NationStates Jolt Archive

During the UN floor debate upon the "Freedom of Scientific Research" proposal that has now become UN res #166. There was discussion about how the nation determined a "legal area of research". Using the ideas provided while keeping the concept of national soverignty. I have decided to draft another proposal exanding upon the concept of the previous currently enacted resolution while maintaining appropriate speration to negate the House of cards issue.

Attached Below is the current copy of the draft and comments and feedback are welcome.

Yours Sincerly, John McKay,
Bazalonian UN Ambassador and Regional Delegate

Scientific Ethics Board
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

RECOGNISING the benefits of Scientific Research

APPLAUDING UN Resolution #166 but believes this does not go far enough,

BEMOANING archaic restrictions that may be placed on scientific research by those with limited undersanding of science and/or ethics,

BELIEVING that Ethics are an integral part of modern scientific research,

UNDERSTANDING that communication between government and scientific institutions are vital for scientific freedoms.

REALISING an educated public leads to further public involvement in the processes of government

RECOGNISING the various beliefs about what is considered ethical by various nations citizens as well as the many nations round the world,

WISHING to solve any differences between the religous, government and scientific stake holders in the concept of ethical scientific research,

The United Nations General Assembly, Hereby

1. DEFINES the following term:
(a) "area of research", pluralised to "areas of research", as any topic, methodology or practice that is to be researched or can be used during the research process
(b) "transparent", practices and policies that make information about governmental procedures available to the public. Such examples including broadcasting procedures of the legislative branch on Television or other appropriate media, produce brief and concise press releases containing what has happened in the legislative branch.

2. MANDATES the creation of a national Scientific Ethics Board(SEB),which may or may not be a government agency, for each UN Member nation, or should a government department/non-government organisation in the UN member nation meet the requirements to be nominated as the officially recognised SEB. The SEB is to:
(a) be made up of representatives from three groups; Government officials, Scientists and other concerned citizens
(b) contain equal representation within itself of the three groups mentioned in 2a
(c) be responsible for for the creation of bills about ethical practices in scientific research to be put up to the legislative branch of the UN member nation that it belongs to.
(d) meet regularily, suggested to be twice every year, to discuss issues related the practice of ethical practices of scientific researc, particularily various areas of research, within the UN member nation
(e) members of the SEB are to be counted as government officials in criminal or civil cases of bribery, corruption or similiar laws should such laws exist
(f) be required to take input from any interested individual while deliberating and discussing ethical practices in scientific research
(g) decide, after discussion of the issue, if a practice in scientific research is ethical or not they have the responsibility of drafting a bill that ensures that the decision is to be reflected in the law of the UN member nation

3. STRONGLY URGES that governments make the process of enacting laws, particularily those from the SEB, transparent.

4. MANDATES that potential laws which are to affect freedoms that relate to scientific research under go consultation with a nationally recognised scientific institute. For the purposes of this clause an SEB counts as a scientific institute.

5. MANDATES that no scientific research that results in a discovery that is an anathematic to the government can be supressed by the government should the discovery be proved valid, or before the validity of the discovery can be tested.

A most emphatic NO!

This is micro-managing at its worst. My government does NOT wish to delegate these matters to a "Scientific Ethics Board" when we already have our own governmental institutions in place. Ariddian government (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_government_and_judiciary) functions in a highly centralised manner, and this flies in the face of our established governmental procedures.

If we wish to appoint specialists to advise us on what is or is not ethical, and what is or is not a valid field or method of research, we will do so in our own way.

Lastly, there is strict separation between Church and State in Ariddia, and this proposal would be a violation of that fundamental principle. Thank you very much, we do NOT wish to allow religious representatives to dictate our conduct to us. Not only would it violate separation of Church and State, it would also make the SEB a highly non-representational body, given that very few Ariddians are members of any religions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Religion_in_Ariddia).

The idea of enforcing ethical principles on science is a good one, but this proposal would do a lot more harm than good.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Thank you for your comments,

As for the issue related to religion, usually in many societies it is the religions that have a major influence on the ethics of the culture the religion abides in. Would the change of "Major religions" to "interested persons" solve this problem? It would also remove the need to differentiate between totally atheistic societies as well.

As for the status of the SEB, I am currently exploring a different way of implementing it within a government and not making a seperate entity.

Yours Sincerly, John McKay
Ambassador to the UN and Regional Delegate

If you could address these difficulties, Ariddia would be more willing to support this proposal, yes. "Interested person" may be a little vague, but in these circumstances that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Making the SEB a government body, or at least allowing nations to do so if they wish, would be a good idea, indeed.

The main problem with the original proposal is that it needs to be made more flexible, to adapt to the particularities of member States' societies and governments.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

So we are to give over power to a board to set laws when we have our very own Parliment which is perfectly capable of rubber stamping our decisions?

Seems somewhat onerous for no real gain.

I would prefer that the numbers of the board not be set so firmly, why not just say "equal representatives from the recognized religiouns, recognized scientifc leaders, and goverment appointees" and leave the number fluid, perhaps demand on at least 6 and no more than 24.

Also I see no reason to insist that they have the ability to draft law. That is the job of my Parliment to do as demanded. What if they deemed our budding research into nuclear power "unethical" due to the potential environmental cost. Yes, there is some danger, but for a nation where the main source of power is wood, and with our problems dealing with the national termite infestation, national priorities compell us to look into alternatives. Such a decision should not be left to scienctists and religious scholars who may be incapable of determining national priorities. Instead, they should form an advisory role(nations wishing to give them the ability to create laws are certainly free to do so).

Clauses 4 and 5 seem to be undue interference in the culture of other countries. In Cardiland we recognize that attempting to eliminates bribes merely forces the money into more hidden channels, "lobbying", "paid fact finding trips", and "internships for family members". When bribery is instead legalized and regulated, all of society benefits from a free and open view of who is paying for what.

This proposal seems like to me to be unworkable.
(OOC mandating the number of representatives seems a tad excessive, equal parts is sufficient - make it multiples of 6 and countries without 1 of the three elements can simply assign people from the other two.

Mandating that their pronouncements have the force of law again seems excessive. Even the most democratic societies don't like transferring the power to pass law from the legislative branch to an unelected committee. Regulate and regulations gives Nations the choice of deciding how much force to give it. Though it does act to foster democracy to remove that authority from a corrupt dictatorship such as Cardiland. :-)

Clauses 4 and 5 are pie in the sky dreaming. Just say that the members of the committee are treated as goverment officials for the purposes of inducements. No matter what you say, corrupt dictatorships such as Cardiland are going to hold their families career hostage to getting decisions we want, while nations who claim to be against corruption will have family members "coincidentally" offered lucrative positions in companies pursuing research they don't want blocked by the committee.)

Here are some changes that I have made to the operative clauses , I have also updated the original



1. DEFINES the following terms for this resolution
(a) "Area of research" as any topic, methodology or practice that is to be researched or can be used during the research process
(b) "Scientific Ethics Board(SEB)" as a governmental or non-governmental agency or organisation that is recognised as having legitimate and legal authority over determining legality of areas of research within a specific UN member nation. An SEB needs to have equal representation of the three following groups; Scientists, Government officials and other concerned citizens.

2. MANDATES that every member nation has a SEB officially recognised by the government

3. SUGGESTS that the SEB meet regularily, at least every half-year, to discuss the practice of ethical standards in scientific research.

4. REQUIRES the SEB to delibirate should an approapriate government agency ask them to, an interested party brings potentially new evidence to the floor or if an interested party makes a submition to the SEB within a month, in a timely manner of within the month of the original official approach.

5. MANDATES that bribes, inducements, intimidation or other attempts to manipulate the SEB's deliberation and judgements on areas of research are made illegal and result in a sentence in-accordance to the legal system of the member nation.

6. MANDATES that the accepting of bribes and inducements by members of the SEB is made illegal and result in a sentance according to the member nations legal system as well as removal and replacement of the SEB member.


This new update deals with the issue of flexibility, in terms of size and status of it as governmental agency


What if they deemed our budding research into nuclear power "unethical" due to the potential environmental cost. That could potentially occur but as the government has representation on the SEB it has the chance to put it's case for nuclear power but in the end if the scientists and other concerned persons all disagree with the government then that is democracy in action. And by the way it can only outlaw research. IF your nation had nuclear power then the SEB could prohibit further research into nuclear capabilities but could not shut down already existing infrastructure.

No, the decision should not be left purely to the religious scholars and scientists but it should also include the government. And if the SEB was a government agency it would be the government consulting with the scientists and "religious scholars" to make law. It's all a matter of perspective.

As for the suggestion about clauses 4 & 5. The UN cannot be seen as supporting shoddy and underhanded practices, especially in a proposed resolution for the Furtherment of democracy. As such the items that the previous clauses 4&5 protected (now 5&6) certainly do not promote democracy. The item that is most of note is to "in-accordance to the legal system of the member nation." They might be at the most a slap on the wrist if indeed corruption is socially acceptible in Cardiland.

(OOC:
As for the force of law being exessive, well there are the two extremes having too much teeth and not enough. If it was just a "We think that the government should do X" what would that really acheive? the Answer nothing... So the only way for the SEB to have any real teeth is to give them law-making powers. Actually I think I have just come up with a compromise between an advisory role and a law making role. Instead of having the SEB making laws and them being considered as writ. Have some sort of vetting through the legislative brance. So the SEB propose a law but it actually has to get through the legistlative branch first.

As for your "government official" suggestion on 4&5. I think that will be a good compromise)

Here are some changes that I have made to the operative clauses , I have also updated the original

Much better. Although I'm still not entirely comfortable with the SEB being empowered to make law. Perhaps it can draw up proposals and mandate that the nation's Parliament should debate and vote upon them?

Section 4 needs to be amended for spelling and grammar. I suggest:

4. REQUIRES the SEB to deliberate should an appropriate government agency ask them to, should an interested party bring potentially new evidence to the floor or if an interested party makes a submission to the SEB. The SEB's deliberations will begin no more than a month after the request or submission of evidence.

Or something like that.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Since all this does is create a committee (with no clearly defined objectives at that), it would not be legal.

Does it matter that the committee's that it makes is not as such a 'UN committee', since it instructs the member nations to create there own SEB, and there is not one SEB for the entire UN?

Also any ideas of something that I could add should the question above be negative?

Also, new draft has been made and structure of it has significantly changed


Scientific Ethics Board
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

RECOGNISING the benefits of Scientific Research

APPLAUDING UN Resolution #166 but believes this does not go far enough,

BEMOANING archaic restrictions that may be placed on scientific research by those with limited undersanding of science and/or ethics,

BELIEVING that Ethics are an integral part of modern scientific research,

RECOGNISING the various beliefs about what is considered ethical by various nations citizens as well as the many nations round the world,

WISHING to solve any differences between the religous, government and scientific stake holders in the concept of ethical scientific research,

The United Nations General Assembly, Hereby

1. DEFINES the term "area of research", pluralised to "areas of research", as any topic, methodology or practice that is to be researched or can be used during the research process

2. MANDATES the creation of a national Scientific Ethics Board(SEB),which may or may not be a government agency, for each UN Member nation, or should a government department/non-government organisation in the UN member nation meet the requirements to be nominated as the officially recognised SEB. The SEB is to:
(a) be made up of representatives from three groups; Government officials, Scientists and other concerned citizens
(b) contain equal representation within itself of the three groups mentioned in 2a
(c) be responsible for for the creation of bills about ethical practices in scientific research to be put up to the legislative branch of the UN member nation that it belongs to.
(d) meet regularily, suggested to be twice every year, to discuss issues related the practice of ethical practices of scientific researc, particularily various areas of research, within the UN member nation
(e) members of the SEB are to be counted as government officials in criminal or civil cases of bribery, corruption or similiar laws should such laws exist
(f) be required to take input from any interested individual while deliberating and discussing ethical practices in scientific research
(g) decide, after discussion of the issue, if a practice in scientific research is ethical or not they have the responsibility of drafting a bill that ensures that the decision is to be reflected in the law of the UN member nation

Still needs to do more than just create a committee.

I wanted to have the following in the 'Freedom of Scientific Research' proposal


3. MANDATES that any scientist not willing to recognise the decisions made by the SEB, for whatever reason, must be able to emigrate out of the member nation, with their immediate family, to another nation that does not have such SEB judgements should the destination country be willing to accept them.


Will this satisy the legality requirement?

That's a Human Rights deal, not a Furtherment of Democracy deal. You can't just randomly tack something on and call it good. This isn't the US Congress.

Okay, Here are some modifications that I have made



REALISING an educated public leads to further public involvement in the processes of government

1. DEFINES the following term:
(a) "area of research", pluralised to "areas of research", as any topic, methodology or practice that is to be researched or can be used during the research process
(b) "transparent", practices and policies that make information about governmental procedures available to the public. Such examples including broadcasting procedures of the legislative branch on Television or other appropriate media, produce brief and concise press releases containing what has happened in the legislative branch.

3. STRONGLY URGES that governments make the process of enacting laws, particularily those formed from the bills created by the SEB, transparent

You seem to have good intentions with this proposal, and that is commendable, but what the mods have mentioned is still an issue.

Unfortunately, as the primary function of what you've got is to create the SEB, you're going to continue running into the fact that the proposal does little more than create the SEB.

What you might consider doing is working this from the other end. Write a proposal about UN legislated Scientific Ethics and add the SEB into that, instead of the other way around. There would need to be some extensive drafting for such a thing to be palatable to the GA, but it could be worth it.

Still needs to do more than just create a committee.

OOC: Well, Hack hasn't told me to stuff it in a while, so I think I'll give him a chance. :D

Hack, this proposal doesn't "just create a committee". In fact, it doesn't create a committee at all. Instead, it mandates that nations establish "committees" with specific, defined responsibilities, i.e., "be responsible for for the creation of bills about ethical practices in scientific research...".

So, since the proposal mandates action on the part of nations, is it really in violation of the "Creating Stuff" rule?

Also, there may be a problem with these "SEBs": would governments be obligated to implement their suggestions? Because that would be a violation of Freedom of Scientific Research, Clause 5.

I do not like the way this idea is presented. I would much rather the proposal - the idea of which I do agree with - concentrated on establishing dialogue between lawmakers and learned bodies, promoting the seeking of the views of scientific academies and associations in determining research ethics and legality, and encouraging academic freedom. Setting up 30,000 committees I find less interesting.

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

OOC: Well, Hack hasn't told me to stuff it in a while, so I think I'll give him a chance. :D

Hack, this proposal doesn't "just create a committee". In fact, it doesn't create a committee at all. Instead, it mandates that nations establish "committees" with specific, defined responsibilities, i.e., "be responsible for for the creation of bills about ethical practices in scientific research...".

So, since the proposal mandates action on the part of nations, is it really in violation of the "Creating Stuff" rule?Stuff it. ;)

Let's break this down.

Proposal only creates a committee = illegal
Proposal only creates two committees = illegal
Proposal only creates n+1 committees = illegal

It's a matter of scale. Making 30,000 committees doesn't make it legal just because there's a whole bunch of 'em. Forcing the nations to do it is a new twist, but it's still just committee makin'.

To say nothing of I'm not seeing how this will increase political freedoms...

Latest Draft, I do believe this draft will resolve the 'commitee' issue and round out the proposal at the same time.

attached is a copy of this draft


Scientific Ethics Board
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

RECOGNISING the benefits of Scientific Research

APPLAUDING UN Resolution #166 but believes this does not go far enough,

BEMOANING archaic restrictions that may be placed on scientific research by those with limited undersanding of science and/or ethics,

BELIEVING that Ethics are an integral part of modern scientific research,

UNDERSTANDING that communication between government and scientific institutions are vital for scientific freedoms.

REALISING an educated public leads to further public involvement in the processes of government

RECOGNISING the various beliefs about what is considered ethical by various nations citizens as well as the many nations round the world,

WISHING to solve any differences between the religous, government and scientific stake holders in the concept of ethical scientific research,

The United Nations General Assembly, Hereby

1. DEFINES the following term:
(a) "area of research", pluralised to "areas of research", as any topic, methodology or practice that is to be researched or can be used during the research process
(b) "transparent", practices and policies that make information about governmental procedures available to the public. Such examples including broadcasting procedures of the legislative branch on Television or other appropriate media, produce brief and concise press releases containing what has happened in the legislative branch.

2. MANDATES the creation of a national Scientific Ethics Board(SEB),which may or may not be a government agency, for each UN Member nation, or should a government department/non-government organisation in the UN member nation meet the requirements to be nominated as the officially recognised SEB. The SEB is to:
(a) be made up of representatives from three groups; Government officials, Scientists and other concerned citizens
(b) contain equal representation within itself of the three groups mentioned in 2a
(c) be responsible for for the creation of bills about ethical practices in scientific research to be put up to the legislative branch of the UN member nation that it belongs to.
(d) meet regularily, suggested to be twice every year, to discuss issues related the practice of ethical practices of scientific researc, particularily various areas of research, within the UN member nation
(e) members of the SEB are to be counted as government officials in criminal or civil cases of bribery, corruption or similiar laws should such laws exist
(f) be required to take input from any interested individual while deliberating and discussing ethical practices in scientific research
(g) decide, after discussion of the issue, if a practice in scientific research is ethical or not they have the responsibility of drafting a bill that ensures that the decision is to be reflected in the law of the UN member nation

3. STRONGLY URGES that governments make the process of enacting laws, particularily those from the SEB, transparent.

4. MANDATES that potential laws which are to affect freedoms that relate to scientific research under go consultation with a nationally recognised scientific institute. For the purposes of this clause an SEB counts as a scientific institute.

5. MANDATES that no scientific research that results in a discovery that is an anathematic to the government can be supressed by the government should the discovery be proved valid, or before the validity of the discovery can be tested.

So, in essence, Freedom of Scientific Research, Article 5, reads:

5. REITERATES governmental rights to determine whether certain areas of research are legal or illegal within their sovereign territory,... Yet with this legislation you seek to mandate the empaneling of ethics boards, micromanage the makeup and responsiblities of such boards, give them legislative oversight, and (presumably) require governmental deference to such boards' decisions on scientific ethics. Thus violating the text of your own resolution.

Am I right?

So, in essence, Freedom of Scientific Research, Article 5, reads:

... Yet with this legislation you seek to mandate the empaneling of ethics boards, micromanage the makeup and responsiblities of such boards, give them legislative oversight, and (presumably) require governmental deference to such boards' decisions on scientific ethics. Thus violating the text of your own resolution.

Am I right?

While we too have some hesitation about this proposal, we cannot agree with the specific concerns of the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny. We see nothing in the proposal about legislative oversight. That would surely remain the prerogative of the legislative body. As for the presumed required deference to the boards, we can only restate our oft-repeated principle: "The law means what the law says". The requirement for consultation does not automatically impose deference to the opinions of the consulted party. In fact, it doesn't even require that those opinions be given weight in the decision-making. That may be the intent, but it is not the effect.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This particular proposal is one that I and the Compadrian government view with a great deal of interest, particularly given the sensitive and often fraught nature of scientific ethics, as well as the difficulties in deciding upon a standard set of ethics to apply to it. As a means of encouraging transparency with regards to government policy on science, I personally believe that an Ethics Board is a useful tool. I find much to commend in this proposal: It's democratic nature, the equal composition of interested parties and its committment to informing the public about scientific matters and avoiding hyperbole and unfortunate speculation about sensitive scientific issues.

Equally, I find myself, like the honourable delegate for Ausserland, Mr Alhmann, disagreeing with the objections of the honourable delegate for Omigodtheykilledkenny. Yes, oversight exists, but not in legislative terms. As Ambassador Alhmann correctly points out, the proposals of the SEB are not binding and can be taken into consideration or ignored depending on the inclination of the government. I personally would prefer them to be binding, but I recognise that opposition to such measures would probably kill off any such legislation in the U.N.

There remain problems in my opinion, yet I think it is indicative of the progress made during the discussion of this proposal that they are not sufficiently heinous that they completely endanger the proposed text. Here are some of the ones that worry me somewhat:

2. MANDATES the creation of a national Scientific Ethics Board(SEB),which may or may not be a government agency, for each UN Member nation, or should a government department/non-government organisation in the UN member nation meet the requirements to be nominated as the officially recognised SEB.

Here's my first mild problem. I don't believe the ethics board should necessarily be permitted to be governmental, partly because I'm concerned that this would unduly influence its neutrality and partly because there are already plans to have government reps on the boards. As such it would seem to me that having it additionally as a governmental agency might give extra weight to the views of those reps, which might affect the equality of the members of the board and their impartiality of discussion.

The SEB is to:
(a) be made up of representatives from three groups; Government officials, Scientists and other concerned citizens
(b) contain equal representation within itself of the three groups mentioned in 2a
(c) be responsible for for the creation of bills about ethical practices in scientific research to be put up to the legislative branch of the UN member nation that it belongs to.
(d) meet regularily, suggested to be twice every year, to discuss issues related the practice of ethical practices of scientific researc, particularily various areas of research, within the UN member nation
(e) members of the SEB are to be counted as government officials in criminal or civil cases of bribery, corruption or similiar laws should such laws exist
(f) be required to take input from any interested individual while deliberating and discussing ethical practices in scientific research
(g) decide, after discussion of the issue, if a practice in scientific research is ethical or not they have the responsibility of drafting a bill that ensures that the decision is to be reflected in the law of the UN member nation

d). I think they ought to meet when the need arises rather than just a set number of times a year, mainly in the interests of flexibility and also because it would avoid having to drop issues by the way-side in the interests of time.

f). "Interested parties": The intent of the honourable delegate when writing this is clear and worthy, but I feel the term is slightly vague. How should these "interested parties" be selected and should they be rotated every once in a while to avoid a particular group holding onto their places at the expense of other interested parties?

3. STRONGLY URGES that governments make the process of enacting laws, particularily those from the SEB, transparent.

4. MANDATES that potential laws which are to affect freedoms that relate to scientific research under go consultation with a nationally recognised scientific institute. For the purposes of this clause an SEB counts as a scientific institute.

For 4, what about other competing institutions? Should the SEB be given official priority in such discussions?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The amended proposal has adressed our main concerns, and we're now much more willing to support it. Just one small point of grammar:


(g) decide, after discussion of the issue, if a practice in scientific research is ethical or not they have the responsibility of drafting a bill that ensures that the decision is to be reflected in the law of the UN member nation


The grammar here is messy. I suggest:

(g) decide, after discussion of the issue, whether a practice in scientific research is ethical or not. The SEB has the responsibility of drafting a bill to ensure that the decision is remove: to be reflected in the law of the UN member nation

Better still: "The SEB has the responsibility of drafting a bill to be submitted to the nation's legislative body". Whether or not it's then reflected in law is up to that legislative body, as per article 2 c).


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

While we too have some hesitation about this proposal, we cannot agree with the specific concerns of the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny. We see nothing in the proposal about legislative oversight. That would surely remain the prerogative of the legislative body. As for the presumed required deference to the boards, we can only restate our oft-repeated principle: "The law means what the law says". The requirement for consultation does not automatically impose deference to the opinions of the consulted party. In fact, it doesn't even require that those opinions be given weight in the decision-making. That may be the intent, but it is not the effect.The authority to draft bills "to be put up to" (whatever that means) the legislature sounds an awful lot like legislative oversight to me. Whether deferring to these "SEBs" is required or not (2g gives them the power to "decide" if research is unethical, but doesn't clarify the weight of such decisions), this still creates a whole lot of meddling in national affairs by unaccountable bureaucrats.

Add to that all the micromanagement and wasteful bureaucracy, and you got yourselves a pretty terrible proposal.

5. MANDATES that no scientific research that results in a discovery that is an anathematic to the government can be supressed by the government should the discovery be proved valid, or before the validity of the discovery can be tested.


Some mad scientist has just discovered how to "weaponise" Ebola, and wants to publish the details to show off his cleverness, and we're not allowed to suppress this? No bloody way!

That is also a contradiction of Freedom of Scientific Research.

The authority to draft bills "to be put up to" (whatever that means) the legislature sounds an awful lot like legislative oversight to me. Whether deferring to these "SEBs" is required or not (2g gives them the power to "decide" if research is unethical, but doesn't clarify the weight of such decisions), this still creates a whole lot of meddling in national affairs by unaccountable bureaucrats.

Add to that all the micromanagement and wasteful bureaucracy, and you got yourselves a pretty terrible proposal.

We think the honorable representative needs to consider that there's a great difference between drafting legislation and enacting it. In many nations, lobbyists for all sorts of private and special interests routinely draft legislation and submit the drafts to legislators for consideration. They cannot introduce legislation and cannot pass it. You cannot reasonably claim they were conducting legislative oversight. The same holds true for the SEBs.

It would be proper to suggest that the SEBs would be performing a function in support of legislative oversight: the investigative/inquiry aspect. We see absolutely nothing wrong with this, and, in fact, such a thing is a necessary and accepted practice. (OOC: In the RL US, committee staffs and the GAO.) Legislators themselves cannot be expected to have either the time or the expertise to inquire into all types of technical matters.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We see absolutely nothing wrong with this, and, in fact, such a thing is a necessary and accepted practice. (OOC: In the RL US, committee staffs and the GAO.) Legislators themselves cannot be expected to have either the time or the expertise to inquire into all types of technical matters.Splitting hairs over the precise meaning of "oversight" aside, Article 5 of Freedom of Scietific Research entrusts member states with regulating the legality of research, so presumably national governments would be wholly capable of doing their own meddling without any urging from the NSUN. Why is a micromanaged meddling mandate necessary again?

Splitting hairs over the precise meaning of "oversight" aside, Article 5 of Freedom of Scietific Research entrusts member states with regulating the legality of research, so presumably national governments would be wholly capable of doing their own meddling without any urging from the NSUN. Why is a micromanaged meddling mandate necessary again?

If the honorable representative doesn't want us splitting hairs, he should use care to employ terms he understands. And if he would calm down, he would realize that we were not speaking in support of the proposal, simply pointing out the errors in his contentions.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large