08-24-2005, 12:01 AM
A couple of thoughts on this very helpful proposal to put meat on some pretty bare bones (and no doubt motivated by the right to learn about evolution resolution):
How about eliminating the line:
Quote: ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly seperate from science.? [/quote]
This avoids the wording issues, and 4c leaves the operative meaning of this preamble intact.
And maybe change "persecuted" to "prosecuted." It's a less inflammatory word, and one person's persecution is another's free speech. Scientists might claim governments were persecuting them if government funds were witheld from certain types of research, but this is a matter of national sovereignty. Governments, however, should not be able to charge scientists for conducting ethical and legal experiments paid by somebody else's money.
However, I have problems with 4a (and to a much lesser extent, 4b). Perhaps this section needs to be split into absolute exceptions and negotiable exceptions? 4a as it stands now
Quote: a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;[/quote]
allows a government to allow science contrary to the laws of the UN and its own country. I would make this an absolute exception as I would 4c
Quote: c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;[/quote]
You could incorporate the idea here of the preamble about separating science and religion by saying something "The freedom of religion already protects these beliefs."
And lastly,
Quote: b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals;[/quote]
As written, this seems very broad. Scientists can create pest control methods that are damaging to plague rats, water parasites, rabid dogs and other animals. Scientists can also create loudspeakers which are capable of damaging person's hearing at rock concerts or listening to their iPods. So-called less-lethal weapons research for police, e.g., tasers and netguns, could also be damaging to persons but seem worthwhile to many nations.
Why not make 4b its own clause or section devoted to conditional exceptions upon which each nation itself can decide? Then you can split the human and animal aspects (and I would consider adding plant)
That way, pacifist nations could ban all research on any type of weapon while nations (such as myself) that believe weapons are necessary would only have to ban research on those weapons the UN has already banned. (And in my nation, there would be many areas of science relating to defence which would be banned regardless of the UN's present or future bans.) Ecologically sensitive nations could ban all research on pesticides, while chemical farming nations could continue research in that area.
Just my two Denkmarks' worth.
How about eliminating the line:
Quote: ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly seperate from science.? [/quote]
This avoids the wording issues, and 4c leaves the operative meaning of this preamble intact.
And maybe change "persecuted" to "prosecuted." It's a less inflammatory word, and one person's persecution is another's free speech. Scientists might claim governments were persecuting them if government funds were witheld from certain types of research, but this is a matter of national sovereignty. Governments, however, should not be able to charge scientists for conducting ethical and legal experiments paid by somebody else's money.
However, I have problems with 4a (and to a much lesser extent, 4b). Perhaps this section needs to be split into absolute exceptions and negotiable exceptions? 4a as it stands now
Quote: a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;[/quote]
allows a government to allow science contrary to the laws of the UN and its own country. I would make this an absolute exception as I would 4c
Quote: c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;[/quote]
You could incorporate the idea here of the preamble about separating science and religion by saying something "The freedom of religion already protects these beliefs."
And lastly,
Quote: b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals;[/quote]
As written, this seems very broad. Scientists can create pest control methods that are damaging to plague rats, water parasites, rabid dogs and other animals. Scientists can also create loudspeakers which are capable of damaging person's hearing at rock concerts or listening to their iPods. So-called less-lethal weapons research for police, e.g., tasers and netguns, could also be damaging to persons but seem worthwhile to many nations.
Why not make 4b its own clause or section devoted to conditional exceptions upon which each nation itself can decide? Then you can split the human and animal aspects (and I would consider adding plant)
That way, pacifist nations could ban all research on any type of weapon while nations (such as myself) that believe weapons are necessary would only have to ban research on those weapons the UN has already banned. (And in my nation, there would be many areas of science relating to defence which would be banned regardless of the UN's present or future bans.) Ecologically sensitive nations could ban all research on pesticides, while chemical farming nations could continue research in that area.
Just my two Denkmarks' worth.