[SUBMITTED - Explanatory Topic] On Scientific Collaboration

[Frigobar]

Some of you may have noticed a recently submitted new WA Resolution Proposal to the General Assembly: "On Scientific Collaboration".
Some have pointed out that a closely name resolution, GA#92 – Cooperation in Science Act, already exists. However, the proposed resolution has a vastly different subjects.
Quoting said resolution,

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, in compliance with all appropriate national and international laws regarding intellectual property and national security;

Aside from recognizing that the resolution doesn't point out how the research should be reviewed or disseminated or collected by the WASP, it leaves the the burden of sharing and distributing all new data to a selected few individuals, a perspective unimaginable keeping in mind the volumes of data under scientific scrutiny today.
The proposal, instead, has at its heart the developing of an integrated framework where all data may be accessed at all times by all users. It is much akin to the difference between a hive-like model and a postal queue with only one employee: I am sure you will see the difference in efficiency in spite of love for the snail mail.

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 and 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, at the discretion of these individuals and organizations;

While the meaning behind these words is a bit cloudy, it does appear to address the problem of joint research projects. However, the proposed resolution takes into exam a whole different kind of cooperation: whereas a joint project does substantially create a research team with funding and members from more than one nation, a concerted approach, the key of this very proposal, allows for the sum of all research teams and all their funding. Let me further clarify this concept.

Suppose we agree the employing of retro-viruses for pharmaceutical delivery to cells is a topic of great interest, deserving more effort.

• Option 1: nations independently research, many discover things another nation has already discovered still exerting effort. A large quota of global effort goes to waste, minimum efficiency and speed of research.
  
  
• Option 2: nations jointly research, some discover together things another nation may never, or only with great toil, find out. Even if all nations join the joint effort, the complexity of the team authority tree and the political issues behind orchestrating the rights, patents, funding and relative composition of the research team will pose a challenge maybe greater than the scientific task at hand. Even just by non-bilingualism, there are frictions inside international teams: the quota of effort wasted due to it may not be as large as the previous case, but is still significant. Speed, consequently, isn't as bad as the upper option but not the theoretical maximum.
  
  
• Option 3: nations independently research but know where the other nations are heading, thus sensible nations research different but affiliated topics and, through mutual gain, may share their findings. In the hypothetical case where findings linearly go with effort, we have reached maximum efficiency and maximum speed of research.

Let me point out that maximum efficiency and maximum speed don't necessarily go together: for instance, the minimum waste of effort and thus maximum efficiency is in the absence of frictions, thus in a 1-man team. However, the effort one such team may produce is inherently limited, thus speed is minimum.

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.

This last point may require a bit of attention. While it does not state the forum should be of digital nature, let us assume it is for the sake of pointing out all possible differences between the Resolution #92 and the Proposal: it is a forum, thus of little predetermined structure. While it is possible, with the wise use of polls, debates, and sub-forums that it would bring out something loosely akin to the WARPL, it is only one of countless possibilities, the large majority of which being inauspicable.

Furthermore, there is no mention of anything like the WAURF Medal in any resolution.

Thus, I believe to have made it clear that the proposed resolution, "On Scientific Collaboration", differs vastly in scope from its predecessors, and made it understandable the need for one such resolution.

Should any of you find any problem with the resolution, I do hope this topic will be a tool to further refine and improve what I believe could be a powerful instrument to world's progress.


Rhaal of Frigobar.

[Aligned Planets]

Should any of you find any problem with the resolution, I do hope this topic will be a tool to further refine and improve

But, as you've already submitted the proposal, such refinements and improvements are not really possible.. so would ultimately be a waste of time.

[Araraukar]

You should send a GHR to have it pulled out of the queue. You can send a GHR here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=help

That way, if (and when) it's deemed illegal, you won't get a penalty.

[Frigobar]

Should any of you find any problem with the resolution, I do hope this topic will be a tool to further refine and improve

But, as you've already submitted the proposal, such refinements and improvements are not really possible.. so would ultimately be a waste of time.

Not quite. I have never said I would author a newer, eventually improved, version. This topic ideally could serve to spring the draft for one such version, if delegates will explain why they won't support it.
With this in mind, I submitted the best I could make of my skills, knowing that it's a slim chance I will have the privilege of working on further proposals, and that I should hence invest my energies fully in this legislation.

You should send a GHR to have it pulled out of the queue. You can send a GHR here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=help

That way, if (and when) it's deemed illegal, you won't get a penalty.

And. why would it be \ is it?

[The Dark Star Republic]

And. why would it be \ is it?

OOC: Because it would appear to violate several of the proposal rules.

It appears to be a "committee only" violation, because none of its operative clauses require any action independent of the committee. It appears to violate the MetaGaming rules in the voting provisions; there is no mechanism for member nations to vote on research priorities medal recipients. It also possibly contradicts International Drug Education, which had already made arrangements for research coordination in one particular field.

Only a moderator can give you a definitive answer - but I do agree that from my unofficial perspective, it appears to be illegal and will be deleted.

[Frigobar]

And. why would it be \ is it?

OOC: Because it would appear to violate several of the proposal rules.

Thank you for your answer, but allow me to try to point out how I built the resolution keeping such mistakes in mind.

It appears to be a "committee only" violation, because none of its operative clauses require any action independent of the committee.

May I point out that framework, in its intended digital acception, differs from committee and that surely so do medals and prizes?

It appears to violate the MetaGaming rules in the voting provisions; there is no mechanism for member nations to vote on research priorities medal recipients.

Nor is there for the WASP to distribute ane collect research data. A MetaGaming violation would be changing the NationStates mechanics, to my understanding, which is clearly not the case in this proposal

It also possibly contradicts International Drug Education, which had already made arrangements for research coordination in one particular field.

To my understanding, the two don't contradict each other, thus no repeal is required to pass the resolution. It's not of similar purpose, thus it's not a case od resolution overlap.

[Separatist Peoples]

May I point out that framework, in its intended digital acception, differs from committee and that surely so do medals and prizes?

"No, that doesn't count. Any organization you create is considered a committee. Even if you call it a contest, or a courthouse, or whatever."

Nor is there for the WASP to distribute ane collect research data. A MetaGaming violation would be changing the NationStates mechanics, to my understanding, which is clearly not the case in this proposal

OOC: That would be a Game Mechanics violation. Metagaming is different. It involves "breaking the fourth wall".

[Aligned Planets]

Not quite. I have never said I would author a newer, eventually improved, version. This topic ideally could serve to spring the draft for one such version, if delegates will explain why they won't support it.
With this in mind, I submitted the best I could make of my skills, knowing that it's a slim chance I will have the privilege of working on further proposals, and that I should hence invest my energies fully in this legislation.

It is much better, in my opinion, to gauge support for a draft prior to submission and to work upon amending said draft with advice from WA colleagues than to submit one, two, three, multiple versions of the draft to the WA in the vague hope that one will eventually reach quoracy and then enough overall support to be passed.

I'm not in the habit of advising post-event, and then tailoring advice again and again until suitable.

As a colleague has recommended, I'd suggest submitting a GHR to have this pulled and then discussing amendments here before proceeding further. Until such time, I have nothing further to add.

[Frigobar]

"No, that doesn't count. Any organization you create is considered a committee. Even if you call it a contest, or a courthouse, or whatever."

Mh, I assumed it only applied to group of people with a task, not artifacts. Help me understand: if someone made a resolution to build a Particle Accelerator available to all nations member of the WA, would it count as a committee? And, by extension, does the medal count as well?

Nor is there for the WASP to distribute ane collect research data. A MetaGaming violation would be changing the NationStates mechanics, to my understanding, which is clearly not the case in this proposal

OOC: That would be a Game Mechanics violation. Metagaming is different. It involves "breaking the fourth wall".[/quote]
Ok, so... what makes task undertaken by a committee legal but not tasks voluntarily undertaken by a nation? I may well have underestimated the complexity of the rules, I fear.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"No, that doesn't count. Any organization you create is considered a committee. Even if you call it a contest, or a courthouse, or whatever."

Mh, I assumed it only applied to group of people with a task, not artifacts. Help me understand: if someone made a resolution to build a Particle Accelerator available to all nations member of the WA, would it count as a committee? And, by extension, does the medal count as well?

OOC: We're just players so can't answer definitively - but yes, probably. "Committee" is really a term generally understood to mean any kind of WA-thing as opposed to nation-thing. It doesn't just mean a conference room full of grey-faced bureaucrats fighting over the biscuits.

A proposal that said: "we're all going to build a particle accelerator and everyone can use it" would probably be illegal unless it had an additional clause like "encourages nations to pursue particle physics research".

That's why I contended your proposal was illegal. The WAURF and the medal all essentially count (in my unofficial opinion) as "committee" stuff. There is nothing in the proposal incumbent on nations separate to those elements.

Ok, so... what makes task undertaken by a committee legal but not tasks voluntarily undertaken by a nation?

It's not that, it's this bit:

The criterion for award will be the relative majority of member nations agreeing.

From the rules:

Membership on the committee is reserved for mystical WA gnomes who spring into existence after the proposal becomes law
For this reason a proposal cannot define:

• Who can and cannot sit on the committee
• How members are chosen
• Term limits for the members

I may well have underestimated the complexity of the rules, I fear.

The committee rules are probably the most complicated, and you may take heart that (a) some extremely experienced authors have tripped on these very distinctions and (b) all of the players in this thread may be completely wrong in our interpretations.

[Goddess Relief Office]

1. Constitutes the World Assembly Unified Research Framework, to coordinate and ease the research efforts of all voluntarily joining member nations.
The WAURF will allow nations to share all research data on a common database, accessible through an open platform from every national institution of each member nation, organized only by the scientific parameters characterizing each experiment and data collection, and anonymously vote yearly for which topics should be prioritized in research, submitting an ordered list of said topics.
The results of such voting, which will be public and published online at the end of each ballot, will result in the World Assembly Research Priorities List, or WARPL.
Said list does not bind any member nation in their funds allocation under any circumstance.
However, this list will clearly outline the trends in scientific research, and allow a concerted approach.

Good idea in principle that won't work in practice. I wager you military research is going to top the list year after year.

[Ardchoille]

I let your proposal stand for a bit while I tried to think how to explain the reason for its deletion, beyond simply quoting the "just-a-committee" rule at you.

I think it comes down to this: all the WA can do is make laws for member nations. Making an internationally owned object -- a particle accelerator, a database, a library -- isn't a law, and isn't nation-directed. So it has to tie the object it wants to an actual, nation-directed law (a bit like politicians inserting pork-barrelling/earmarks in budget appropriations, but this time it's the WA that gets the goodie).

But the WA also has to affect all member nations. The "committee" device is the game's answer to that need. Instead of pinning the creation of the object on a nation or group of nations (eg, richest nations, oldest nations, smartest nations, elected nations), it pins it on a neutral, incorruptible, "gnome"-staffed committee, which is sometimes given specific details to cover, and is also assumed to deal with unforeseen developments (ie, roleplay, which GA laws can't touch).

However, creating a committee isn't a making a member-nation law. Consequently, [object] proposals often follow this outline (actual law in red):

The WA,
RECOGNISING that widgets are internationally beneficial, and
WANTING widget benefits to extend to all member nations,
CREATES the International Widget Project;
ESTABLISHES the Widget Committee to co-ordinate the IWP;
CHARGES the Widget Committee with [sub-clauses giving specifics of how the committee will create the widget]; and
URGES/REQUIRES/MANDATES that member nations [do something plainly national, unrelated to any of the things the Widget Committee does] -- for example, introduce national Widget Education Classes for consenting adults.

So, your "object" was the international research database. Your World Assembly Unified Research Framework was the "committee" that would organise the database. The medal was directly associated with the WAUFA: selecting its recipient was one of the WAUFA tasks. For legality, your proposal needed a task that all individual member nations could do within their borders.

[Frigobar]

Thanks for the explanation! However, I still don't get a small part of it: how is urging nations to do something considered a law for all member nations? Thought control? So, what kind of addendum would have made it legal?

[Mousebumples]

Thanks for the explanation! However, I still don't get a small part of it: how is urging nations to do something considered a law for all member nations? Thought control? So, what kind of addendum would have made it legal?

Can you post your current draft in full, somewhere? It's not in the proposal list anymore, so it's hard to say at this point.

[Ardchoille]

Thanks for the explanation! However, I still don't get a small part of it: how is urging nations to do something considered a law for all member nations? ...

Sorry, I missed this when I was on earlier. The act of "urging" is the legislative action: the state of being urged has been applied to all member nations equally. How they choose to respond to the WA's urging is another matter, and moves into roleplay.

IF this sounds like legal pettifogging, think of the aspirational statements that the real-life UN makes. A generalised Resolution urging that, say, all member nations should encourage environmentally friendly transport is taken in some UN member countries as just feelgood fluff, about which one need only nod approvingly. Yet others may take it to heart and, perhaps, legislate to ban motor fuel with lead in it. Still others may resist it as an outrageous attempt to crush their car industry and force them into crippling expenditure on bicycle paths. But they've all been "urged".