[PASSED] Access to Scientific Knowledge

[Hulldom]

As promised here, this is the replacement of "On Scientific Cooperation".

Access To Scientific Knowledge

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the ever-present imbalance in the growth of states, especially when it comes to scientific development; and

Believing the solution to that imbalance presents itself in the public dissemination of scientific knowledge throughout all member states;

Hereby:

1. Defines “sciences” for the purpose of this resolution as the academic study of natural phenomena and processes, social functions and relationships, and thought about those categories.
   
2. Establishes the Council for Scientific Dissemination (CSD).
   
3. Mandates that member states provide the CSD with data and research in the sciences, published in peer-reviewed journals and meeting appropriate standards for replicability - barring that which is classified for the purposes of national security, defense, or represents a proprietary trade secret.
   
4. Requires that member states additionally provide the CSD with any government-funded research and data in the sciences - barring that which is classified for the purposes of national security, defense, or represents a proprietary trade secret.
   
5. Obligates all member states to provide the CSD with sufficient reasoning for the classification and thus withholding of materials as per Articles 3 and 4. The CSD shall determine the sufficiency of any arguments provided by member states in accordance with the following criteria:
   
   1. Whether the dissemination of materials would result in a threat to national security, and/or
   2. Whether the dissemination of materials would result in severe, potentially irrecoverable damage to a member state’s economy.
6. States that the CSD shall:
   
   1. Coordinate with member states to ensure that all research and data received meets the standards of peer review and replicability.
   2. Coordinate with other offices and bureaus established by this august World Assembly to provide them with research and data relevant to their mandates.
   3. Establish a easily searchable database of the received data and research in the sciences that is available to the general public.

Co-authored by: Greater Cesnica, Aramantha

[Separatist Peoples]

"We oppose any attempt to justify classification of information where not essential to human rights. Why something is classified is as sensitive as the information itself. Frankly, sharing scientific data by nation, assuming we cannot just let private academic organizations handle this by topic, would operate best on a quid pro quo system. Nations that contribute get access to the database. Nations that don't, well, don't."

[Attempted Socialism]

"The current resolution also includes the social sciences and although not explicitly mentioned, the humanities. Why does this draft intend to exclude areas of art, archaeology, history, economics, law, international relations, philosophy, and political science? We are opposed to any replacement, and also to any repeal, that takes such a limited view of knowledge and science. After all, accessing international research in these topics is just as difficult as those in the natural sciences, and sharing that knowledge is just as likely to improve sapient development."

[Hulldom]

"We oppose any attempt to justify classification of information where not essential to human rights. Why something is classified is as sensitive as the information itself. Frankly, sharing scientific data by nation, assuming we cannot just let private academic organizations handle this by topic, would operate best on a quid pro quo system. Nations that contribute get access to the database. Nations that don't, well, don't."

"Understood, sir. Rather unfortunately, I cannot have nations in our august Assembly opt-in to anything we pass."

"The current resolution also includes the social sciences and although not explicitly mentioned, the humanities. Why does this draft intend to exclude areas of art, archaeology, history, economics, law, international relations, philosophy, and political science? We are opposed to any replacement, and also to any repeal, that takes such a limited view of knowledge and science. After all, accessing international research in these topics is just as difficult as those in the natural sciences, and sharing that knowledge is just as likely to improve sapient development."

"I can confer with the co-authoring delegations, but unfortunately that may delay this indefinitely--at least until GAR#397 is repealed."

[Attempted Socialism]

"The current resolution also includes the social sciences and although not explicitly mentioned, the humanities. Why does this draft intend to exclude areas of art, archaeology, history, economics, law, international relations, philosophy, and political science? We are opposed to any replacement, and also to any repeal, that takes such a limited view of knowledge and science. After all, accessing international research in these topics is just as difficult as those in the natural sciences, and sharing that knowledge is just as likely to improve sapient development."

"I can confer with the co-authoring delegations, but unfortunately that may delay this indefinitely--at least until GAR#397 is repealed."

"Really? What a curious interpretation. Are there not also scientific journals, with data and research, publishing in the fields I listed? The Library Compact, unless I misremember, is about general literary work and the access thereto, and not scientific work specifically. What is the crucial difference between a paper on, say, electromagnetism, and one on perception of corruption, that the former is scientific and the latter is literary? And to put it mildly, this is the first time I have seen anyone describe the fields of economics and law as literary works. I think the inclusion of all science is relevant here in part because the preservation of knowledge in GAR#397 only provides scholastic access to the literary works, not the easy distribution of the academic knowledge that should come from the access to and study of literary works. It's included in the resolution-to-be-repealed, and I don't see why GAR#397 should hinder its inclusion here."

[Separatist Peoples]

"We oppose any attempt to justify classification of information where not essential to human rights. Why something is classified is as sensitive as the information itself. Frankly, sharing scientific data by nation, assuming we cannot just let private academic organizations handle this by topic, would operate best on a quid pro quo system. Nations that contribute get access to the database. Nations that don't, well, don't."

"Understood, sir. Rather unfortunately, I cannot have nations in our august Assembly opt-in to anything we pass."

"This is not correct, ambassador. You can, in fact, create opt-in programs and are electing not to do so here."

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: We are opposed to this resolution for the same reason we oppose the requirement for the IAO to vet certain decisions of member states in the Epidemic Investigation Act; it is not the World Assembly's business to tell nations what is so confidential that it should not be published.
Besides from that, we have various less substantial concerns. Firstly, there is no need to include the name of the WA Scientific Programme in the full name of the CSD when you immediately go on to declare it "a sub-organisation of" the Programme. Secondly, there is no apparent reason to retain Article 6d when 6c can just be rewritten to require the CSD to "establish an easily searchable database of" whatever it's collecting. Thirdly, it is not made clear why I should care about some sort of "imbalance" in science thingy thing and why removing it will make member states grow better. And... thirdly, I think, the nation of Aramantha is a vassal state of the much more well-established authoring state of Thousand Branches, should you and they wish to use that instead.

[Goobergunchia]

As currently written this draft does not clearly establish what constitutes a "valid" argument for classification within the meaning of clause 5. We are not comfortable delegating to a committee the authority to determine what does or does not constitute valid purposes of national security or defense without any guidance by the General Assembly as to how said committee should be making such determination.

We would prefer that the author write said guidelines such that the exceptions be extremely narrow.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Hulldom]

On an OOC Note here: my apologies for not getting to this sooner, been coordinating some stuff behind the scenes these last few days (including an SC draft that should be posted soon), so just forgot to post the updated version.

Ye Olde Drafts Repository

(Ordinarily, I wouldn't do this, but just for my co-authors' sake)

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the ever-present imbalance in the growth of states, especially when it comes to scientific development; and

Believing the solution to that imbalance presents itself in the public dissemination of scientific knowledge throughout all member states;

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, “natural sciences” as the study of the natural world and any phenomena occurring naturally throughout the multiverse.
   
2. Establishes the World Assembly Scientific Program Council for Scientific Dissemination (CSD), a sub-organization of the World Assembly Scientific Program (WASP).
   
3. Mandates that member states provide the CSD with scientific data and research in the natural sciences, published in peer-reviewed journals and meeting appropriate standards for replicability - barring that which is classified for the purposes of national security or defense.
   
4. Requires that member states additionally provide the CSD with any government-funded research and data in the natural sciences - barring that which is classified for the purposes of national security or defense.
   
5. Obligates all member states to provide the CSD with sufficient reasoning for the classification and thus withholding of materials as per Articles 3 and 4. The CSD shall determine the sufficiency and validity of any arguments provided by member states in this regard.
   
6. States that the CSD shall:
   
   1. Coordinate with member states to ensure that all research and data received meets the standards of peer review and replicability.
   2. Coordinate with other offices and bureaus established by this august World Assembly to provide them with research and data relevant to their mandates.
   3. Establish a database of the received data and research in the natural sciences that is available to the general public.
   4. Establish an organizational system or method for the classification of research and data received such that the aforementioned database is searchable by interested parties.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"We object most strenuously to clause 5a. While the study on the radar absorbency and acoustic characteristics of various manufacturing processes, configurations, and materials comprising the Aquitaine class frigate's hull being released would not, we believe, represent an existential threat to our national security, we think it patently obvious that freely allowing all and sundry access to such information, which would reveal the precise radar characteristics of said frigate, along with the technical details necessary to come within a few months of research of effectively replicating it, is nevertheless a threat to our national security, and a serious enough one as to justify the classification of that study and a refusal to share it with antagonistic powers.

[Hulldom]

"We object most strenuously to clause 5a. While the study on the radar absorbency and acoustic characteristics of various manufacturing processes, configurations, and materials comprising the Aquitaine class frigate's hull being released would not, we believe, represent an existential threat to our national security, we think it patently obvious that freely allowing all and sundry access to such information, which would reveal the precise radar characteristics of said frigate, along with the technical details necessary to come within a few months of research of effectively replicating it, is nevertheless a threat to our national security, and a serious enough one as to justify the classification of that study and a refusal to share it with antagonistic powers.

"How the Honorable Ambassador from Desmosthenes and Burke would like clause 5(a) amended?"

"We agree that this would be an intolerable risk, but we believe there is a middle ground that satisfies both of our interests."

[The United Holy Orders]

"Are we to understand that the premise of this legality is to mandate member states to engage and invest in secular expenditures in the name of science? If so, we vehemently oppose this bill in its entirety. A faithful nation close to God or whatever Old Ways it holds to should not be forced to compromise its core values in the name of a dubious greater good cause. We are not opposed to the pursuits of the intellectual, so long as said intellectual does not attempt to jeopardize the foundations of our nation, but we are a Godly nation first."

[Attempted Socialism]

"We are glad that the social sciences are included in the current draft, but we still have some questions as to the limit of that definition. As many have probably experienced at university, there are imperfect but classic divisions, faculties, like that languages, philosophy, and arts history belong in the humanities, political science and economics in the social sciences, medicines are usually mainstays in the faculty of health, and physics, chemistry, and mathematics define the faculty of natural science. These are not absolute rules, but look around and you will find some version of this convention, if for nothing else then administrative convenience. Are the fields of the classic humanities, language, philosophy, arts, included in 'societal function and social relationships'? Or in the natural science definition? I know that philosophers ponder on the natural world, but so far I haven't seen even the most dedicated arts history major claim that the art they study is naturally occurring. Is health, medicine, or health policy a societal function? Perhaps, perhaps not. Diseases are certainly naturally occurring, but health risks from pollution, stress, or capitalism are not. What I am getting at here is, would the drafting delegation say that, for instance, the fields of linguistics, philosophy, and public health are included under one or both of the definitions of science here? And if the answer is no, why not? I would recommend a more general definition of all science, which might take inspiration from the esteemed professor Jackson and his reading of Weber. Quote,

I have followed Max Weber in defining science in very broad terms: the careful and rigorous application of a set of theories and concepts as to produce a "thoughtful ordering of empirical actuality". This definition yields three constituent components of a scientific knowledge claim: it must be systematically related to its presuppositions; it must be capable of public criticism within the scientific community -- and in particular, public criticism designed to improve the knowledge being claimed; and it must be intended to produce worldly knowledge,*

Unquote. Is there a scientific field that we wish to include that this does not? And conversely, is there a field included that we do not regard as scientific, which we want to exclude?"



OOC: * From p. 213, Jackson, P. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. Routledge.

[Hulldom]

Still struggling with how to incorporate Attempted Socialism's point. It is a good one and it's one I want to do due diligence with, so if they have a suggestion as to how to incorporate their criticism, I would welcome it.

As a note: my apologies for not getting around to this sooner. Been a busy few weeks for me and Cesnica is a bit-preoccupied given the...situation in Ukraine.

[Remadehome]

amazing also putting 2 different ideas and teams on the natural science "raw resources from the world/ground" and social science how humans act in relationships and society.

[Parserlds]

Every person, regardless of his education and level of earnings, should have every right to have access to any scientific information that he wants.

[Yoooh]

the knowledge does not have nation but the people that gain knowledge have nation. It's NOT FAIRE to share the knowledge that discovered by people to other countries FREE

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Just to check, how far do want to go towards my IC position? I ask because my IC ambassador would absolutely include subjects such as philosophy and historical materialism in general, and Marxist dialectics in particular, as sciences, but that is not uncontroversial. While they are certainly included in philosophies of science, you can easily find positions (Such as Popper's) where these are excluded -- or attempted so -- from the body of science itself, just as you can find some people who would disregard large parts of the humanities as unscientific in some way.
I ask because you can go some of the way by including the arts and humanities with a third definition or a minor rework. You might borrow from Arendt and say that the humanities are an exploration of the human (Sapient?) condition, for instance. You could also adapt some of that language into your social science definition; while my IC ambassador doesn't think your social science definition fits e.g. linguistics, culture studies etc. are absolutely included in my OOC view, and it wouldn't take much to include the rest of the (traditional) humanities. Some fields could still be argued to fall between, as health policy or mathematics are neither naturally occurring phenomena nor societal functions, so you might want to see if you can expand this more than I have here.

However, if you want to go further you would need to fully rework your definitions. I'm willing to workshop something with you, but frankly since my illness began two years ago I haven't had the same mental constitution, so I wouldn't want to work on it if you're not going to use it.

[Hulldom]

Attempted to rework that definition so hopefully it is more satisfactory.

Sorry for not getting to this sooner. RL stuff (spring break!) and midterms sapped what motivation I had to work on this until now.

[Attempted Socialism]

Welcome back, hope you had a good spring break! I like this approach, I just want a minor edit. Can you put in some adjective to "study"; like organised, rigorous, systematic, or the like. As they say, the difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

Also, the phrasing in 6c should be updated once you have settled on a definition you like.

[Hulldom]

Welcome back, hope you had a good spring break! I like this approach, I just want a minor edit. Can you put in some adjective to "study"; like organised, rigorous, systematic, or the like. As they say, the difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

Also, the phrasing in 6c should be updated once you have settled on a definition you like.

Both should be fixed now.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: None of my earlier concerns have been addressed, except for the one I levied about the name of the CSD.

[Hulldom]

Smith: None of my earlier concerns have been addressed, except for the one I levied about the name of the CSD.

I knew I was missing something else when I bumped this. Will get to it some time tomorrow most like.

[Hulldom]

Bumping this. Tin, that should address your main concerns. Especially now that I've removed "and legitimacy" from the NatSec clause. Added a bit pertaining to 5(b) in clause 4 (and will shortly do so in clause 3).

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire will support this proposal


Well done