed control over the funding and general direction of research? My opinion is a definite no.
In the case of many nations, including my own, this resolution would grant national legislators far more power than they were intended to hold. Like I (almost) always say, if you would like to follow this policy, please go ahead, but do not force me to walk down the same path.


If this resolution is nothing more than a fancy worded blocker, then I can't and won't support it.
Agreed.


the UN can if the need was to arrise place restrictions on a certain type of research, eg cosmetic testing on animals, but cannot make such research illegal.
So from this point forth we could not safegaurd our freedoms, only restrict them? I contend that this is not in the interest of UN member states, and, in fact, is the opposite direction of most UN resolutions.


The opposite side of this is funding... as long as the proposal recognises the potential of the item to be legal or illegal. Then this proposal would have no effect on a proposal like that.
Yes, it would have a huge effect by saying, "Well, as long as you would like to, please support X." It would prevent any resolutions with meaningful wording that support more scientific freedoms. This is the most un-friendly scientific proposal I have ever seen, and it claims to promote science!


Our region likes the bill's IDEA, but we feel the wording is far to general, and needs to be revised so that it is more ironclad for both the purpose of enforcing it, and the purpose of eluding it.
Yes.


Why do yo people vote agianst this? This is the chance for science to greatly advance, and you say no?
It ensures nothing but the ability of governments to hold back the progress of science, or at least place restrictions at their will. Does it encourage nations to loosen restrictions? Yes, but at the same time, it gaurantees their right to legalize/illegalize anything they damn well please.


We will vote for the proposal at hand as long as no harm comes to animals or humans.
I second this motion. I will submit my vote for this so long as Animal Testing is not included in it.
That's the problem, this resolution comes with no safegaurds against these kinds of abuse. In fact, this resolution would go so far as to say the UN cannot illegalize such abuse, while still allowing nations to illegalize a perfectly legitimate branch of study.


If this Resolution would interfere with our ability to place restrictions upon non-weaponized chemical and biological agent research, we would vote against it for being overly broad and intrusive in our national affairs. If instead it is the opinion of the Resolution's sponsors that we could limit such research because such restrictions are not "unnecessary" as contemplated by the Resolution, then we would still vote against the Resolution on the grounds that it does not in fact advance freedom of scientific research.
Hot diggity-dog what a catch-22, and a perfect example of the proposal's flaws!


Clause 5 is no blocker.
It simply places the right to decide the legality of research in the hands of the nation's government, not the UN.
As Norderia said...
Which (and here's the funny part) is what a blocker is.


Does anyone realize that this resolution would allow unethical scientific practices, since it suggests allowing nations to decide individually what procedures are legal or illegal?
As opposed to now, without the resolution...where unethical scientific practices are somehow banned?
No, it's totally different. Currently, unethical practices are not banned but they are not legalized by the UN. This resolution would, in effect, legalize all unethical practices while failing to universally protect ethical ones.


Ethics differ from nation to nation, from people to poeple and person to person. Which is why this resolution places the decision on what is ethical and what is not with the individual governments.
Taking that argument to its extreme, the UN should not illegalize rape because RandomNation finds it ethically acceptable?


What, may I ask, is the point of guaranteeing scientific freedoms if the nation's government gets to decide what research is legal, and what is not?
Amen.


If this resolution were amended as per your wishes, unless I am mistaken, all U.N. countries would be prohibited from preventing research on a given topic, unless that topic was specified in this U.N. Code of Ethics.
Look at previous UN resolutions, they almost always say, "The following is legal" or, "The following is illegal". They do not say, "Everything is illegal, save X". I doubt Tarandella has something like that in mind, but I really don't care to go into it as it is distracting from the current resolution.


XYZ is a Christian Theocracy founded, in part, on the principles of Creationism. Under your resolution, XYZ would be unable to prevent evolutionary research.
Poor example, because the freedom to learn about Evolution is already gauranteed explicitly in at least one resolution, as well as resolutions ensuring the ability to study subjects without restraint.


the UN should not have universal power over it's member nations and so we have to draw the line of UN power somewhere and we believe the line should not cover the items listed.
The items listed? You mean anything and everything one chooses? This resolution would render the UN useless in the areas of scientific research standards, procedure, ethics, safety... you name it. Imagine the outcry if a blocker like this appeared for environmental resolutions, or human rights issues? There would be an uproar. Why should we maim the UN, the only semi-regulating body we have, with a resolution like this?


Can I please have your reasoning why the UN should be able to do this?
Look at the history of UN resolutions, the UN has always set ethical standards. Resolutions concerning social justice, the environment, free trade, and human rights have all been passed that carry an ethical judgement supported by a majority of UN members. Ruling that somehow we cannot and should not make those same decisions concerning another international issue, scientific freedoms, is for you to prove, and I contend that it is absurd.


The principle behind this resolution is sound enough (scientific research is all well and good), but it accomplishes nothing, only clutters the UN with another resolution that is plenty of words with no consequential action. It's a waste of space and should be voted down.
Aye.


I hope this highlights some of the problems with the current resolution, and convinces those who are "on the fence" to vote against.

This proposal has gone through many drafts over a long time...

Starting here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466964&highlight=Scientific)
going onto here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469193&highlight=Scientific)

and submitted but just failed to reach quorum due to inefficient campaigning anyway here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479075&highlight=Scientific) the thread.

Why am I pointing this out? Is that this proposal has gone through the wringer a number of times. And I am sure that if anyone of these people thought that this proposal did not achieve anything then they would say so. Some of these people ... *mumbles something about Cluichistan, ForgottenLands, Ecopiea et al* are UN boffins and are very active in the UN forum and have a lot of experience in UN proposals.. they at least know a proposal that doesn't do jack and one that is at least somewhat beneficial.

Bazalonia']This proposal has gone through many drafts over a long time...I don't think anyone will doubt the drafting process was a long one with feedback from many nations. We thanks Bazalonia from providing those numerous examples.
Why am I pointing this out? Is that this proposal has gone through the wringer a number of times. And I am sure that if anyone of these people thought that this proposal did not achieve anything then they would say so. Some of these people ... *mumbles something about Cluichistan, ForgottenLands, Ecopiea et al* are UN boffins and are very active in the UN forum and have a lot of experience in UN proposals.. they at least know a proposal that doesn't do jack and one that is at least somewhat beneficial.I'm often of the opinion that if some people say a resolution does nothing, and if others say it does too much, one can assume the aggregate of those views is perhaps the case :)

However, I am going to be voting against this proposal on the basis that it is a blocker. This one goes beyond blocking it's obvious antithesis and blocks proposals which one cannot see as treading on the toes of the spirit of this proposal.

Are you kidding? That's the best post of the thread!
Hell, yeah!

I'm against it.
Clause V makes it utterly pointless.

Just to clarify. It says the UN wants to make free to all nations scientific research that benifits mankind, but not research that involves weapons. As the citizens of The Holy Empire of Death Bots are robots bent on the down fall of the human race, we still want to reseach weapons if we feel like it. AND we have life saving technologies that we dont wish to share with the human race.
We will regretfully vote against, as we wait for a UN proposal that does not marginalize the free citizens of The Holy Empire of Death Bots!

After much discussion and reading I have one question: Would not the creation of a World Health Orginization be a better proposal? That way UN nations can, if they so choose, to send money, research and scientists to develop these cures without causing conflict with other nations beliefs.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
Delenn Satai
Social Capitalist Party

Would not the creation of a World Health Orginization be a better proposal?
No, insofar as "better" would imply that a WHO proposal would be incompatible with this one - patently false - and because when the UN creates committees, it should spell them correctly.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff, Gruenberger UN Office

The Federation of Methusela votes in favor of this resolution.

No, insofar as "better" would imply that a WHO proposal would be incompatible with this one - patently false - and because when the UN creates committees, it should spell them correctly.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff, Gruenberger UN Office
Come on, if the UN wants to create a WHO and spell organization that way, who are we to stop them.:p

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

I feel that this is a great resolution and Cubaville stands behind you 100%.

It's interesting that this proposal has been criticised for being both too strict and too lax. I am of the opinion that this is a "big softy" proposal that will accomplish nothing, but now the author has admitted that it's an intended blocker as well! So it seems that this will not promote any type of scientific freedom in those nations that are already in non-compliance with the spirit of this proposal because of its soft wording. Yet, it will also block future attempts to strengthen scientific freedoms!

I've swung from a tentative no to a full blown NO FREAKIN WAY MAN! I am in full support of resolutions that actually promote scientific freedoms, or those that openly state their intentions to restrict freedoms in the public interest. This resolution would not ensure scientific freedom, yet it would restrict future legislation on the topic. How rediculous!

I really hope that I am wrong on both points, but so far the author has only reassured my doubts. If my interpretation is correct however, it is funny to see how many nations are FOR when they should be AGAINST, and those that are AGAINST when they should be FOR, (example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11335231&postcount=59), example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11330575&postcount=17), example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11331312&postcount=19)) but I won't worry about that unless I really am correct (a scary thought). [/rant]

I'm sold. The blocker thing totally kills it for me.



How outrageous are all of the various nations in NS?
Good point...


I'm opposed.

I feel that this is a great resolution and Cubaville stands behind you 100%.

Why?

Hahaha! Oh, you're serious? Well, we would just have to agree to disagree on that subject.
(A real life example follows :eek: don't read further if you're attempting to remain "in character")
Is it promoting scientific research for the Bush administratation to place heavy restrictions around stem-cell practice, funding, and actual research?[OOC: Except that Bush hasn't placed any restrictions on stem-cell research, just restrictions on federal funding for said research, so this "real life example" is not entirely relevant. Although I do admire your amazing chutzpah in trying to alienate potential supporters of this bill by implying that the totally EVIL Bush Administration would be given free reign if this were a measure in RL.]

Can politicians help promote scientific research? Yes, absolutely. Will they? Maybe. Should they be allowed control over the funding and general direction of research? My opinion is a definite no.
In the case of many nations, including my own, this resolution would grant national legislators far more power than they were intended to hold. Like I (almost) always say, if you would like to follow this policy, please go ahead, but do not force me to walk down the same path.And why the hell shouldn't politicians place ethical restrictions on scientific research? (You also seem to be making a bizarre argument that politicians shouldn't be permitted control over where taxpayer dollars go; why shouldn't they? Why the hell do we even have politicians if they cannot control government coffers?)

Or are you advocating absolute scientific freedom in the United Nations, which would forbid member governments from banning, say, unrestricted testing on human beings, human cloning, breeding "superbabies," human-animal hybrids or Super Soldiers, etc., etc.? Someone needs to step in and tell The Palentine's Mad Scientists that they aren't free to do anything under the umbrella of "scientific research." Seems to me the most sensible recourse would be to give member governments that responsibility -- unless you'd rather the UN micromanage scientific freedoms by establishing a commission dictating to scientists what is and what is not acceptable ....

The items listed? You mean anything and everything one chooses? This resolution would render the UN useless in the areas of scientific research standards, procedure, ethics, safety... you name it. Imagine the outcry if a blocker like this appeared for environmental resolutions, or human rights issues? There would be an uproar. Why should we maim the UN, the only semi-regulating body we have, with a resolution like this?First off, blockers on human rights or disarmament? Been done.

Second off, do you even know what a "blocker" is? A blocker is a proposal specifically designed to nullify the legality of another proposal in the draft process -- for example, UNSA was an attempt to block Ref's bioweapons ban, and ALC blocked CAR. Any resolution that simply delegates some powers to member governments is not a "blocker." Otherwise by that token Rights and Duties, Diplomatic Immunity and Right to Refuse Extradition are "blockers." Ridiculous.

As a leader of a saproling nation, the united socialist states of Az-Cz supports this bill, as a sign to its populace that it is commited to building a better future. It seems as if the bill is flexible enough to allow for interpretation. Therefore it can be seen more as an issue of sending a message to the people. We want a message sent that we are trying to help our citizens.

As stated on the NSO board, the Federal Republic hasn't voted for a single Human Rights resolution in its entire history, and we're not about to start now.

We vote against.

This is my first participation in discussion of a UN motion, so I apologize in advance if I'm not following acceptable form, etc. All my comments deal strictly with the motion at hand, and are not to be interpreted as attacks on the writers or supporters of the motion.

Having skimmed the discussion thus far, I'll present my five concerns with this motion - admittedly touching on some concerns already raised. In short, as it is written, my primary concern is that this motion is far too vague to be enforceable, and will open up a hornet's nest of unenforceable legislation and legal loopholes that will undermine what I presume the spirit of the motion is.

Concern #1:
-----
BELIEVING that scientists should be able to research any legal topic without undue restrictions on the research or the results of that research,
-----
There is no definition of what is meant by 'undue'. If this motion is to be tightened up, the notion of 'undue' will have to be defined. Does 'undue' include economic rationale (e.g., our country doesn't prioritize spending in support of this research), religious rationale (e.g. the values of our state religion don't allow this research), or scientific rationale (e.g., this research might be dangerous to the environment)? Who gets to define 'undue'? Is the application of this condition interpreted by scientific peers, the state legal system, or funding bodies?

Also, this term is not correlated with the use of 'unnecessary restrictions' used later in the motion. How are these two terms different?


Concern#2:
-----
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,
-----
The motion is ambiguous regarding how 'scientific endeavours' would be differentiated from 'weapons et al'. Who would define whether a 'scientific endeavour' as defined above should be exempt?

For instance, if GPS has a military application is GPS R&D not included under the definition 'scientific endeavour'? By this motion, it would not be. How about research into genetics - where the knowledge could be used to introduce mutating strains into an enemy's population, or fight a disease in one's own? Would this be a 'scientific endeavour' or a 'purpose of a destructive nature'? The motion leaves the results of such a judgement unclear.


Concern #3:
-----
- "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,
-----
What defines 'honest and straightforward'? Such terms would never stand up in a parliament, legislature or court of law. They are legally meaningless.


Concern #4:
-----
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,
-----
Watch spelling of 'unnecessary'. What defines 'necessary'? If the government deems that discovering proof for evolution would undermine the state's creationist religion, thereby creating socio-political chaos and undermining the central tenets upon which a state was founded and functions, would this constitute 'a necessary restriction'? This term is not correlated with 'undue restrictions' used earlier in the motion.


Concern #5:
-----
5. REITERATES governmental rights to determine whether certain areas of research are legal or illegal within their sovereign territory,
-----
If this right is retained, and given the concerns above, this motion is opens many legal loopholes, and worse yet, would be unenforceable. Any government could claim the right to hinder or stop almost any scientific research - if not on existing jurisdictional rights, then using the legal loopholes that would be created by bringing national legislation in line with UN obligations. At best, this motion is a statement of 'spirit' which presumes that we all share similar definitions and meanings for the terms at play. Such a presumption is dangerous when creating conditions for altering national laws.

For these reasons, Canuckistan II cannot support the motion.

Another thought:
While clause 5 may be intended as a blocker, it does not necessarily restrict future UN regulation.
As it reiterates the government's rights to determine whether certain areas are legal or illegal, not all or even any. Therefore, if the UN passed a resolution banning (or legalising) a particular area of research, it could be argued that it's not one of the certain areas that national governments are allowed to determine.

Just a little legal maneuvering...

There is no definition of what is meant by 'undue'. If this motion is to be tightened up, the notion of 'undue' will have to be defined.
The clause you're referencing is an introductory one, not an operative one. It has no legal force. It's essentially saying what the proposal "believes": operative clauses say what it actually does. The operative clauses are the numbered ones. So you don't need to worry too much about defining 'undue', because it's not a word the legislative action rests on.
Who gets to define 'undue'?
Your national government does. You could choose to delegate the decision to a scientific body, or another institution. But in general, proposals are interpreted by the national governments.

The motion is ambiguous regarding how 'scientific endeavours' would be differentiated from 'weapons et al'. Who would define whether a 'scientific endeavour' as defined above should be exempt?

For instance, if GPS has a military application is GPS R&D not included under the definition 'scientific endeavour'? By this motion, it would not be. How about research into genetics - where the knowledge could be used to introduce mutating strains into an enemy's population, or fight a disease in one's own? Would this be a 'scientific endeavour' or a 'purpose of a destructive nature'? The motion leaves the results of such a judgement unclear.
Again this would be for national governments to rule on. Broadly, you would get to decide.

I think all this definition is doing is emphasising that weapons research might be subject to additional restrictions - but it is not placing those restrictions itself.

What defines 'honest and straightforward'?
Again, national governments. I imagine this kind of language would normally be argued about in a court of law: for example, does "cruel and unusual punishment" include capital punishment? It's the same sort of discussion. But in the eyes of the UN, it's national governments; how you organize that is up to you.

What defines 'necessary'?
National governments.

If the government deems that discovering proof for evolution would undermine the state's creationist religion, thereby creating socio-political chaos and undermining the central tenets upon which a state was founded and functions, would this constitute 'a necessary restriction'?
Quite possibly. However, bear in mind the UN has already mandated teaching of evolutionary "science".

This term is not correlated with 'undue restrictions' used earlier in the motion.
Nor does it need to be, as the earlier term has no legal force.

If this right is retained, and given the concerns above, this motion is opens many legal loopholes, and worse yet, would be unenforceable. Any government could claim the right to hinder or stop almost any scientific research - if not on existing jurisdictional rights, then using the legal loopholes that would be created by bringing national legislation in line with UN obligations. At best, this motion is a statement of 'spirit' which presumes that we all share similar definitions and meanings for the terms at play. Such a presumption is dangerous when creating conditions for altering national laws.
Quite the reverse. This proposal acknowledges we don't share definitions and meanings, and values and views - and it respects that. There is nothing wrong with a statement of spirit, because it would be wildly impractical for the UN to mandate every aspect of scientific practice for every nation - it couldn't possibly cover every eventuality.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff, Gruenberger UN Office

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

That remaind me some famous scientists judged for trying to explain that the earth was not the center of the universe, as Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Of course science has to be regulated and trying to regulate science is a difficult thing to write in a proposal. But sadly there is even not a single try to regulate science in this proposal. Nothing. But a blanket declared right to any government to ban any scientific areas they want to.

Love and esterel vote NAY.

That remaind me some famous scientists judged for trying to explain that the earth was not the center of the universe, as Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno
We are not familiar with your examples, but it seems both were heretics. Are you trying to suggest we should not punish those who lie to our people? Do you hold the same standards for businesses that mislabel packages, or criminals who commit perjury, or politicians who conspire to mislead voters? To suggest that Mother Wena's Earth is not at the focus of her universal love, and represented as such in the grand design of the stars, is not only damnably blasphemous, but wildly incorrect. It is for lies such as this that Gruenberger "scientists" like Purlo Tutsit were rightly burned at the stake, and we are askance at the suggestion we discontinue this practice.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Although we are not opposed to scientific research, the proposal limits what kinds of societies member nations can have. If a people, and in turn, its government chooses to have a non-"scientific" society, it should be the choice of the individual nations to do so.

Speaker Rhu
Theocracy of Judith Gap

Although we are not opposed to scientific research, the proposal limits what kinds of societies member nations can have. If a people, and in turn, its government chooses to have a non-"scientific" society, it should be the choice of the individual nations to do so.

Speaker Rhu
Theocracy of Judith Gap
This proposal grants you the right to have a non-scientific society - see clause 5.

That remaind me some famous scientists judged for trying to explain that the earth was not the center of the universe, as Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_BrunoOh, thank you for those informative links! Till now I had no idea who Galileo and Bruno were!

Of course science has to be regulated and trying to regulate science is a difficult thing to write in a proposal. But sadly there is even not a single try to regulate science in this proposal. Nothing. But a blanket declared right to any government to ban any scientific areas they want to.

Love and esterel vote NAY.OK, if scientific research needs to be regulated to prevent abuse, you got two choices: national governments or a UN commission. There is no way a single resolution can cover every aspect of scientific research, and dictate what is and what is not protected -- so if you want UN oversight, you need to create a commission to hammer out those details.

Or you can delegate such details to national governments. Are you honestly telling me you trust UN bureaucrats more with creating restrictions for LAE's scientific research programs than your own nation's leaders?

OK, if scientific research needs to be regulated to prevent abuse, you got two choices: national governments or a UN commission. There is no way a single resolution can cover every aspect of scientific research, and dictate what is and what is not protected -- so if you want UN oversight, you need to create a commission to hammer out those details.

Or you can delegate such details to national governments. Are you honestly telling me you trust UN bureaucrats more with creating restrictions for LAE's scientific research programs than your own nation's leaders?

Alot of the abuse comes from the national government itself being prompted by religious groups(religion vs science is a common battle). So many national governments won't do it. This(I am pretty sure) is in general about stopping the government from saying things like "We don't want reserch into..".

ps: I still am undecided just wanted to throw this in.

That remaind me some famous scientists judged for trying to explain that the earth was not the center of the universe, as Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Of course science has to be regulated and trying to regulate science is a difficult thing to write in a proposal. But sadly there is even not a single try to regulate science in this proposal. Nothing. But a blanket declared right to any government to ban any scientific areas they want to.

Love and esterel vote NAY.

I'd like to explain why the Confederated City States of Mikitivity originally were swayed by the position of the people from Gruenberg. Our original concern was that by placing responsibility for scientific freedom in the hand of a political system, that the people whom are best informed to make decisions about science were being removed from the decision making process. However, it was pointed out that in a democratic society, scientists, along with any other citizens, have access to politicians and can freely participate in the political decision making process. In fact, one of the first things a group of concerned scientists can do is put forth the idea that, "We are experts in this field and feel that our opinion should be considered before a decision is made."

As the great Mikitivitian astronomer Wolf Hauer (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wolf_Hauer) once said, "It is not the role of scientists to lead people. Instead it is our role to share our discoveries with the world and then to work together to make our world better." While I understand that context is everything, and Hauer's words from the early 1900s will have little meaning here, Hauer was instrumental in improving Mikitivity's astronomy programs. My point here is that even 90 years ago, scientists can have very significant influence over political decisions.

-Howie T. Katzman

Alot of the abuse comes from the national government itself being prompted by religious groups
There is no UN-mandated separation of church and state. Some of those religious groups are national governments.

(religion vs science is a common battle).
Maybe in Newfoundcanada. But in general, the assumption that there is an inherent tension is wrong. For example: we know that Mother Wena created the world. We equally accept that evolution has taken place, and continues to take place. We do not recognise the two beliefs as mutually contradictory.

So many national governments won't do it.
"do it" meaning?

This(I am pretty sure) is in general about stopping the government from saying things like "We don't want reserch into..".
When the government is saying they don't want research into chemicals their scientists have no means of containing, diseases their population is not immunised against, or that employ equipment they cannot afford whilst important research is neglected, we're fine with that.

ps: I still am undecided just wanted to throw this in.
Could you elaborate as to what any of it actually means?

OK, if scientific research needs to be regulated to prevent abuse, you got two choices: national governments or a UN commission. There is no way a single resolution can cover every aspect of scientific research, and dictate what is and what is not protected -- so if you want UN oversight, you need to create a commission to hammer out those details.

Black or white!

I really think we can write proposal establishing limits and guidelines the more sensible we can in this hall (with a commission or not), this proposal even fail to try to do so.


As the great Mikitivitian astronomer Wolf Hauer once said, "It is not the role of scientists to lead people. Instead it is our role to share our discoveries with the world and then to work together to make our world better."

We would like to thanks Howie T. Katzman for his pretty interesting philosophical references...

...However, it was pointed out that in a democratic society...

... but we would like also to remind him that sadly not all members of our international organisation are democratic societies.

Looks like it is a good resolution to me. I can't seem to find any major flaws or setbacks in the resolution. So you have The Armed Republic of Southwest Iowa's support.

The only thing that is stopping me from throwing my support at the bill is the fact that "dangerous materials" aren't quite defined in the bill.

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.

The mentioning of radioactive isotopes and explosives are mentioned, and that's great, but what about other hazardous materials? A clear definition of the "dangerous materials" could help here.

As the great Mikitivitian astronomer Wolf Hauer (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wolf_Hauer) once said, "It is not the role of scientists to lead people. Instead it is our role to share our discoveries with the world and then to work together to make our world better."Well, I bet Mr. Hauer would get himself into one Helluva argument over that one if he talked like that in the Hack.

Yeah, yeah, I know... we're not members, so our opinion means two things: Jack and shit, and Jack just left town. Still, you people gave me a pass, so I'm gonna spout off. And I'm louder than you are.

Anyway, I'm really not sure how I'd vote on this (if I had a vote). See, normally, we'd be dramatically opposed to politicians having control over scientific research, but since almost all of the members of the Oligarchy are scientists anyway, it really makes that whole clause a wash. Of course, most members probably aren't technocracies, so it should be something that you consider. Personally, I don't much like the thought of politicians having veto power on research. Not for any fuzzy-headed reasons, but for economic ones.

In the interest of avoiding the landmines of current hot-button issues, I'll use the old stand by: invisible pink unicorns.

In NationA, everybody knows that invisible pink unicorns live in closets and that they are, indeed, pink. For some reason this is monsterously important, and there is a whole lot of research that seems to support it. Huge grants are given out to scientists who nod and say "Yup. They're pink, all right." But then some scientist pops up and has some preliminary findings that the little bastards are actually blue. He needs some funding to prove his claims, but it looks like he might just be right.

Now, in a perfect world, he shows his data, people consider it, and if he's not just a crank, he gets his grant and everybody rejoices that knowledge of invisible pink/blue unicorns is expanded.

Yeah, right. You an I both know that politicians have made their career based on pink unicorns, and they receive money from the Pink Unicorn lobby. This scientist doesn't get shit. He's scorned, blackballed, blacklisted, and slandered. The politicians control the purse-strings, and they know that invisible unicorns are pink. Nevermind that they haven't cracked a textbook (or held a real job) in decades. They know what they know, and fuck you, Mr. Scientist.

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point. There are certain fields of research where everyone is expected to march lock-step, and it's very difficult to go against the flow. And since money is the life-blood of research, it becomes tempting to sell your soul to the current political climate. After all, researchers make money by researching, not by being denied grants.

Yes, there are private grants, but oftentimes those are even more prone to ideology. The Institute Of Invisible Unicorn Pinkness isn't likely to support the blue theory, and while the Invisible Unicorn Blueness Institute is likely to fund blue theory research, they're likely to be marginalized as biased.

So, what I'm trying to say is that while my government (such as it is) supports the ideals of freedom in scientific research, we would find placing the controls in the hands of politicians a deal breaker.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Well, I bet Mr. Hauer would get himself into one Helluva argument over that one if he talked like that in the Hack.

Yeah, yeah, I know... we're not members, so our opinion means two things: Jack and shit, and Jack just left town. Still, you people gave me a pass, so I'm gonna spout off. And I'm louder than you are.

/snip/snip/

So, what I'm trying to say is that while my government (such as it is) supports the ideals of freedom in scientific research, we would find placing the controls in the hands of politicians a deal breaker.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Very interesting, Hack. In Ausserland, most of the unicorns are a rather striking shade of burgundy, but that's beside the point.

Now a serious question... If control of scientific research shouldn't be in the hands of politicians, in whose hands should it be?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

The Free land of Nagapura, barring any unforseen circumstances, will be abstaining. We simply do not see how this proposal accomplishes anything. It says we must 'remove unneccassary restricions'. What exactly is to be considered unneccassary? Is this left to the UN to decide, or the individual nation? The nation I would think. In that case that part of the proposal is effectively rendered null and void, as a nation will simply say whatever restrictions it already has in place are neccassary, and nothing will change. What's the point?

On the other hand there is there part about deciding what is legal and illegal. Article V I believe. The reaction of many of my colleagues to this has been nothing short of comical. "OMG!! They're going to make it legal to decide whether to drink coke or pepsi!! Oh, the humanity!"

An exageration perhaps, but thats what I'm hearing. People are complaining that the right to do something we are already doing is going to be put in law.

Ridiculous.

The fact is that this proposal is basically mandating that a UN nation decide what restrictions are neccassary or unneccassary, and decide what research is legal and what isn't.

How is this different from what we are already doing?

Now a serious question... If control of scientific research shouldn't be in the hands of politicians, in whose hands should it be?Well, the scientific community, of course. Removing the politics from research lessens the effects of taboo topics. I'm loathe to bring up 'real' examples, as that runs the risk of spiraling off topic, but I'll risk it by diving into the past.

Look at eugenics. When it was first proposed, everybody knew it was right. Once the politicians got ahold of it (and started passing laws based on it), it became very difficult for a scientist to speak out against it without having a good deal of backlash, and said scientist would be very unlikely to get federal grants if his research didn't support what everybody knew.

Now, of course, it's completely discredited, but at the time it was, for lack of a better word, reality.

I know that the taboo effect will be completely impossible to eliminate, but I think politicians would be a corrupting influence, making it much worse. Re-election is their primary concern, not science. I, like most every other Hacker, supported the presidency and ideals of the late Carl Gibson, but I still wouldn't trust him to decide what research should and shouldn't happen. He was a brilliant military leader, and had charisma to spare, but he wasn't a scientist.

You wouldn't trust your dentist with designing a deep-space exploratory vehicle, why should you trust your senator with defining what should and shouldn't be researched?

Again, in my nation it wouldn't much matter. Dr. Specter, the Nominal Head of the Oligarchy, has a science background and still conducts research, but in many nations it could be disasterous. Science should be left to the scientists.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Jeez, I hate these long posts!

Why am I pointing this out? Is that this proposal has gone through the wringer a number of times. And I am sure that if anyone of these people thought that this proposal did not achieve anything then they would say so.
That's a great way to avoid answering any of the concerns that have been raised thus far. A proposal isn't "entitled" to pass simply because it was publicly drafted, or because it reached quorum. Many people, myself included, do not pay attention to all of the draft threads. This does not make my stance nor any criticisms presented less valid, and I would appreciate it if you would at least attempt to address them.


Except that Bush hasn't placed any restrictions on stem-cell research, just restrictions on federal funding for said research, so this "real life example" is not entirely relevant.
He's a national politician, not a scientist, making the decision of what is and isn't ethically acceptable research, and from that where funds go... seems close enough to me.


Although I do admire your amazing chutzpah in trying to alienate potential supporters of this bill by implying that the totally EVIL Bush Administration would be given free reign if this were a measure in RL.
I have some issues with your assumption, not the least of which is the use of the word chutzpah. :p
I'm not implying that you need to oppose this bill if you oppose Bush, or support it if you like Bush. This is a weaker point though, and I feel like you're trying to turn this into a conservative v. liberal debate, something this issue is definitely not.
Who knows what Bush would do? The point isn't what Bush would do in real life, it's what this bill would allow and disallow nations and the UN from doing, and what it actually accomplishes in the area of scientific freedoms.


And why the hell shouldn't politicians place ethical restrictions on scientific research?
They should be able to place restrictions in certain cases. I believe Gruenberg provided some excellent examples. However, they shouldn't be able to stamp out all research (public and private) of some areas and yet continue deplorable research in others.


You also seem to be making a bizarre argument that politicians shouldn't be permitted control over where taxpayer dollars go
Never have I made such all-encompassing statements. My whole point was that you shouldn't grant governments the legal right to oppress legitimate scientific research, something this resolution would do. I'm not worried about taxpayer-funded research as much as the right to research.


Or are you advocating absolute scientific freedom in the United Nations, which would forbid member governments from banning, say, unrestricted testing on human beings, human cloning, breeding "superbabies," human-animal hybrids or Super Soldiers, etc., etc.?
No again. I'm advocating the ability of the UN to both legalize and illegalize areas or research, safety standards, ethical judgments, etc, on a case by case basis. This resolution would stop that ability.


Seems to me the most sensible recourse would be to give member governments that responsibility -- unless you'd rather the UN micromanage scientific freedoms by establishing a commission dictating to scientists what is and what is not acceptable ....

How does letting the national government decide help in the many nations that employ unrestricted scientific freedoms? I too believe that this is a tricky line to walk, but one no different from human rights, environmental responsibility, and so on. Ideally, the UN should guarantee the rights of scientists to research subjects responsibly, while prohibiting practices that are seen as ethically unsound. Does this force us to make ethical decisions? YES! Why are you afraid of that? The UN has been doing such since its beginning! Ethical issues have been drafted, debated, brought to the General Assembly, and passed or rejected based on their merits. Again, I ask, why should the UN discontinue such a practice? Furthermore, imagine what would happen if we decided to stop making such decisions in all areas, and prevented ourselves from doing so by accepting these blocking resolutions. The UN would be a waste, and fall far short of its potential. This is not a case of micromanagement, it is a case of sound reasoning.


First off, blockers on human rights or disarmament? Been done.
Not surprising. I'm not against blockers on a universal scale, but this blocker has consequences that far outweigh its (supposed) benefits.


Second off, do you even know what a "blocker" is? A blocker is a proposal specifically designed to nullify the legality of another proposal in the draft process ... Any resolution that simply delegates some powers to member governments is not a "blocker."
That's a pretty simplistic definition. This resolution goes far beyond delegating some powers to individual governments, it guarantees their power in all areas related to scientific research, while also preventing the UN from mandating anything more than a feeble, "please encourage this."


While clause 5 may be intended as a blocker, it does not necessarily restrict future UN regulation.
As it reiterates the government's rights to determine whether certain areas are legal or illegal, not all or even any.
It would though, as certain (as I read it) means specific, therefore the UN cannot legislate on any specific issues, and limits them to broad, unenforceable (what I call "soft") wording.


There is nothing wrong with a statement of spirit, because it would be wildly impractical for the UN to mandate every aspect of scientific practice for every nation - it couldn't possibly cover every eventuality.
You're right, there is nothing wrong with a statement of spirit, but this resolution is much more than that. Because the UN cannot nitpick every loophole of every issue, we should run blindly in the other direction by disallowing the UN from mandating a single scientific issue?


We are not familiar with your examples, but it seems both were heretics. Are you trying to suggest we should not punish those who lie to our people?
These heretics were condemned for holding an opinion in opposition to the authorities, much different from a situation in which a person actively campaigns to mislead the public in a purposeful lie.


There is no way a single resolution can cover every aspect of scientific research, and dictate what is and what is not protected -- so if you want UN oversight, you need to create a commission to hammer out those details.
You're right, a single resolution cannot cover every science topic there is. No one has said it needs to be this way. Much like Sheknu, you seem to be suggesting that since the UN cannot cover everything in one resolution, we shouldn't try to cover smaller issues in separate resolutions, just like we do with human rights, and the environment, and social justice, and yadda yadda yadda...


Or you can delegate such details to national governments. Are you honestly telling me you trust UN bureaucrats more with creating restrictions for LAE's scientific research programs than your own nation's leaders?
Better to do what we can, where we can, with the UN than to allow national governments to sit back and do nothing in all areas.


This is in general about stopping the government from saying things like "We don't want reserch into.."
There's more than that. It's about stopping the government from saying "You are forbidden from researching X, for no reason other than we don't feel like it." Equally importantly, it's about stopping the government from committing horrible atrocities in the name of science.


However, it was pointed out that in a democratic society, scientists, along with any other citizens, have access to politicians and can freely participate in the political decision making process.
Yes, because all the nations of the UN are just so democratic, they would love to give scientists these freedoms if the big, bad UN would just step out of the way...


If control of scientific research shouldn't be in the hands of politicians, in whose hands should it be?
At the risk of undermining Hack, I will say this. It should be in the hands of politicians... UN ones. Although my nation may support a more scientist-controlled system, I would be fine with your nation’s politician-controlled system, as long as the UN ensured the rights and expectations of scientists everywhere.


People are complaining that the right to do something we are already doing is going to be put in law. ... The fact is that this proposal is basically mandating that a UN nation decide what restrictions are neccassary or unneccassary, and decide what research is legal and what isn't. How is this different from what we are already doing?
I quote myself... “It's totally different. Currently, unethical practices are not banned, but the UN does not legalize them. This resolution would, in effect, legalize all unethical practices while failing to universally protect any ethical ones."


And once more, if only for the sake of repetition... This resolution will not promote scientific freedoms in those nations that are already in non-compliance with the spirit of the resolution because of its soft wording. Yet, it will also stop future attempts to strengthen scientific freedoms, or even stop scientific abuses.

I would also like to thank the many nations who are in opposition to this resolution. Unfortunately, I believe that many people are uninformed as to the resolutions intentions compared to its actual effect. I will try to telegram those regional delegates who support the resolution and ask that they rethink their position. I would greatly appreciate any advice or assistance you all could give me. (Note: I don't send telegrams for just any old issue, in fact, this is a first.)

That's a great way to avoid answering any of the concerns that have been raised thus far. A proposal isn't "entitled" to pass simply because it was publicly drafted, or because it reached quorum. Many people, myself included, do not pay attention to all of the draft threads. This does not make my stance nor any criticisms presented less valid, and I would appreciate it if you would at least attempt to address them.
*snip*


You are right... A proposal is not entitled to to pass because it has been publically drafted or reached quorum. A proposal is entitled to pass if it does something.

My argument and reason for posting those links was not to say "oh.. look here this proposal had a public draft." it was to point out that lots of people. Some who know alot more about the NSUN than me or you thought that this proposal achieved things towards it's goals. If it is nothing else it is a basis for an internal re-think of the nations handling of scientific research. I think this proposal is more than that and will require nations to change laws to make their nation provide less restriction in the scientific arena. The "unnecessary" portion IMO ensures this, you might disagree. And as you might have guessed I'm not much of a debater. But I have given you my reasons and my beliefs and that is as much as I can do.

Also... The Un is forbidden from making research illegal... but that is not all that the UN can or IMO should do. The UN should be more than saying "this is bad you are not allowed to do anything along these lines" but... "This is something that we are concerned about and we believe these measures will neutralise the issues we have with this. I have not totally neudered the UN on science based issues. but I have said that the UN should not interefere with determining which issues are legal or not. If the UN wishes to place or remove specific restrictions on specific research then by all means but I certainly do not want to be told that I must make *insert controversial scientific research* legal or make *other controversial sceintific research* illegal.

If it is nothing else it is a basis for an internal re-think of the nations handling of scientific research. I think this proposal is more than that and will require nations to change laws to make their nation provide less restriction in the scientific arena. The "unnecessary" portion IMO ensures this, you might disagree. And as you might have guessed I'm not much of a debater. But I have given you my reasons and my beliefs and that is as much as I can do.

First, I would like to thank you for your response. Nothing gets to me more than an author who won't defend his own proposal, and you are clearly not that type of person. I still believe one should be able to back up their beliefs with a logically sound argument, if not a wholly convincing one.

This resolution does have a reasonable basis, encouraging scientific freedoms. In fact, it does a whole lot of encouraging, urging, and polite asking. It also does something in the way of mandating, and that mandate is to strip the UN of its ability to protect scientific freedoms. This is contradictory to the spirit of the resolution, and is especially dangerous when no scientific freedoms are actually guaranteed.

If this passes, it gives nations a legal right to suppress dissenting scientific views. Of course, if you are of the mind that scientific freedoms are a dangerous element to yours and any society, then please, vote for. However, I am of the strong opinion that the UN should be a protector of individual rights, not a destroyer of such.


If the UN wishes to place or remove specific restrictions on specific research then by all means but I certainly do not want to be told that I must make *insert controversial scientific research* legal or make *other controversial sceintific research* illegal.
That's great, I agree with you. You are arguing against proposals on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what I would like to do as well. The resolution takes away our ability to handle scientific issues on a case-by-case basis, and instead surrenders all responsibility to national governments. Don't you think we could ensure certain freedoms, and also stop the worst of abuses, without dismantling the institution in place to deal with these issues?

First, I would like to thank you for your response. Nothing gets to me more than an author who won't defend his own proposal, and you are clearly not that type of person. I still believe one should be able to back up their beliefs with a logically sound argument, if not a wholly convincing one.


Thanks.



This resolution does have a reasonable basis, encouraging scientific freedoms. In fact, it does a whole lot of encouraging, urging, and polite asking. It also does something in the way of mandating, and that mandate is to strip the UN of its ability to protect scientific freedoms. This is contradictory to the spirit of the resolution, and is especially dangerous when no scientific freedoms are actually guaranteed.

If this passes, it gives nations a legal right to suppress dissenting scientific views. Of course, if you are of the mind that scientific freedoms are a dangerous element to yours and any society, then please, vote for. However, I am of the strong opinion that the UN should be a protector of individual rights, not a destroyer of such.




Freedom of Conscience (UNP #115).. guarantee's that supression of dissenting views (while not specifically covering science would IMO be covered) to not provide legal right to supress. But all this proposal does is says that the UN can not say what areas of research are illegal. It does not say that anyone that is against the governments stance on the legality or illegality of *controversial scientific issue* can be interally shut down. The government can choose to ignore it but they cannot actively seek to supress the opposing scientific idea. I.e. using a so called real-life example Gallileao Galliea (sp?) the government cannot go and imprison someone for saying the earth is a cube when we all know it to be a torus.

This proposal does not take away individual rights it takes away the power of the UN to interfere in determining of legality of areas of research. ... will continue in regards to the next section.


That's great, I agree with you. You are arguing against proposals on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what I would like to do as well. The resolution takes away our ability to handle scientific issues on a case-by-case basis, and instead surrenders all responsibility to national governments. Don't you think we could ensure certain freedoms, and also stop the worst of abuses, without dismantling the institution in place to deal with these issues?

The question is what is a controversial issue? Controversial in the UN member nation or controversial among the UN membership?

In an area of scientific research may be not controversial in the member nation and everyone but there are some option B desenters. But may be controversial in the UN... the UN controversiality might promote a nation to make a proposal about it pushing option B (which happens to be the majority of the view in that member nation). The proposal passes but barely. This frces the government to go against the wishes of it's people how does this support individual freedom?

If I had the choice of the UN deciding which area could be researched and national governments. personally I'd go with national governments.

Also what this proposal does not do is restrict a UN proposal about how nations determine which proposals are legal or illegal. just a note

Jeez, I hate these long posts!
Potentially so do I. That doesn't mean I'm not impressed by your ability to argue multiple points within them, though.

With that in mind...
Many people, myself included, do not pay attention to all of the draft threads.
True. However, trying to comment on at least some of the draft threads might be worthwhile:
1. I imagine you would have useful constructive criticisms.
2. Your concerns are more likely to be dealt with at the draft stage, where the proposal can be edited. Once it goes to vote, a resolution's passage is little affected by forum debates.

No again. I'm advocating the ability of the UN to both legalize and illegalize areas or research, safety standards, ethical judgments, etc, on a case by case basis. This resolution would stop that ability.
I'm not a mod, so this isn't an official opinion, but personally, I think it still has that.

Firstly, Clause 5 contains no mention of previous legislation. It cannot override that previous legislation. Therefore, it implicitly acknowledges resolutions such as "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles", "Stem Cell Research Funding", "UN Biological Weapons Ban" and others that have dealt with research as within the UN mandate.

Secondly, it makes reference only to "certain areas". In my opinion - the mods might well disagree - any resolution that outlined why a research area was not one of these certain areas - why it should not be a national right to rule on it - could then go to make UN legislation on the subject.

You're right, there is nothing wrong with a statement of spirit, but this resolution is much more than that. Because the UN cannot nitpick every loophole of every issue, we should run blindly in the other direction by disallowing the UN from mandating a single scientific issue?
The UN has already ruled on certain scientific issues. Furthermore, I can't think of many research areas where a UN mandate for all nations would be suitable - therefore, I'm inclined to favour protecting national rights over leaving open the possibility of something unsuitable passing. That's if my statements above about possible future proposals are incorrect, mind.

These heretics were condemned for holding an opinion in opposition to the authorities, much different from a situation in which a person actively campaigns to mislead the public in a purposeful lie.
Holding an opinion in opposition to the authorities is worthy of condemnation, when those authorities have divine legitimacy.

And both did seek to propagate their lies, anyway - although I concede they may merely have been delusional, rather than malicious.

Yes, because all the nations of the UN are just so democratic, they would love to give scientists these freedoms if the big, bad UN would just step out of the way...
Gives me an idea for a future proposal. How about something in the Furtherment of Democracy category, saying that national governments should consult with scientists, learned bodies, professional associations, etc., before making decisions on research legality, and promoting the formation of ethics committees?

At the risk of undermining Hack, I will say this. It should be in the hands of politicians... UN ones. Although my nation may support a more scientist-controlled system, I would be fine with your nation’s politician-controlled system, as long as the UN ensured the rights and expectations of scientists everywhere.
You would trust UN "politicians" (unaccountable, unelected gnomes) to rule on what your scientists can research? Besides, how could such be accomplished without the formation of some colossal bureaucracy?

--snip--
As always, a compelling analysis. Nonetheless, I take issue with it on two counts:

1. I don't share the extent of your faith in scientists to always act objectively, benevolently, and altruistically, and to self-enforce ethics. This has not always been the case: look at anatomists who have killed for cadavers or performed live dissections, psychiatrists who have used untested drugs or pushed absurd theories onto vulnerable patients, chemists who have been willing to use and discard dangerous materials with no regard for public safety.

I broadly agree with your mistrust of politicians. But I do so because I think that giving any one person (other than the glorious Sultan, of course) too much power is dangerous. And I think permitting scientists too great a degree of freedom can - perhaps not in The Hack, but for at least some nations - be dangerous.

2. You emphasise the technocratic nature of your society. This in turn highlights the variety of nations we have on show. In some, scientists maybe would be persecuted; in others, they'd be elevated and lauded. The UN cannot account for the vastly differing mores of these nations, cannot divine one code of ethics for people from such different backgrounds, and cannot hope to consider all of the particular requirements for research.

So, the UN should delegate its power down, to those more equipped to assess the circumstances: national governments. Ideally, they would in turn delegate their powers to scientists and those making research decisions, but there would still be a need for some level of regulation.

1. I don't share the extent of your faith in scientists to always act objectively, benevolently, and altruistically, and to self-enforce ethics. <examples snipped>Well, of course. Scientists aren't above idiocy; look at phrenology. Nor are they above... shall we say... evil; such as eugenics. This is an area that lawmakers should have a say. Allow me to use your chemists example.

Dumping highly toxic materials into ground water, for instance, is certainly odious. However, the proper way to prevent this is through (shudder) environmental laws, not by restricting research. Your comment on killing for cadavers is probably less of an issue now that most nations no longer have a taboo on examining corpses (a symptom of politicians and/or the church being involved where it shouldn't be).

Again, many of these things can be addressed by politicians, but not by meddling in what is and isn't allowed.

I broadly agree with your mistrust of politicians. But I do so because I think that giving any one person (other than the glorious Sultan, of course) too much power is dangerous.Well, due to my association with the greater Federation, I'm not about to badmouth the concept of a single dictator, but I'm not necessarily arguing that all these decisions should be made by a single scientist. Science works as a collective; acadamies, journals, peer reviews, and so on.

And I think permitting scientists too great a degree of freedom can - perhaps not in The Hack, but for at least some nations - be dangerous.Yup! We're perfect! Heh...

The UN cannot account for the vastly differing mores of these nations, cannot divine one code of ethics for people from such different backgrounds, and cannot hope to consider all of the particular requirements for research.True, true. Reasonable Nation clause and all. I also wasn't attempting to make a blanket statement. When it comes to scientific and technological endevours, the Hack does indeed shine; to say nothing of backwards luddites and communists. Ahem.

And this really was just my government's views and how we would vote if we were members. This proposal has excellent aims, and we're glad to see scientific research on the UN's plate. We just wish this proposal was... different.

However, it might have gotten a 'for' vote under the guise of "better than nothing"...

So, the UN should delegate its power down, to those more equipped to assess the circumstances: national governments.Well, yes. Better nations than the UN. Horrors... that would really fuck things up.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

"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,"

well if you exclude weapon research you exclude almost every venue of research

to whit - lets say you allow stem cell research for improving genes inpeople with downs syndrom. nobel purpose no doubt. however the research is successful and produces people with extra human strength. these people become noted for their military prowess as foot soldiers who can march for days on end and can carry more weapons than normal humans. nations with these soldiers will win wars with nations that did not follow this path and did not "weaponize" any research

almost any research has weapons applications; this is the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of legislation proposed.

either you were blind to this possibility drafting the legislation, or altruistic minded without practical experience, or perhaps cunning in trying to trick other nations into a veiled trap - who knows - however the legislation is flawed and i must vote against it.

"This proposal acknowledges we don't share definitions and meanings, and values and views - and it respects that. There is nothing wrong with a statement of spirit, because it would be wildly impractical for the UN to mandate every aspect of scientific practice for every nation - it couldn't possibly cover every eventuality"

This is really the crux of the issue.

Also as a nation with gnomes roaming our forests and an ancestry of gnomes, we request that you not besmirch the reputation of such a glorious creature by demeaning it with petty insults. Thank You.

The United Socialist States of Az-Cz

Also as a nation with gnomes roaming our forests and an ancestry of gnomes, we request that you not besmirch the reputation of such a glorious creature by demeaning it with petty insults.Hm? Nah. The bastards are probably refering to us. We get that a lot.

Hm? Nah. The bastards are probably refering to us. We get that a lot.

As well you should. :p

the Kirisuban ambassador Kaigan Miromuta takes the podium and starts to speak.

"the Empire of Kirisubo is strongly opposed to this proposal. Complete scientific freedom being granted by the NSUN would be a bad thing for many nations to cope with.

while some scientifc research is good, helpful and should be encouraged it should be remembered that science is a two edged sword and the same people who split the atom also produced nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

i urge the honourable delegates and ambassadors here to re-consider their votes if they voted for this act. Nations have the right to govern in their peoples interests and bad science is one field they should be able to defend their people from"

he leaves the podium and returns to his chair.

We'll be glad to support a resolution for Freedom of Gnomes. As a matter of fact we have a sort of giant Gnome that guards our planet.

I haven't read all the previous pages. This is what I think are the flaws in this resolution.

(Originally posted in Airborne Defense Empire)

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

Tautology.

UNDERSTANDING that scientific advances that are made for the betterment of the life of any persons

Science itself is neutral. The applications of science are good or bad.

"scientific endeavour" as any scientific theory, procedure, law or any goods derived...not including any weapons, weapon components, weapon systems, blueprints or technologies whose purpose is of a destructive nature

Already we have excluded legitimate areas of research from the scope of the resolution

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

Totally negates the purpose of the Resolution. A government could exercise full national sovereignty and declare ALL areas of research illegal.

while some scientifc research is good, helpful and should be encouraged it should be remembered that science is a two edged sword and the same people who split the atom also produced nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Certainly, the resolution currently at vote would not support the original Manhattan Project (as it excludes military research), so delaying the development of atomic power for civil purposes. It also would not support the killing of tens of thousands. Datavia is for the good part of science, so we find no reason for not supporting this well-minded resolution.

either you were blind to this possibility drafting the legislation, or altruistic minded without practical experience, or perhaps cunning in trying to trick other nations into a veiled trap - who knows - however the legislation is flawed and i must vote against it.
I'm assuming you haven't noticed the proposal doesn't actually ban "weapons research"?

Wow, wow, just wow, this porposal is great, im right behind you on this. Realy nice work.

the Empire of Kirisubo is strongly opposed to this proposal. Complete scientific freedom being granted by the NSUN would be a bad thing for many nations to cope with.
Right. Good job the current proposal does no such thing, then.

while some scientifc research is good, helpful and should be encouraged it should be remembered that science is a two edged sword and the same people who split the atom also produced nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
Hence, perhaps, exempting weapons research and hazardous materials from protection?

Nations have the right to govern in their peoples interests and bad science is one field they should be able to defend their people from
I'm guessing you just skipped right on past Clause 5, because it agrees with you to the letter.

It's beginning to look like the voting is off: so many people who support this proposal are voting AGAINST, it should be winning by a lot more. Shame on Bazalonia for writing a proposal whose entire contents weren't contained in its title!

he leaves the podium and returns to his chair.[/QUOTE]

Bazalonia']Freedom of Conscience (UNP #115).. guarantee's that supression of dissenting views (while not specifically covering science would IMO be covered) to not provide legal right to supress.
This is a good point that I'm embarrassed I didn't think of earlier [OOC: as it woz me wot wrote FoC]. Dissenting voices will be heard; the likes of Galileo are in no danger. Of course, this works both ways - Creationists and other anti-science groups will also be able to put forward their views without fear of suppression. Which is a good thing.

Gives me an idea for a future proposal. How about something in the Furtherment of Democracy category, saying that national governments should consult with scientists, learned bodies, professional associations, etc., before making decisions on research legality, and promoting the formation of ethics committees?
Excellent idea. Looking forward to it. [OOC: Tangentially, this makes me wonder if FoC might have better suited the FoD category (mmm, acronyms).]

We'll be glad to support a resolution for Freedom of Gnomes. As a matter of fact we have a sort of giant Gnome that guards our planet.

Giant gnome? :confused:

http://members.shaw.ca/alvandyk/HeadExplode.gif

Giant gnome? :confused:

In Mikitivity we call them Gnome Titans. They look like tall skinny dwarves, but can't be bribed. Or so the mythology goes.

Very interesting, Hack. In Ausserland, most of the unicorns are a rather striking shade of burgundy, but that's beside the point.

Now a serious question... If control of scientific research shouldn't be in the hands of politicians, in whose hands should it be?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Thank you Ambassador Thwerdock. If a nation can't trust its politicians to make long-term decisions of national importance, I would think that we should also consider directing some of this organization's efforts into promoting effective democratic processes.

Howie T. Katzman

I would think that we should also consider directing some of this organization's efforts into promoting effective democratic processes.
Although, we are not huge fans of democracy, we're inclined to consider this for a moment. What would Ambassador Katzman think of the suggestion of a Furtherment of Democracy proposal that encourages national governments to seek advice from learned bodies and consult with scientists on ethical rulings regarding scientific research?

I quote myself... “It's totally different. Currently, unethical practices are not banned, but the UN does not legalize them. This resolution would, in effect, legalize all unethical practices while failing to universally protect any ethical ones."

This may be a stupid question but, how is this different from what we have?

Without this resolution:

A nation will decide for itself what practices are legal or illegal, what scientists can research and what they can't.

With this resolution, copy, paste:

A nation will decide for itself what practices are legal or illegal, what scientists can research and what they can't.

All this resolution really does is protect that right.

Personally, I kind of like that right...

But I still abstain, I'm not gonna vote for this on that ground alone, and I still fail to see any real drawbacks to this, so I ain't voting against.

Hence the abstaining.

The United Socialist States of Venimatia vote against this resolution. The idea is great but needs to be more specific, especially in the areas of restrictions. Tariffs, among other things, needs to be addressed.

Although, we are not huge fans of democracy, we're inclined to consider this for a moment. What would Ambassador Katzman think of the suggestion of a Furtherment of Democracy proposal that encourages national governments to seek advice from learned bodies and consult with scientists on ethical rulings regarding scientific research?

If I may, my government takes a position that functional democratic rule is the product of a strong and public education system, and that the freedom of information is key to that. I think the short answer is with "a qualified agreement of the principal."

If the Furtherment of Democracy proposal category were used to create a "Freedom of Information" act that would enable scientists to release their knowledge in a timely manner, an educated electorate could hopefully make better informed decisions when voicing their opinions in the political arena.

I hope I've answered your question ... if not, I'll be more than happy to take another stab at it. However, I don't want to encourage too explicit of an approach in incorporating scientific planning in governance. While a strong and healthy society will see the wisdom in this, the people of Mikitivity also recognize the importance in sovereign approaches towards goverance.

-Howie T. Katzman

"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,"

well if you exclude weapon research you exclude almost every venue of research

to whit - lets say you allow stem cell research for improving genes inpeople with downs syndrom. nobel purpose no doubt. however the research is successful and produces people with extra human strength. these people become noted for their military prowess as foot soldiers who can march for days on end and can carry more weapons than normal humans. nations with these soldiers will win wars with nations that did not follow this path and did not "weaponize" any research

almost any research has weapons applications; this is the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of legislation proposed.

either you were blind to this possibility drafting the legislation, or altruistic minded without practical experience, or perhaps cunning in trying to trick other nations into a veiled trap - who knows - however the legislation is flawed and i must vote against it.

Let's go and see how 'scientific endeavour' is used before we go further

......

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,

and to this the definition of scientific endeavor...


- "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,


and this clause says the government should promote any legal area of research without placing unnecessary restrictions untop of the research or the results from that research excluding weapon-based results. Scientific Endeavours are results of research, not the research itself.

it also matters in clause 4 where and I quote
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

in other words this proposal does not Strongly encourage trade in weapons or weapons tech....

the Kirisuban ambassador Kaigan Miromuta takes the podium and starts to speak.

"the Empire of Kirisubo is strongly opposed to this proposal. Complete scientific freedom being granted by the NSUN would be a bad thing for many nations to cope with.

while some scientifc research is good, helpful and should be encouraged it should be remembered that science is a two edged sword and the same people who split the atom also produced nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

i urge the honourable delegates and ambassadors here to re-consider their votes if they voted for this act. Nations have the right to govern in their peoples interests and bad science is one field they should be able to defend their people from"

he leaves the podium and returns to his chair.

I thank the representative from Kirisubo for there concern but I do believe that it is an unwarranted concern, the issues of weapons technology is very important to the integrity of this issue and has not gone unaddressed.

First may I point to the definition of "scientific endeavour" which expressly excludes weaponry and weapon technology. This applies in clause 2 and 4.

Secondly, nuclear research and research into other contensious weapon issues cannot happen if access to nuclear material or other necessary material that happens to be dangerous is severly restricted or even prohibited as clause 3c and clause 6 deals with.

Yours Sincerly, John McKay.

It does not say that anyone that is against the governments stance on the legality or illegality of *controversial scientific issue* can be interally shut down. The government can choose to ignore it but they cannot actively seek to supress the opposing scientific idea.
Alright, I'll take your word on that.


This proposal does not take away individual rights it takes away the power of the UN to interfere in determining of legality of areas of research.
It's more than just controversial areas of research, it's safety standards, professional conduct, and transparent procedures that I'm concerned with. I believe the UN should retain the right to legalize or illegalize areas of research, whether they actually use such a right would be for member nations to decide (based on the specific proposal presented). This resolution would take away that right. I don't believe that is in anyway necessary or desirable to protect scientific freedoms.


If I had the choice of the UN deciding which area could be researched and national governments. personally I'd go with national governments.
Has there ever been a UN resolution that forced a nation to fund a specific area of research? I don't believe so. The UN should be used to ensure that research isn't carried out harmfully, while protecting the rights of scientists to research without excessive restraint. I'm not against the government's ability to oversight research, but their ability to forcefully interfere.


Potentially so do I. That doesn't mean I'm not impressed by your ability to argue multiple points within them, though.
(...)
Once it goes to vote, a resolution's passage is little affected by forum debates.
Thank you.
I know, I've always hated this.


How about something in the Furtherment of Democracy category, saying that national governments should consult with scientists, learned bodies, professional associations, etc., before making decisions on research legality, and promoting the formation of ethics committees?
Sounds good to me.


You would trust UN "politicians" (unaccountable, unelected gnomes) to rule on what your scientists can research? Besides, how could such be accomplished without the formation of some colossal bureaucracy?
I trust the General Assembly to reasonably decide where ethical boundaries lie, and to mandate when they shouldn't be crossed. I'm not talking about any all-encompassing bureaucracy to take away the rights of individual governments, I'm talking about resolutions that target specific areas of research for support or condemnation. In a broader sense, I'm also talking about general standards that scientists in all nations should be held accountable to.


The UN cannot account for the vastly differing mores of these nations, cannot divine one code of ethics for people from such different backgrounds, and cannot hope to consider all of the particular requirements for research.
Again, the UN need not cover everything in a single resolution, that is obvious to everyone, but it can still regulate certain issues in specific cases. I don't see why we should assume the UN is incapable of resolving the worst of abuse.


All this resolution really does is protect that right.
Protect the right to declare all areas of research illegal, or just as dangerous, legal. From myself again, "Ideally, the UN should guarantee the rights of scientists to research subjects responsibly, while prohibiting practices that are seen as ethically unsound. Does this force us to make ethical decisions? YES! Why are you afraid of that?"


Secondly, nuclear research and research into other contensious weapon issues cannot happen if access to nuclear material or other necessary material that happens to be dangerous is severly restricted or even prohibited as clause 3c and clause 6 deals with.
Resolution #154, the Nuclear Energy Research Act, already allows nations to conduct and share nuclear research.


I see the resolution cannot suppress scientific ideas, and it won't prevent the UN from restricting unethical research, but I'd feel much better about this resolution if others could assure me that it does not enable governments to restrain private research or funding, and that it will not prevent the UN from actually guaranteeing scientific freedoms.

Note: A 6,000 to 2,000 vote, combined with unloading freight trucks at 5 am, has changed my mind about telegramming delegates... it's not worth it. While I would like to see the UN take a stronger stand for science, not national sovereignty, I cannot change the minds of 2,000+ voters by myself.

*snip* but their ability to forcefully interfere.
*snip* I'd feel much better about this resolution if others could assure me that it does not enable governments to restrain private research or funding, and that it will not prevent the UN from actually guaranteeing scientific freedoms.

There are three entities that we need to look at

The UN is ...

Forbidden from Declaring an area of research legal or illegal

The UN is not...

forbidden from declaring international safety standards in scientific research

forbidden from establishing protocols, structures or frameworks to provide a transparent and accountable method for nations to decide for themselves what is legal and illegal.


This proposal does not grant or remove individual nations any more rights than they already has in that manner. If governments have in the past been forcing itself then this proposal does not stop them. but neither does it encourage them to do it. If this is something that really concerns you then I would recomend you to develope a "Scientific Legality Framework".. or something like that to ensure transparency, accountability and sound judgment in governing government policy in this regards.

Has there ever been a UN resolution that forced a nation to fund a specific area of research? I don't believe so. The UN should be used to ensure that research isn't carried out harmfully, while protecting the rights of scientists to research without excessive restraint. I'm not against the government's ability to oversight research, but their ability to forcefully interfere.


I agree with pretty much everything else you said, but I think Hydrogen Powered Cars does the fundy forcey thingie.... Though I'm much too lazy to check for myself, especially since I'm doing marginal amounts of research for my forthcoming UN Chemical Transportation Codex (plugplugplug).

In Mikitivity we call them Gnome Titans. They look like tall skinny dwarves, but can't be bribed. Or so the mythology goes.
And I'm sure that in Omigodtheykilledkenny they'd call them Target Practice.:p

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

That remaind me some famous scientists judged for trying to explain that the earth was not the center of the universe, as Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Of course science has to be regulated and trying to regulate science is a difficult thing to write in a proposal. But sadly there is even not a single try to regulate science in this proposal. Nothing. But a blanket declared right to any government to ban any scientific areas they want to.

Love and esterel vote NAY.

OOC: Please bear in mind that the NS universe includes regions on the Discworld, Middle-Earth and Narnia: All three of those worlds were created rather than formed purely under natural laws, and all three of them have had non-standard cosmology (Middle-Earth until the sinking of Numenor, the other two worlds throughout their histories) too... Why would forcing people in those regions to teach Earth-standard cosmology & evolution (when it is actually objectively wrong as far as their worlds are concerned) be right?

It looks like it is going to pass so I think I'm going to vote NO, I want to know what it feels like to be a liberal in America.

:D

OOC: Please bear in mind that the NS universe includes regions on the Discworld, Middle-Earth and Narnia: All three of those worlds were created rather than formed purely under natural laws, and all three of them have had non-standard cosmology (Middle-Earth until the sinking of Numenor, the other two worlds throughout their histories) too... Why would forcing people in those regions to teach Earth-standard cosmology & evolution (when it is actually objectively wrong as far as their worlds are concerned) be right?

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. I'm real close to creating a region where everything happens backwards. The complete contradict, obverse, inverse, opposite of any of the realms that the UN is supposed to cater to. There has got to be some exceptions made so that Resolution writers don't have to bow to every whim some region has in regards to laws of physics, time, and whatever other things are fairly stable in the RL world. Otherwise one such region could completely gum up the works according to arguments like that. I'm all for species and other planets and such, but there has got to be some part of the UN that is rooted in reality.

OOC: Please bear in mind that the NS universe includes regions on the Discworld, Middle-Earth and Narnia: All three of those worlds were created rather than formed purely under natural laws, and all three of them have had non-standard cosmology (Middle-Earth until the sinking of Numenor, the other two worlds throughout their histories) too... Why would forcing people in those regions to teach Earth-standard cosmology & evolution (when it is actually objectively wrong as far as their worlds are concerned) be right?
Please forgive me, but I don't see how it's related to my comment. My comment was just 2 examples in history of science being banned without any justification (as the proposal at vote try to declare a right for governments to do exactly the same)

I'm real close to creating a region where everything happens backwards. The complete contradict, obverse, inverse, opposite of any of the realms that the UN is supposed to cater to.

OOC: BIZZARO WORLD!!! :eek:

OOC: BIZZARO WORLD!!! :eek:

Bizzaro world, like, squared. Time itself moves backwards.

Yeah. It'll be THAT bad.

The UN is not...
forbidden from declaring international safety standards in scientific research
forbidden from establishing protocols, structures or frameworks to provide a transparent and accountable method for nations to decide for themselves what is legal and illegal.
Good, maybe setting these up would be more productive to protect scientific freedoms.


This proposal does not grant or remove individual nations any more rights than they already has in that manner. If governments have in the past been forcing itself then this proposal does not stop them. but neither does it encourage them to do it.
It gives them a legal justification for doing such. In any case where the government's judgement comes into question, they can cite this resolution to continue following harmful paths of activity. It's like a big UN O.K. stamp on their current policy, no matter what that may entail.


I think Hydrogen Powered Cars does the fundy forcey thingie....
But wasn't that repealed?

Please forgive me, but I don't see how it's related to my comment. My comment was just 2 examples in history of science being banned without any justification (as the proposal at vote try to declare a right for governments to do exactly the same)

OOC: I thinking looking at RL examples and providing them is good. That said, I want to point out that governments *already* have the ability to do just what you are saying this resolution is setting up. Bottomline, if the UN doesn't have a resolution *granting* something, nations have the right to restrict it. If anything, I honestly believe this resolution cracks the door open a bit more in favour of scientific research. Earlier you made a comment in response to Ambassador Katzman's remark that in democratic societies we should trust our leadership that not all members are not democratic. Though that is true, that doesn't mean that democracies should step *backwards* and put restrictions on themselves in order to make it easier for a totaliarian regieme to operate. If anything I (and Katzman and Mikitivity) believe democracies should lead by example. ;)

But wasn't that repealed?
Not at this time.

unfortunatly

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

Not at this time.

unfortunatly
I finally took the time to look it up. :D

Resolution #18, Hydrogen Powered Vehicles, doesn't mandate any spending.
Resolution #122, Promotion of Solar Panels, required an unspecified increase, but it was repealed.
Resolution #126, Fossil Fuel Reduction Act, requires a 1% increase per year until nations are in compliance with Section A of the resolution.

So, I was wrong, there is one resolution that mandates your country fund a specific area of research, if only temporarily.

So, I was wrong, there is one resolution that mandates your country fund a specific area of research, if only temporarily.
"Stem Cell Research Funding"?

"Stem Cell Research Funding"?
Nope, no mandate.
I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.

Nope, no mandate.
"if they so desire" refers to scientists, not nations. It's a mandate.

But, this is tangential, as it appears the proposal will pass by a large margin...FOR SCIENCE.

OOC: I thinking looking at RL examples and providing them is good. That said, I want to point out that governments *already* have the ability to do just what you are saying this resolution is setting up. Bottomline, if the UN doesn't have a resolution *granting* something, nations have the right to restrict it. If anything, I honestly believe this resolution cracks the door open a bit more in favour of scientific research. Earlier you made a comment in response to Ambassador Katzman's remark that in democratic societies we should trust our leadership that not all members are not democratic. Though that is true, that doesn't mean that democracies should step *backwards* and put restrictions on themselves in order to make it easier for a totaliarian regieme to operate. If anything I (and Katzman and Mikitivity) believe democracies should lead by example. ;)

You absolutly right about government having already the ability to do what this resolution is setting up. Furthermore the UN, even if indirect is democratic in its legislation process.

It's why my argument is that this is really sad to vote for a resolution which declares rights that government have already, and this, without any try to establish sensible limits and guidelines, while using the legislative democratic process of the UN.

"if they so desire" refers to scientists, not nations. It's a mandate."I ask" and "I urge" means it's a "mandate"?

"I ask" and "I urge" means it's a "mandate"?
Alright, perhaps not.

I was divining it from the strength ("Strong", if I recall correctly). It wasn't deleted, which would imply it wasn't a strength violation - and thus had to be a mandate.

Please forgive me, but I don't see how it's related to my comment. My comment was just 2 examples in history of science being banned without any justification (as the proposal at vote try to declare a right for governments to do exactly the same)

If national governments are not guaranteed the right to determine which fields of science can legally be researched within their own territories then it would be legal for the UN to pass a resolution requiring them to spend money studying & teaching theories (such as heliocentric cosmology) that weren't just against their governments' beliefs but actually objectively wrong as far as the realities where they're located are concerned...

It's why my argument is that this is really sad to vote for a resolution which declares rights that government have already, and this, without any try to establish sensible limits and guidelines, while using the legislative democratic process of the UN.

All UN resolutions that grant rights are granting rights in societies where those rights *may* already exist. The important difference here is that the conditions rights are being recommended and promoted (resolutions are suggestions, not enforceable mandates) in the places that have choosen not to honor those rights.

That is why the (RL and NS) UN has a liberal bias.

The question to Katzman / Mikitivity has always been, "How does this impact us?" Since there was no negative impact in Mikitivity, and a promotion of the basic idea that scientists and leaders need to work together it is seen as a recommendation Katzman obviously is willing to place on other societies.

Passed!

Bazalonia']Passed!

Congratulations!