At Vote:Repeal "Scientific Freedom" [Complete]

Honeysheep

Honeysheep

TNPer
Repeal "Scientific Freedom"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #2
Proposed by: Jey

Description: UN Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING Resolution #2 for its intent to bring forth increased freedoms,

CONSIDERING that simply stating that a country "has long stood for Scientific Freedom", as seen in this resolution, does not require anything of UN Members, nor does it urge UN Members to bring forth initiatives or commissions to promote Scientific Freedom,

ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #2 neither lists a clear definition or explanation as to what constitutes Scientific Freedom, nor does it provide any clear framework or plans to bring about its cause,

CONCERNED that this resolution overlooks the harmful effects of unrestricted Scientific Freedom, which would lead to numerous painful, deadly, unsafe, and unethical scientific practices being forcibly legal in all UN Member nations,

CONCLUDING that Resolution #2 does not meet the desirable standards of UN resolutions for its disregard for potentially harmful and unjustifiable scientific practices and failure to provide any clear structure in bringing about necessary Scientific Freedom,

UNDERSTANDING that the freedom of safe and ethical scientific practices should be protected for numerous purposes,

REPEALS Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom.

Hersfold Edit: Fixed topic title. It was seriously scaring me.
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
The title of this thread is like a honeytrap; I have to say I am rather disapointed :P

I'm for this repeal, I believe the original document could have been worded better and hopefully some brave soul will craft an improved version, should the repeal go through.
 
NAY, for a variety of reasons.

The original proposal isn't very detailed, but it is like the Preamble to our Constitution -- it serves an important symbolic purpose. It states the right of science to be unhindered by political and bureaucratic restrictions and gives scientists the right to pursue discoveries.

I think it is an amazing fallacy propagated by the repeal author that somehow Res 2 means that scientists will all of a sudden not pay attention to ethics. Res 2 does not say that; ethics considerations are not mutually exclusive from Res 2. Indeed, no scientist worth his/her salt would perform unethical experiments, and it's somewhat ludicrous to imply that they will be unethical unless theres strict government rules in place. I would like to remind everyone that scientists today are more constrained by rules/regulations than politicians are, and I would also like to point out that the frequency of unethical behavior by politicians far exceeds that for scientists. Furthermore, if one does a scientific experiment that is unethical, when this becomes public knowledge, that scientist will have his/her career essentially ruined. Results from that unethical experiment will have to be recanted, and ALL results from that scientist from previously published experiments will be put into question. These attitudes are things scientists themselves feel for preservation of the integrity of their field, not things that are legislated or imposed from outside.

I would also like to point out that science itself is the discovery of knowledge. Any discovery itself is neither good nor bad; rather, applications of that discovery may be unethical. I therefore suggest it is folly to impose restrictions on the discovery itself. One good example is the cloning of Dolly the sheep. MAny people feel this kind of cloning of animals is unethical -- and I would agree with them. However, this does not mean we should ban this technology. The same kind of technology used to create Dolly has also been used in fertility clinics for YEARS to help couples start a family. Whether something is unethical or not is all in the application of science, not the science itself.
 
Not wishing to burst the rapidly formed bubble of debate, but the repeal has passed already.

I agree with what wizard said, it is true that Resolution 2 didn't mean science would be de-void of ethics. Unfortuantely, I don't think Resolution 2 meant much at all. Maybe its a curse of the evolution of the UN Resolution process, that made it look especially fuzzy and vague.

Or maybe its just the effect of hanging around here arguing the finer points of the constitution out with you lot... :blink:

Either way, I hope an equally well meaning, and substantially better worded replacement will be along soon.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top