[Groot Gouda]

Freedom of Science
Human rights, strong

The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING the passing of Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,

NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolutions provides for scientists,

ALSO NOTING that this resolution poorly defines science and scientists worthy of protection,

CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, but also greater insight in how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly seperate from science,

1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right accross UN member nations,

2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,

3. MANDATES that no scientist may be persecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications,

4. EXEMPTS from general UN protection from clause 3 scientific research that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals;
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;

but leaves it up to individual member nations to deal with these sciences.

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.

[Lloegr-Cymru]

I think it's great. As a cosmetic change I might change

Quote: ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly separate from science,[/quote]

to Quote: ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which need not be seen as hostile to science, should nevertheless be kept separate,[/quote]

Also note it is separate not seperate.

By the way, Lloegr-Cymry were recently voted the most pedantic people to live on islands to the north of the Schnauzerfolk. Go figure.

Just my two ceiniogau! (pennies)

[Adam Island]

I'd leave out 4c entirely- it will just cause arguments and Creationism is already exempt per your definition of science in 2.

And how do we define 'persecuted?' What I got from the American Heritage Dictionary is

Quote:   1.  To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
  2. To annoy persistently; bother.
[/quote]

this could cover private citizens simply making fun of the scientists on late night talk shows or maybe just refusing to sit next to them at lunch

[Groot Gouda]

I think most people will understand that it is persecution by the government, but I could include something more clear. Also, I think I could go further by saying that the government has to ensure that scientists can do their job without interference.

4c is necessary, because I do not want "science" like Intelligent Design included into this protection. There are plenty of religions pretending to be science, and it's not worth protecting them. (of course, this resolution doesn't forbid doing so, just doesn't do so on UN scale).

[Keeslandia]

My initial response was, "OK, good idea but I don't want to protect actions by Dr. Mengle in the name of science." However, as I read through, I discovered article #4 covers that very artfully.

Good work.

[Sober Thought]

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.

[Groot Gouda]

Updated (finally ). Will submit it now to see what kind of support it gathers.

Freedom of Science
Human rights, strong

The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING the passing of Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,

NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolutions provides for scientists,

ALSO NOTING that this resolution poorly defines science and scientists worthy of protection,

CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, but also greater insight in how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly seperate from science,

1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right accross UN member nations,

2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,

3. MANDATES that no scientist may be prosecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications,

4. EXEMPTS from general UN protection in clause 3 scientific research that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals;
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;

but leaves it up to individual member nations to protect these sciences should they wish to do so.

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.

[Antrium]

I can't see anything wrong with it. I would support it. If you need any help campaigning, let me know, I'll probably have some time for that this week

[Lawtonia]

I'd vote for it :wave:

[Grosseschnauzer]

If it isn't too late to point this out, in the first clause "passing" should be "passage" or "adoption" in this context. "Passing" makes it sound like UN Resolution 2 died. (Maybe it should have as it is a terribly written resolution, but that is besides the point.)

[Groot Gouda]

I can still change it. Not submitted yet, because at the last moment I decided to take it to the UN Forum first:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448570

[Groot Gouda]

The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING the adoption of Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,

NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolution provides for scientists,

ALSO NOTING that this resolution poorly defines science and scientists worthy of protection,

CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, greater insight into how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly separate from science,

1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right across UN member nations,

2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,

3. MANDATES that no scientist may be prosecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications, nor unreasonably restricted in any other way,

4. EXEMPTS from general UN protection in clause 3 scientific research that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals or the environment (except where it is the only way greater damage can be prevented);
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;
d. contains plagiarized material or material which by contract was not (yet) to be published;

but leaves it up to individual member nations to protect these sciences should they wish to do so.

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.

[Antrium]

It looks great to me, can't think of a single thing that needs to be fixed.

[Mikitivity]

Quote: but leaves it up to individual member nations to protect these sciences should they wish to do so.[/quote]

This bit just sort of "hangs" there. Is there a way we can create another numbered clause or sub-clause to use as a label for this?

The way I'd handle this ...

Quote: 4. AUTHORIZES individual nations to exempt scientific research from the general UN protection granted in clause 3 that:[/quote]

Basically I'm trying to add your two clauses. I hope I didn't change the meaning of them.

[Groot Gouda]

MikitivityOct 14 2005, 12:45 AM The way I'd handle this ...

Quote: 4. AUTHORIZES individual nations to exempt scientific research from the general UN protection granted in clause 3 that:[/quote]

Basically I'm trying to add your two clauses. I hope I didn't change the meaning of them. [/quote]
I'll use that if it needs to go into the queueueueue again, thanks!

[Groot Gouda]

Freedom of Science

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING the adoption of Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,

NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolution provides for scientists,

ALSO NOTING that this resolution poorly defines science and scientists worthy of protection,

CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, greater insight into how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly separate from science,

1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right across UN member nations,

2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,

3. MANDATES that no scientist may be prosecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications, nor unreasonably restricted in any other way,

4. AUTHORIZES individual nations to exempt scientific research from the general UN protection granted in clause 3 that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals or the environment (except where it is the only way greater damage can be prevented);
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;
d. contains plagiarized material or material which by contract was not (yet) to be published;

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.