[Passed] Cooperation in Science Act

by **Gotham Network** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:06 pm

Submitted for the consideration of delegates:

EDITED COOPERATION IN SCIENCE

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Education

BE IT RESOLVED THAT THESE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED

CONSIDERING scientific research and advancement to be vital to the well-being, progress and development of sapientkind,

ASTONISHED that no provisions have been made for the international sharing and coordination of scientific research,

I. HEREBY task the WA Scientific Programme with the following responsibilities:

1) To collect, disseminate, and review such research as the governments and scientists of its member nations choose to release to public scrutiny, EDITED in compliance with all appropriate national and international laws regarding intellectual property and national security;;

2) To coordinate scientific studies and research projects of international scope, which scientists from many WA nations may choose to participate in under the auspices of the WASP in concert with their nations of origin or residence, such projects to be funded directly by grants from the governments, public research institutions, privately owned foundations, corporations, or other concerned entities, and donations from concerned individuals, of the nations involved;

3) To provide a public forum for free and unhindered debate on scientific research and issues which scientists from all member nations may participate in.

II. STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advance, to the best of their ability, and to release any and all scientific research conducted under the auspices of their governments and public bodies for consideration by the WASP, save only for studies directly related to national security and similar considerations.

by **Sionis Prioratus** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:26 pm

Gotham Network wrote:SHARING AND COORDINATING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

OOC: For starters, a title is limited to 30 characters (with spaces). This stands at more than forty.

by **Grays Harbor** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:31 pm

How would proprietary research and development be handled, such as in new equipment upgrades, or medical, specifically pharmaceutical, work be arranged? Would they also be required to share this info regardless of patent and copyright law? Would they be fairly compensated if they are required to share this?

by **Gotham Network** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:43 am

You will find that this bill does not require any state or individual to share any piece of research they do not choose to.

OOC: For starters, a title is limited to 30 characters (with spaces). This stands at more than forty.

I was not aware of this; corrections shall be made forthwith.

by **Gotham Network** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:46 pm

My thanks to all of the honourable delegates who have sponsored this reasonable proposal. I look forward to the vote in the coming days, in full confidence that it will pass and be added to the body of WA resolutions.

by **American MapleStory** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:50 pm

Some things have to remained classified though. This does not have enough regulations and will be subject to abuse.
For starters, there has to be an exemption from Naval Intelligence.

by **Quelesh** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:08 pm

Everything is exempted from this resolution, because no one is required to share anything at all.

It can't hurt, and it might do some good, therefore: YEA.

by **American MapleStory** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:13 pm

How would this 'trade off' let call it, work?
Would it be voluntary participation among the members of the WA and a requirement for those to consent that have signed the resolution or will it give them a choice of the content they wish to share even after signing this resolution?
And since Im sure this is an 'equal trade bill' since there isnt much passed special interest, how would the Delegation be viewing the trades to ensure equallity among the nations that are participating to make sure every nation is putting an equal amout of effort to this collaborative movement.

by **Gotham Network** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:19 pm

I have edited this draft to reflect concerns added to the submitted resolution. I will point out, once again, that no member nation is required by this resolution to submit any research whatsoever for consideration by the WASP; that all relevant protections of copyright and national security, etc. are fully honoured by the resolution; and that WASP international research projects are to be funded entirely by grants and donations, and will not even fall under the budget of the GAO. These are major compromises on my part with the anticipated will of the Assembly, as the laws and policies of Gotham Network presently make provision for neither intellectual property nor government censorship for any reason. I would gladly have submitted a resolution making the dissemination and funding of scientific research mandatory, had I the slightest hope that it would pass through this chamber unscathed. As the resolution stands, I see little reason that any of the esteemed members could hold to vote against it, save that they stand directly athwart the cause of scientific progress in all respects.

by **Gotham Network** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:29 pm

American MapleStory wrote:How would this 'trade off' let call it, work?
Would it be voluntary participation among the members of the WA and a requirement for those to consent that have signed the resolution or will it give them a choice of the content they wish to share even after signing this resolution?
And since Im sure this is an 'equal trade bill' since there isnt much passed special interest, how would the Delegation be viewing the trades to ensure equallity among the nations that are participating to make sure every nation is putting an equal amout of effort to this collaborative movement.

As to your first concern, honoured ambassador, I endeavoured to be entirely clear in wording the resolution to ensure it would not be taken to imply that any member nation would be required to share any specific piece of research. If your government so chooses, it may feel free to keep every study conducted or published from consideration by the WASP.

As to the second, it is common in scientific research for the institutions involved to contribute to the best of their ability. It is not common for there to be mechanisms involved to 'make sure that every [institution] involved is putting an equal amount of effort' into the project, as different institutions (or indeed, nations) have different levels of resources and such absolutely equal matches between levels of support cannot usually be made; it would simply be a waste of time and money. In any case, we consider scientific research to be not a matter of 'equal trade', but a public good, something which everyone involved benefits from in vast excess of whatever level of resources they put in; we respectfully consider the question moot.

by **American MapleStory** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:35 pm

Mr Ambassador, I have just decided under a unanimous consent inquiry that I hereby support this bill. During the active vote cloture I conclude and submit my vote as YEA.

by **Ifsenwich** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:13 pm

Although Ifsenwich strictly controls all internally produced research, our Leader is quite happy to benefit from other nations' efforts.

<<scuffles outside door>>
<<door crashes open>>
!! I thought I was allowed to share the Leader's views?? Wait!! Get your hands off me!!

<<uncomfortable silence>>

The Confederacy of Ifsenwich is pleased to announce its new World Assembly Ambassador, Mr. B. Moore Sylent.

by **Masucciania** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:59 am

Fellow Member States of the General Assembly:

The Confederacy rises in support of this proposed resolution.

This proposed resolution allows willing states to pool their resources and work towards scientific advancement, something that many states seek. Since participation in completely voluntary, the Confederacy finds nothing wrong with such a resolution.

The Confederacy respectfully yields the floor,

by **Unices** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:07 am

Our government employs no scientists, all research is done in the private sector,
but I don't see a reason for private businesses to not participate in research
with other businesses or governments, as it is in for their benefit to do so.

However, who is going to pay for the WASP?

by **The Rich Port** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:46 am

I was actually weirded right the hell out: I noticed this resolution coming forth right after I had come up with the idea to form the Amalgamated Coalition for the Advancement of Psychology, or ACAP (formerly the International World Psychological Association).

As the Head of the Board, The Rich Port shall cast it's vote FOR this resolution, and encourages everyone to become a part of ACAP on my and all of our members' invitation. Let progress take hold! :DDDDD

by **Diatraba** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:25 am

I assume that you are saying that we share statistics of pharmaceutical and other scientific research. I must inform you that our scientific sectors are state-owned.

They are:

State Pharmaceutical Society (manages all pharmaceuticals and pharmacies)
National league of science (manages every other scientific venture)

This means that our statistics may be falsified somewhat, as they have to be passed by the Directorate for Information before they are released. So long as members are willing to accept this, then I will support this resolution, as I believe that it takes us further along the pathway to openness about such matters

Yours

Dr. Dimitri MacCarinson (phd in modern world history)
Chief ambassador-in-residence from Diatraba to the World Assembly

by **The Rich Port** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:32 am

Diatraba wrote:IThis means that our statistics may be falsified somewhat, as they have to be passed by the Directorate for Information before they are released. So long as members are willing to accept this, then I will support this resolution, as I believe that it takes us further along the pathway to openness about such matters

... Are you actually confessing your government sucks? :palm:

ACAP withdraws your invitation. Everyone else still is invited. Jeebus Crys...

by **Gotham Network** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:35 am

Diatraba wrote:I assume that you are saying that we share statistics of pharmaceutical and other scientific research. I must inform you that our scientific sectors are state-owned.

They are:

State Pharmaceutical Society (manages all pharmaceuticals and pharmacies)
National league of science (manages every other scientific venture)

This means that our statistics may be falsified somewhat, as they have to be passed by the Directorate for Information before they are released. So long as members are willing to accept this, then I will support this resolution, as I believe that it takes us further along the pathway to openness about such matters

We of Gotham Network place full trust in the scientific method, and strongly assert that such corrupt and fallacious research would never be able to pass muster in the international scientific community at large. Therefore, we doubt this will constitute a major concern. I join the esteemed ambassador in hopes that this resolution shall lead to greater openness, transparency, and true scientific progress in not only in yours but in every nation of this world assembly.

by **Diatraba** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:37 am

The Rich Port wrote:I was actually weirded right the hell out: I noticed this resolution coming forth right after I had come up with the idea to form the Amalgamated Coalition for the Advancement of Psychology, or ACAP (formerly the International World Psychological Association).

As the Head of the Board, The Rich Port shall cast it's vote FOR this resolution, and encourages everyone to become a part of ACAP on my and all of our members' invitation. Let progress take hold! DDDD

I would suggest, honourable Comrade, that you write a resolution which will enshrine the Amalgamated Coalition for the Advancement of Psychology (or the International World Psychology Association), as I think that this psychological association is a good thing - I believe that there must be some international regulation of psychology and psychologists

I will be happy to co-author such a resolution, as Andrew Karanovich (the deputy ambassador) is currently undertaking psychology at school, and may have valuable expertise which may be of use

Yours

Dr. Dimitri MacCarinson (phd modern world history)
Chief ambassador to the World Assembly

and

Mr. Andrew Macailovich
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

by **The Rich Port** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:40 am

Diatraba wrote:I would suggest, honourable Comrade, that you write a resolution which will enshrine the Amalgamated Coalition for the Advancement of Psychology (or the International World Psychology Association), as I think that this psychological association is a good thing - I believe that there must be some international regulation of psychology and psychologists

I will be happy to co-author such a resolution, as Andrew Karanovich (the deputy ambassador) is currently undertaking psychology at school, and may have valuable expertise which may be of use

One of the most sacred tenets in ACAP is that neutrality be enforced. Politics should have ZERO standing in scientific progress. The ACAP shall extend an invitation to Mr. Karanovich, so long as he takes our oath and remains neutral from this corruption within your private sector. And this is actually a good idea... but I don't know how much support it will get. Let us work together on this, then!

by **Diatraba** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:45 am

The Rich Port wrote:
Diatraba wrote:IThis means that our statistics may be falsified somewhat, as they have to be passed by the Directorate for Information before they are released. So long as members are willing to accept this, then I will support this resolution, as I believe that it takes us further along the pathway to openness about such matters

... Are you actually confessing your government sucks? ACAP withdraws your invitation. Everyone else still is invited. Jeebus Crys...

The constraints of this resolution does actually force us to relinquish such heavy control over our scientific statistics - we have rearranged things slightly - the societies who manage science are still under state control, but their statistics no longer have to be vetted by the government.

Does this relaxation of laws warrant an invitation to the Association on Psychology?

by **The Asylum Manager** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:22 pm

Considering the replies (so far) I see nobody voting against, I'd almost be inclined to do just so because of it. However, if you look at how heavily I subsidize my education you can gather I do that just to further the interest in the sciences in general so I certainly can't hold anything against this.

by **The Rich Port** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:28 pm

Diatraba wrote:The constraints of this resolution does actually force us to relinquish such heavy control over our scientific statistics - we have rearranged things slightly - the societies who manage science are still under state control, but their statistics no longer have to be vetted by the government.

Does this relaxation of laws warrant an invitation to the Association on Psychology?

Uh... look at above post, in case you haven't noticed. The Rich Portian government has good reason to be suspicious of the Diatraban private sector and of it's connections to the government. We still don't like the fact you can freakin' eat and have sex with kids in your country. But I digress. So long as the international scientific representative (a neutral scientist) can remain as such, ACAP shall accept them.

by **Monocrat** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:45 pm

I advise that you reword part I, section 3 to be more like part I, section 1. As it stands, you have free and unhindered debate without any government controls, which negates the wonderful job of protecting state secrets that you did in section 1.

by **Flibbleites** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:34 pm

Monocrat wrote:I advise that you reword part I, section 3 to be more like part I, section 1. As it stands, you have free and unhindered debate without any government controls, which negates the wonderful job of protecting state secrets that you did in section 1.

Considering that this is at vote, it's a little late to be rewording anything.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Passed] Cooperation in Science Act

[Passed] Cooperation in Science Act

Who is online