[GA - PASSED] Repeal: "Access to Scientific Knowledge"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deropia

Deropia

Peasant Wizard
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Deropia
Discord
Dero#2736
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Access to Scientific Knowledge"
Category: Repeal | GA #604
Proposed by: The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​

General Assembly Resolution #604 “Access to Scientific Knowledge” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing the value of scientific knowledge and its publication to the international community,

Committed, however, to the principles of ethical research, which take precedence over convenient access to data,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #604, Access to Scientific Knowledge, for the following causes:

Section 4 fails to consider the privacy and confidentiality rights of research participants.

It institutes no procedures whatsoever for the anonymization of participant data which the Council for Scientific Dissemination collects: neither member states nor research entities operating under their jurisdiction nor the Council for Scientific Dissemination are directed to perform any anonymization, regardless of its necessity to the protection of personal information.

It requires the communication of personal information—which may include their names, associations, place of residence, employment, sexual, or medical history, or demographic characteristics—to the Council for Scientific Dissemination whenever it is included in government-funded research or data.

Section 6 exacerbates these failures by directing the Council for Scientific Dissemination to publish all of this unethically communicated data.

Section 4 further bulldozes research ethics in coercing government-funded researchers to violate informed consent agreements with participants where these agreements specify that some collected information will not be published or communicated to third parties. This harms participants of past scientific research and erodes public trust in the sciences and the will of scientists to examine their hypotheses, for fear of harming participants.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
11200
 
Last edited:
IFV
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GA Resolution #604 "Access to Scientific Knowledge". The issue the proposal highlights is around the use of personal information. The proposal contends that Access to Scientific Knowledge does not give adequate procedures to anonymise such information and unethically requires the transmission of such information to the Council for Scientific Dissemination. It particularly criticises this when linked with the requirement on the CSD to publish the data it receives, breaching the confidentiality of research participants.

Recommendation
The goals of Access to Scientific Knowledge are laudable ones, however, those goals must be set against the need for ethical research and proper respect for confidentiality, particularly in sensitive areas such as health. The obligation of Access to Scientific Knowledge to pass all research and data to the CSD (subject to issues of national security, defence, and trade secrets), if limited to use by the CSD for its objectives of coordinating standards of peer review and replicability and assisting other WA bodies in their research, could be justified. However, we find the requirement for all such received research and data to be published to be very concerning. This requirement could undermine the goals of Access to Scientific Knowledge by discouraging participation in research for fear of such publication and potentially opens a vast amount of deeply private information to exploitation by malign interests.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, Repeal: "Access to Scientific Knowledge".
Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch-Please Upvote!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For. As the proposal says, section 4 of GA #604 is overbroad in requiring all data to be turned over, which would include private information of the kind identified. While that could perhaps be overlooked if the data was to be left in the hands of the CSD to aid its objects, it is obliged to be published, leaving that vast swathe of private information available for exploitation.
 
Against

I don't understand how the original proposal in any way fails to consider redaction of private information; if there are scientific papers being published that are not properly redacting confidential information, surely that should be the target of a WA resolution? This feels a bit excessive and very minor issue. In addition, it should be assumed that after the passing of 604, it would be included in any agreements made to redact confidential data. At most the issue with the original resolution is that it is not clear in what the scope of data is.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
For. As the proposal says, section 4 of GA #604 is overbroad in requiring all data to be turned over, which would include private information of the kind identified. While that could perhaps be overlooked if the data was to be left in the hands of the CSD to aid its objects, it is obliged to be published, leaving that vast swathe of private information available for exploitation.
Click to expand...
I am not sure on this point, because Clause 4 of the original resolution does mention national security as a ground for blocking release of data. This depends on the definition of "national security" - China defines personal data disclosure to foreign governments to be a threat to its national security.

Also, for Clause 3 of the original resolution, isn't that already adequate for protecting personal data ? No self respecting journal would print the identifiable personal information of the participants. (This would presumably be covered by the laws of individual countries). On the other hand, circulating data (especially on health) that is broken down by race, gender, age, etc would be useful in subjects like drug development and biostatistics.
 
Last edited:
simone_republic:
I am not sure on this point, because Clause 4 of the original resolution does mention national security as a ground for blocking release of data. This depends on the definition of "national security" - China defines personal data disclosure to foreign governments to be a threat to its national security.

Also, for Clause 3 of the original resolution, isn't that already adequate for protecting personal data ? No self respecting journal would print the identifiable personal information of the participants. (This would presumably be covered by the laws of individual countries). On the other hand, circulating data (especially on health) that is broken down by race, gender, age, etc would be useful in subjects like drug development and biostatistics.
Click to expand...
Clause 3 and clause 4 concern different material, hence why clause 4 is framed as an additional requirement on member states. While there will presumably be some overlap, as state funded research or data could also be published in journals, it is not necessarily the same and clause 4 requires the turning over of all research or data in the sciences that is state funded, so where there is overlap, clause 4 would require the turning over of data that was collected but not included in a journal article that was backed by state funding.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Clause 3 and clause 4 concern different material, hence why clause 4 is framed as an additional requirement on member states. While there will presumably be some overlap, as state funded research or data could also be published in journals, it is not necessarily the same and clause 4 requires the turning over of all research or data in the sciences that is state funded, so where there is overlap, clause 4 would require the turning over of data that was collected but not included in a journal article that was backed by state funding.
Click to expand...
I think (as mentioned above) most sensible national governments would define personal data as national security matters and therefore not release it, but if the collective decision is made to repeal and then replace with a tighter definition (as seems likely given this was Hulldom's resolution and the original resolution passed TNP on an unanimous For only two months ago, and passed WA with 80% support), then I am not too fussed about it.
 
Last edited:
For the record, I’m fine with this being replaced. I communicated as much to Wally when he first posted it on the forums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top