[DRAFT] Academic Collaboration Act

[Liberea]

Out of curiosity, has anyone had time to read over the rewritten proposal? If so, are there any comments on it?

I've read over the refined version and I like the clarification over the copyright issue with published papers, I am convinced there are no copyright issues or issues on weapons data, which were the only the two concerns raised.

If noone has any issues I think we should submit it with you as co-author within the next 2 days.

[Serrland]

Why do you feel academic collaboration has to be mandated by an extra-national institution? Academic protectionism can help an economy, as it may give a nation an advantage in technological output, for example, and scientific advances can be sold when needed. It seems this proposal would make that impossible.

[Grays Harbor]

Why do you feel academic collaboration has to be mandated by an extra-national institution? Academic protectionism can help an economy, as it may give a nation an advantage in technological output, for example, and scientific advances can be sold when needed. It seems this proposal would make that impossible.

We would have to agree with our colleague from Serrland. While the latest draft does appear more reasonable, there is still the question of "why?". Mandates of this scope, even ones which purport to be voluntary, are all to apt to cut into serious scientific research of the proprietary nature and give rise to academic plagerism by the less scrupulous in the academic and research community. There can be large amounts of money and prestige to be gaiuned from new research, and to be mandated to share this with anybody who asks is only asking that research be stolen. There are sufficient scholarly periodicals and other published works out there which already make new research available to those who seek it, having this proposal adds nothing to that, and is quite open to academic abuse.

[Darmatia]

Why do you feel academic collaboration has to be mandated by an extra-national institution? Academic protectionism can help an economy, as it may give a nation an advantage in technological output, for example, and scientific advances can be sold when needed. It seems this proposal would make that impossible.

We would have to agree with our colleague from Serrland. While the latest draft does appear more reasonable, there is still the question of "why?". Mandates of this scope, even ones which purport to be voluntary, are all to apt to cut into serious scientific research of the proprietary nature and give rise to academic plagerism by the less scrupulous in the academic and research community. There can be large amounts of money and prestige to be gaiuned from new research, and to be mandated to share this with anybody who asks is only asking that research be stolen. There are sufficient scholarly periodicals and other published works out there which already make new research available to those who seek it, having this proposal adds nothing to that, and is quite open to academic abuse.

I don't think that this will affect any technology which would otherwise be kept secret or give a company advantage. Having read this it seems clear that this only applies to academic data which has already been published and so is ordinerally available worldwide anyway. All this act does is prevent governments or individuals from preventing the data which scientists would usually share (something which happens very frequently as the scientific community depends on it) from reaching the scientists which need it. If we are talking real world for a moment here, all academic protectionism as stated above would remain the same. This is because the protectionism is mediated by companies NOT PUBLISHING THIER DATA IN PUBLIC JOURNALS if they do not wish it to be shared. This act does not at all force them to share what they do not want to share!! This act enshrines the right of access to the "sufficient scholarly periodicals and other published works out there which already make new research available to those who seek it" thats all!



Also all plagiarism in the academic world is

[Nordicus]

Why do you feel academic collaboration has to be mandated by an extra-national institution? Academic protectionism can help an economy, as it may give a nation an advantage in technological output, for example, and scientific advances can be sold when needed. It seems this proposal would make that impossible.

Academic protectionism would indeed still be allowed, with both government-employed researchers and with willing civilian researchers. All this bill would prevent would be the forcing of such protectionism on universities which do not want it, and censoring universities from receiving information.

Mandates of this scope, even ones which purport to be voluntary, are all to apt to cut into serious scientific research of the proprietary nature

If a researcher wishes to be keeping their work proprietary, they would be well advised not to be publishing it to begin with--and without the research being published, this bill would not impact it in the slightest.

and give rise to academic plagerism by the less scrupulous in the academic and research community.

No more so than is currently possible with published academic papers.

There can be large amounts of money and prestige to be gaiuned from new research, and to be mandated to share this with anybody who asks is only asking that research be stolen.

That money and prestige would be still be there, as everyone would still know whose research it is. Furthermore, the bill does not give access to "anybody who asks," but only to universities and other educational institutions.

There are sufficient scholarly periodicals and other published works out there which already make new research available to those who seek it

These publications, however, are censored and restricted in some nations, which is what this bill seeks to rectify. It does not propose new methods of transmission of the data, or mandatory publication, or any other meddling; it merely prevents governments from censoring or restricting these scholarly journals and other academic papers.

[Liberea]

Right, any more comments or criticisms as I will be submitting this co-authored proposal soon.

[Grays Harbor]

I'm still not convinced this will do as advertised.

what category and strength are you planning on using?

[Nordicus]

what category and strength are you planning on using?

As mentioned in the latest draft, Education and Creativity, targeted towards Education.

[Darmatia]

I don't see any problem with this proposal, I like the principles. Go ahead and submit!

[Irnola]

Demanding the free flow of scientific information without censorship from any governmental body.

The representatives from the communities in Irnola have issues with this part of your proposal. We are a nation founded upon the basis of the varying psychological schools of thought. Despite our belief in the freedom of knowledge and its uses for positive goals, we would need time to collaborate our observed data from various studies and edit the information from raw data to a presentable text format before shipping it to other regions.

We would be on board with this proposal if it were edited with a tad more detail.

[Nordicus]

Demanding the free flow of scientific information without censorship from any governmental body.

The representatives from the communities in Irnola have issues with this part of your proposal. We are a nation founded upon the basis of the varying psychological schools of thought. Despite our belief in the freedom of knowledge and its uses for positive goals, we would need time to collaborate our observed data from various studies and edit the information from raw data to a presentable text format before shipping it to other regions.

We would be on board with this proposal if it were edited with a tad more detail.

What you have just described would not be censorship, but formatting. Furthermore, that line has already been struck from the proposal. Here is the latest draft:

Academic Collaboration Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Liberea

Description:
RECOGNIZING the importance of international academic collaboration for the betterment of mankind's condition;

UNDERSTANDING the importance of access to academic papers to said collaboration;

DISTRESSED that some nations restrict access to these academic papers;

DEFINING:

"Academic papers" to be peer-reviewed research and literature pertaining to an educational field, field of scientific study, and/or the arts and humanities as taught by institutions of education;

"Institutions of education" to be any accredited institutions which offer instruction to the citizens of a nation;


The World Assembly HEREBY:

1) FORBIDS member nations from enacting laws or policies which would interfere with the voluntary sharing of academic information between institutions of education within their own nation.

2) FORBIDS member nations from enacting laws or policies which would interfere with the voluntary sharing of academic information between such institutions of their own nation and other member nations.

3) FORBIDS member nations from censoring academic papers, except as allowed by international law.

[Hirota]

I'm curious if this permits the sharing of technology developed for military applications. If it does, on this basis my government may oppose. Hirota does not see the benefit of permitting weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of member states incapable of handling that knowledge responsibly.

The government of Hirota does see some grounds for collaboration on certain endeavours, but feels that there should be a shared level of scientific knowledge.

[Bears Armed]

The preamble and definitions refer to "academic papers", but the operative clauses cover "academic information" instead: Please can we have the same term (whichever it is to be) used throughout in this context, to avoid creating unnecessary loopholes?

[Nordicus]

I'm curious if this permits the sharing of technology developed for military applications. If it does, on this basis my government may oppose. Hirota does not see the benefit of permitting weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of member states incapable of handling that knowledge responsibly.

The government of Hirota does see some grounds for collaboration on certain endeavours, but feels that there should be a shared level of scientific knowledge.

It would only permit the unrestricted sharing of military technology between universities and schools if that technology was already published, which is something exceedingly rare.

The preamble and definitions refer to "academic papers", but the operative clauses cover "academic information" instead: Please can we have the same term (whichever it is to be) used throughout in this context, to avoid creating unnecessary loopholes?

Nice catch, as I had not intended that. Here is the corrected version:

Academic Collaboration Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Liberea

Description:
RECOGNIZING the importance of international academic collaboration for the betterment of mankind's condition;

UNDERSTANDING the importance of access to academic papers to said collaboration;

DISTRESSED that some nations restrict access to these academic papers;

DEFINING:

"Academic papers" to be peer-reviewed research and literature pertaining to an educational field, field of scientific study, and/or the arts and humanities as taught by institutions of education;

"Institutions of education" to be any accredited institutions which offer instruction to the citizens of a nation;


The World Assembly HEREBY:

1) FORBIDS member nations from enacting laws or policies which would interfere with the voluntary sharing of academic papers between institutions of education within their own nation.

2) FORBIDS member nations from enacting laws or policies which would interfere with the voluntary sharing of academic papers between such institutions of their own nation and other member nations.

3) FORBIDS member nations from censoring academic papers, except as allowed by international law.

[Liberea]

Will post latest draft tomorrow morning.

[Grays Harbor]

Splendid! And we shall not vote for it tomorrow morning, as we are still very much against this proposal.

[Liberea]

Splendid! And we shall not vote for it tomorrow morning, as we are still very much against this proposal.

Very well, do as you please, I have confidence that people will see the value of this act rather than scratching thier heads to come up with objections for the sake of it.

[Serrland]

Be careful with confidence, mate. I had confidence people would spend their time writing worthwhile resolutions, not putting a draft forward for the sake of it.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Will you all please end this disgusting, puerile pillow fight?

As for the right time for everything, I shall only quote the wise Flib:

That's what I call rushing things, as I've said in the past, writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint.

Enough said.

[Nordicus]

As for the right time for everything, I shall only quote the wise Flib:

That's what I call rushing things, as I've said in the past, writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint.

Enough said.

No new objections had been raised in what, two weeks? I'd hardly call that "rushed."

[Grays Harbor]

As for the right time for everything, I shall only quote the wise Flib:

That's what I call rushing things, as I've said in the past, writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint.

Enough said.

No new objections had been raised in what, two weeks? I'd hardly call that "rushed."

That could well be because those who had objections stated them, and did not feel it necessary to restate those objection over and over and over, and those who liked it said their piece and didn't feel the need to argue it endlessly either. The draft has been submitted and looks to be well on its way to not being approved, so what is the point of continuing to debate it anyhow? If it is brought back up again later, then debate can renew.