[PASSED] International Scientific Cooperation

[Frisbeeteria]

International Scientific Cooperation

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The World Assembly:

Convinced that international scientific cooperation is an important pursuit, despite past difficulties in developing a comfortable model on the subject.

Recognizing that each member nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to avoid prior pitfalls by building a basic framework for scientific cooperation, without imposing demands that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, and cause quality and ethics problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution:

1. "Science" or "scientific" refers to the systematic exploration and study of the world (such as through experiment and observation), which is intended to produce or contribute to knowledge, and which is capable of being critically analyzed by others.
2. References to "member nations" include member nations' governments, public and private organizations, and citizens.
3. "Peer review" means having at least one expert in a particular field review a piece of scientific work and provide written feedback commenting on the validity of the work's methods, findings, and conclusions.

Article II: Cooperation Agency
(1) The International Scientific Cooperation Agency (ISCA) is established. ISCA's primary budget shall be allocated from World Assembly general funds. ISCA may also receive charitable donations, but may not accept any funds that are contingent on pursuing a particular policy or viewpoint. ISCA is tasked with the following primary duties:

1. To establish an international forum or medium for the free exchange of scientific ideas.
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them.

(2) Member nations are strongly encouraged to make all of their scientific literature available to the international community through the ISCA.

(3) Member nations are strongly encouraged to collaborate with other nations on scientific endeavors whenever international collaboration would make the endeavor more effective or efficient. For instance, when studying biodiversity, climate, oceanography, outer space, and other topics of international scope and importance.

Article III: Grants and Symposiums

1. ISCA shall periodically host symposiums on science topics of international importance. All member nations shall have reasonable and convenient access to ISCA symposiums.
2. ISCA shall provide monetary support (grants) to member nations for their science projects. ISCA shall award grants in reasonable amounts based on the overall cost of the project, the potential benefit to the international community, and the competing obligation to fund other worthy projects. ISCA grants are conditional on an agreement that the project will adhere to all applicable ethics and quality standards, and that the finished work will be submitted to ISCA for international publication.

Article IV: Rights of Member Nations
Member nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISCA:

1. The right to determine whether their scientific work may be received by ISCA, according to national laws on subjects such as copyright, privacy, ethics, and security.
2. The right to equal and convenient access to the content of ISCA's database, subject to the condition that they have contributed science of their own to the database or are making good faith efforts to do so.

Article V: Responsible Research
Recognizing that standards for responsible science continue to develop, the following apply to ISCA submissions and publications:

1. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions comply with their national ethical standards and set international ethical standards;
2. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions have been peer reviewed and provide the peer review commentary along with the submission.
3. ISCA will evaluate each submission for compliance with quality and ethics requirements. If a submission does not meet relevant standards, ISCA will explain the deficiency and decline publication pending resubmission.
4. To promote transparency in science, ISCA will annotate each of its publications to indicate (1) if it was modified for international publication for any reason, and (2) if it received substantial negative treatment from peer review.

Article VI: Oversight
Recognizing the potential for a science agency to be unduly politicized without sufficient oversight, the ISCA Oversight Board is established with the following duties:

1. To hear any complaints from member nations alleging that they were improperly denied ISCA database access, publication, or grant money, or were otherwise aggrieved by an act or omission within ISCA's jurisdiction.
2. After hearing a complaint, to either affirm ISCA's action or redirect ISCA's action, with a public explanation for the result.

---

International Scientific Cooperation

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The World Assembly:

Convinced that international scientific cooperation is an important pursuit, despite past difficulties in developing a comfortable model on the subject.

Recognizing that each member nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to avoid prior pitfalls by building a basic framework for scientific cooperation, without imposing demands that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, and cause quality and ethics problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution:

1. "Science" or "scientific" refers to the systematic exploration and study of the world (such as through experiment and observation), which is intended to produce or contribute to knowledge, and which is capable of being critically analyzed by others.
2. References to "member nations" include member nations' governments, public and private organizations, and citizens.
3. "Peer review" means having an expert or group of experts in a particular field review a piece of scientific work and provide written feedback commenting on the validity of the work's methods, findings, and conclusions.

Article II: Cooperation Agency
The International Scientific Cooperation Agency (ISCA) is established. ISCA's primary budget shall be allocated from World Assembly general funds. ISCA may also receive charitable donations, but may not accept any funds that are contingent on pursuing a particular policy or viewpoint. ISCA is tasked with the following primary duties:

1. To establish an international forum or medium for the free exchange of scientific ideas.
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them.
3. To provide basic logistics and communication support for international scientific studies and projects.

Article III: Grants and Symposiums

1. ISCA shall periodically host symposiums on science topics of international importance. All member nations shall have reasonable and convenient access to ISCA symposiums.
2. ISCA shall provide monetary support (grants) to member nations for their science projects. ISCA shall award grants in reasonable amounts based on the overall cost of the project, the potential benefit to the international community, and the competing obligation to fund other worthy projects. Issuance of ISCA grants is conditional on an agreement that the project will be conducted according to all applicable ethics and quality standards, and that the finished work will be submitted to ISCA for publication in the international database.

Article IV: Rights of Member Nations
Member nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISCA:

1. The right to determine whether their scientific work may be received by ISCA, according to national laws on subjects such as copyright, privacy, ethics, and security.
2. The right to have ISCA treat all types of science equally, regardless of controversiality, without prejudice to political views or deference to prior beliefs and dogmas.
3. The right to equal and convenient access to the content of ISCA's database, subject to the condition that they have contributed science of their own to the database or are making good faith efforts to do so.

Article V: Responsible Research
Recognizing that standards for responsible science continue to develop, the following apply to ISCA submissions and publications:

1. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions comply with their national ethical standards and set international ethical standards;
2. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions have been peer reviewed prior to submission and provide the peer review commentary along with the submission.
3. ISCA will evaluate each submission for compliance with the foregoing requirements prior to publication in the ISCA database. If a submission does not meet relevant standards, ISCA will explain the deficiency to the submitting party and decline publication pending compliant resubmission.
4. To promote transparency in science, ISCA will annotate each of its publications to indicate (1) if the work was modified or redacted prior to international publication for any reason, and (2) if the work received substantial negative treatment from peer review.

Article VI: Oversight
Recognizing the potential for a science agency to be unduly politicized without sufficient oversight, the ISCA Oversight Board is established with the following duties:

1. To hear any complaints from member nations alleging that they were improperly denied ISCA database access, publication, or grant money, or were otherwise aggrieved by an act or omission within ISCA's jurisdiction.
2. After hearing a complaint, to either affirm ISCA's action or redirect ISCA's action, with a public explanation for the result.

International Scientific Cooperation

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The World Assembly:

Convinced that international scientific cooperation is an important pursuit, despite past difficulties in developing a comfortable model on the subject.

Recognizing that each member nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or to dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to avoid prior pitfalls by building a basic framework for scientific cooperation, without imposing demands that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, and cause quality and ethics problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution:

1. "Science" or "scientific" refers to activity involving the systematic exploration and study of the world (such as through experiment and observation), which is intended to produce or contribute to knowledge, and which is capable of being critically analyzed by others.
2. References to "member nations" include the member nations' governments, public and private organizations, and citizens.
3. "Peer review" means having an expert or group of experts in a particular scientific field review a piece of scientific work done in that field, and provide written feedback commenting on the validity of the work's methods, findings, and conclusions.

Article II: Cooperation Agency
The International Scientific Cooperation Agency (ISCA) is established. ISCA's primary budget shall be allocated from World Assembly general funds. ISCA may also receive donations, but may not accept any funds that are contingent on pursuing a particular policy or viewpoint. ISCA is tasked with the following primary duties:

1. To establish an international forum or medium for the free exchange of scientific ideas.
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them.
3. To provide basic logistics support for scientific studies and projects jointly undertaken by groups of member nations.

Article III: Grants and Symposiums

1. ISCA shall periodically host symposiums on science topics requested by member nations. All member nations shall have reasonable and convenient access to ISCA symposiums.
2. ISCA shall provide monetary support (grants) to member nations for their science projects. ISCA shall award grants in reasonable amounts based on the overall cost of the project, the potential benefit to the international community, and the competing obligation to fund other worthy projects. Issuance of ISCA grants is conditional on an agreement that the project will be conducted according to all applicable ethics and quality standards, and that the finished work will be submitted to ISCA for publication in the international database.

Article IV: Rights of Member Nations
Member nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISCA:

1. The right to determine whether their scientific work may be received by ISCA, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, copyright, ethics, and security.
2. The right to have ISCA treat all types of science equally, regardless of controversiality, without prejudice to political views or deference to established consensus or dogmas.
3. The right to equal and convenient access to the content of ISCA's database, subject to the condition that they have contributed science of their own to the database or are making good faith efforts to do so.

Article V: Responsible Research
Recognizing that standards for responsible science continue to develop, the following basics apply to ISCA submissions and publications:

1. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions comply with their national ethical standards and set international ethical standards;
2. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions have been peer reviewed prior to submission and provide the peer review commentary along with the submission.
3. ISCA will evaluate each submission for compliance with the foregoing prior to publication in the ISCA database. If a submission does not meet relevant standards, ISCA will explain the deficiency to the submitting member nation and decline publication pending compliant resubmission.
4. To promote transparency in science, ISCA will annotate each of its publications to indicate (1) if the work was modified or redacted for ethical reasons, and (2) if the work received substantial negative treatment from peer review.

Article VI: Oversight
Recognizing the potential for a science agency to be unduly politicized without sufficient an ISCA Oversight Board is established with the following duties:

1. To hear any complaints from member nations alleging that they were improperly denied ISCA database access, publication, or grant money, or were otherwise aggrieved by an act or omission within ISCA's jurisdiction, and
2. After hearing a complaint, to either affirm the ISCA or disaffirm and redirect ISCA action, with a short and plain public explanation for the result.

International Scientific Cooperation

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Briefly recalling the following history:

1. The General Assembly founded the World Assembly Science Programme (WASP) with GAR #87, giving it the original mission of housing a meteorological agency to support agriculture and other economic activities and freedoms.
2. The General Assembly later passed GAR #92, the Cooperation in Science Act, to make international scientific inquiry an end in and of itself; expanding WASP's mission to include research and dissemination of data across a broad category of science.
3. The Cooperation in Science Act was repealed by GAR #319, because it proved too political, and also it did not do enough, and also it was paid for by special interests, and it generally needed a broader mandate and more oversight, and because of the children.
4. The Cooperation in Science Act was replaced by GAR #322, On Scientific Cooperation, which was later repealed by GAR #594, because it collected too much data, and allowed too much censorship, but also did not let WASP do enough to censor things, and because it did not sufficiently define science.
5. On Scientific Cooperation was replaced by GAR #604, Access to Scientific Knowledge, which sought to fix the errors identified in the repeal of On Scientific Cooperation but failed to do so and was itself repealed in short order by GAR #612 after an ethics scandal involving research subject confidentiality.

Convinced of the merits of international scientific cooperation (as both a means to a better future and an end in and of itself) despite past difficulties in coming to a comfortable international model on the subject.

Recognizing that each member nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or to dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to steer clear of prior problems in scientific cooperation legislation by building a basic framework for international scientific cooperation, without making demands that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, or result in ethical quandaries and similar problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly enacts the following provisions:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution:

1. "Science" or "scientific" refers to activity involving the systematic exploration and study of the world (including through hypothesis, experiment, observation, and analysis), which is intended to produce or contribute to knowledge, and which is capable of being critically analyzed by others.
2. References to "member nations" include the member nations' governments, public and private organizations, and citizens.
3. "Peer review" means having an expert or group of experts in a particular scientific field review a piece of scientific work done in that field, and provide written feedback commenting on the validity of the work's methods, findings, and conclusions.

Article II: Founding the International Scientific Cooperation Agency
The International Scientific Cooperation Agency (ISCA) is hereby established within the World Assembly Science Programme. ISCA's primary budget shall be allocated from the general funds of the World Assembly. ISCA may receive supplemental charitable donations given anonymously. ISCA may not accept any funds from any source if the funds are contingent on ISCA pursuing a particular policy or viewpoint. ISCA is tasked with the following primary duties:

1. To establish an international forum or medium for the free exchange of scientific ideas.
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them.
3. To provide reasonable support upon request for the joint international scientific studies and science projects undertaken by member nations, including any support specifically directed by World Assembly resolutions.

Article III: Grants and Symposiums

1. ISCA shall periodically organize and host symposiums on science topics as requested by member nations. ISCA shall ensure that all member nations have reasonable and convenient access to ISCA symposiums.
2. Member nations may request that ISCA provide monetary support (grants) in requested amounts for their science projects. ISCA shall award grants in reasonable amounts up to the full amount requested based on the overall cost of the project, the potential benefit to the international community, and the competing obligation to fund other worthy projects. Issuance of ISCA grants is conditional on an agreement that the project will be conducted according to all applicable ethical standards, and that the results of the project will be submitted to ISCA for inclusion in the international science database.

Article IV: Rights of Member Nations
Member nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISCA:

1. The right to determine whether their scientific literature or any part thereof may be received by ISCA, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, copyright, ethics, and security.
2. The right to have ISCA treat all types of science and all scientific submissions equally, without prejudice to political viewpoint or deference to established dogma or consensus, and regardless of controversiality.
3. The right to equal and convenient access to the content maintained in ISCA's scientific database, provided they have contributed science of their own for the use and consideration of the international public or are making good faith efforts to do so.
4. The right to determine what scientific inquiry to pursue at their national level, whether to pursue a scientific inquiry with aid from other nations, and whether to share the fruits of their scientific endeavors, except as may be explicitly directed by World Assembly resolutions.

Article V: Responsible Research Standards
Recognizing that ethical and academic standards for science have developed and evolved over time, and that reasonable nations continue to grapple with the finer points of scientific ethics, the following provisions apply to ISCA submissions and publications:

1. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions comply with their national scientific ethical standards and internationally-established scientific ethical standards;
2. ISCA will evaluate each submission for compliance with ethical principles (including matters such as research subject confidentiality) prior to publication in the ISCA database. If a particular submission does not meet relevant ethical standards, ISCA will explain the deficiency to the submitting member nation and refuse publication pending resubmission in compliance with the standards.
3. Member nations must ensure their ISCA submissions have gone through peer review prior to submission, and that a copy of the peer review commentary is provided along with the submission.
4. ISCA will evaluate each submission for compliance with peer review standards prior to publication in the ISCA database. If a particular submission does not meet relevant peer review standards, ISCA will explain the deficiency to the submitting member nation and refuse publication pending resubmission in compliance with the standards.
5. To ensure openness and transparency in science, ISCA will annotate each of its publications to indicate if some information from the original has been redacted for ethical reasons and state the ethical principle involved. ISCA will also annotate publications to indicate if they received substantial negative treatment from peer review.

Article VI: Oversight Board
Recognizing the potential for a science agency to be unduly politicized if it does not have sufficient oversight, the International Scientific Cooperation Oversight Board (ISCOB) is established with the following duties:

1. To hear and resolve any complaints or appeals from member nations alleging that they were improperly denied ISCA database access, publication, or grant money, or were otherwise aggrieved by any other act or omission within ISCA's jurisdiction, and
2. Following complaint or appeal, to either affirm or disaffirm and redirect ISCA action, as appropriate, with a short and plain public explanation for the result.

International Scientific Cooperation

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Briefly recalling the following history:

1. The General Assembly founded the World Assembly Science Programme (WASP) with GAR #87, giving it the original mission of housing a meteorological agency to support agriculture and other economic activities and freedoms.
2. The General Assembly later passed GAR #92, the Cooperation in Science Act, to make international scientific inquiry an end in and of itself; expanding WASP's mission to include research and dissemination of data across a broad category of science.
3. The Cooperation in Science Act was repealed by GAR #319, because it proved too political, and also it did not do enough, and also it was paid for by special interests, and it generally needed a broader mandate and more oversight, and because of the children.
4. The Cooperation in Science Act was replaced by GAR #322, On Scientific Cooperation, which was later repealed by GAR #594, because it collected too much data, and allowed too much censorship, but also did not let WASP do enough to censor things, and something about confusion between science and pseudoscience.
5. On Scientific Cooperation was replaced by GAR #604, Access to Scientific Knowledge, which sought to fix the errors identified in the repeal of On Scientific Cooperation but failed to do so and was itself repealed in short order by GAR #612 after an ethics scandal involving research subject confidentiality.

Convinced of the merits of international scientific cooperation (as both a means to a better future and an end in and of itself) despite past difficulties in coming to a comfortable international model on the subject.

Recognizing that each member nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or to dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to steer clear of prior problems in scientific cooperation legislation by building a basic framework for international scientific cooperation, without making demands that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, or result in ethical quandaries and similar problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly enacts the following provisions:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution, "science" or "scientific" refers to activity involving the systematic exploration and study of the world (including through hypothesis, experiment, observation, and analysis), which is intended to produce or contribute to knowledge, and which is capable of being critically analyzed by others.

Article II: Founding the International Scientific Cooperation
The International Scientific Cooperation (ISC) is hereby established within the World Assembly Science Programme. The ISC's primary budget shall be allocated from the general funds of the World Assembly. The ISC may receive supplemental charitable donations anonymously from member nations and their inhabitants. The ISC may not accept any funds from any source if the funds are contingent on ISC pursuing a particular policy or viewpoint. The ISC is tasked with the following primary duties:

1. To establish an international forum or medium for the free exchange of scientific ideas.
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them.
3. To provide reasonable support upon request for the joint international scientific studies and science projects undertaken by member nations, including any support specifically directed by World Assembly resolutions.

Article III: Grants and Symposiums

1. The ISC shall periodically organize and host symposiums on science topics as requested by member nations. ISC shall ensure that all member nations have reasonable and convenient access to ISC symposiums.
2. Member nations may request that ISC provide monetary support (grants) in requested amounts for their science projects. ISC shall award grants in reasonable amounts up to the amount requested based on the overall cost of the project, the potential benefit to the international community, and the competing obligations to fund other worthy projects. Issuance of ISC grants is conditional on an agreement that the project will be conducted according to all applicable ethical standards, and that the results of the project will be submitted to ISC for inclusion in the international science database.

Article IV: Rights of Member Nations
Member nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISC:

1. The right to determine whether their scientific literature or any part thereof may be received by ISC, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, copyright, ethics, and security.
2. The right to have ISC treat all types of science and all scientific submissions equally, without prejudice to political viewpoint or deference to established dogma or consensus, and regardless of controversiality.
3. The right to equal and convenient access to the content maintained in ISC's scientific database, provided they have contributed science of their own for the use and consideration of the international public or are making good faith efforts to do so.
4. The right to determine what scientific inquiry to pursue at their national level, whether to pursue a scientific inquiry with aid from other nations, and whether to share the fruits of their scientific endeavors, except as may be explicitly directed by World Assembly resolutions.

Article V: Ethical Research Compliance
Recognizing that ethical standards for science have developed and evolved over time, and that reasonable nations continue to grapple with the finer points of scientific ethics, the following provisions apply to ISC submissions and publications:

1. Member nations must ensure their ISC submissions comply with their national scientific ethical standards and internationally-established scientific ethical standards;
2. The ISC will evaluate each submission for compliance with ethical principles (including matters such as research subject confidentiality) prior to publication in an ISC database. If a particular submission does not meet relevant ethical standards, ISC will explain the deficiency to the submitting member nation and refuse publication pending resubmission in compliance with the standards.
3. To ensure openness and transparency in science, the ISC will annotate each of its publications to indicate if some information from the original has been redacted for ethical reasons, and state the ethical principle involved.

Article VI: Oversight Board
Recognizing the potential for a science agency to be unduly politicized if it does not have sufficient oversight, the ISC Oversight Board (ISCOB) is established with the following duties:

1. To hear and resolve any complaints or appeals from member nations alleging that they were improperly denied access to ISC's database or grant money, or were otherwise aggrieved by any other act or omission within ISC's jurisdiction, and
2. Following complaint or appeal, to either publicly affirm or publicly disaffirm and direct ISC action, as appropriate, with a short and plain public explanation for the result.

International Scientific Cooperation

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Briefly recalling the following history:

1. The General Assembly founded the World Assembly Science Programme (WASP) with GAR #87, giving it the original mission of housing a meteorological agency to support agriculture and other economic activities and freedoms.
2. The General Assembly later passed GAR #92, the Cooperation in Science Act, to make international scientific inquiry an end in and of itself; expanding WASP's mission to include research and dissemination of data across a broad category of science.
3. The Cooperation in Science Act was repealed by GAR #319, because it proved too political, and also it did not do enough, and also it did not pay for itself, and it generally needed a broader mandate and more oversight, and because of the children.
4. The Cooperation in Science Act was replaced by GAR #322, On Scientific Cooperation, which was later repealed by GAR #594, because it collected too much data, and allowed too much censorship, but also did not let WASP do enough to censor things, and something about confusion between science and pseudoscience.
5. On Scientific Cooperation was replaced by GAR #604, Access to Scientific Knowledge, which sought to fix the errors identified in the repeal of On Scientific Cooperation but failed to do so and was itself repealed in short order by GAR #612 after an ethics scandal involving research subject confidentiality.

Convinced of the merits of international scientific cooperation (as both a means to a better future and an end in and of itself) despite past difficulties in coming to a comfortable international model on the subject.

Recognizing that each member nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or to dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to steer clear of prior problems in scientific cooperation legislation by building a basic framework for international scientific cooperation, without making demands that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, or result in ethical quandaries and similar problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly enacts the following provisions:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution, "science" or "scientific" refers to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the world (including through observation, analysis, and experiment), which is intended to produce or contribute to knowledge, and which is capable of being critically analyzed by others.

Article II: Founding the International Science Cooperation
The International Scientific Cooperation (ISC) is hereby established within the World Assembly Science Programme, and tasked with the following duties:

1. To establish an international forum or medium for the free exchange of scientific ideas;
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them;
3. To provide support upon request for the joint international scientific studies and science projects undertaken by member nations, including support for scientific cooperative endeavors specifically directed by future World Assembly resolutions;

Article III: Rights of Member Nations
Member nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISC:

1. The right to determine whether the their scientific literature or any part thereof may be received by ISC, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, ethics, and security.
2. The right to have ISC treat all types of science and all scientific submissions equally, without prejudice to political viewpoint or deference to established dogma or consensus, and regardless of controversiality.
3. The right to equal and convenient access to the content maintained in ISC's scientific database, provided they have contributed science of their own for the use and consideration of the international public or are making good faith efforts to do so.
4. The right to determine what scientific inquiry to pursue at their national level, whether to pursue a scientific inquiry with aid from other nations, and whether to share the fruits of their scientific endeavors, except as may be explicitly directed by future World Assembly resolutions.

Article IV: Ethical Research Compliance
Recognizing that ethical standards for science have developed and evolved over time, and that reasonable nations continue to grapple with the finer points of scientific ethics, the following provisions apply to ISC submissions and publications:

1. Member nations must ensure their ISC submissions comply with their national scientific ethical standards and internationally-established scientific ethical standards;
2. The ISC will evaluate each submission for compliance with ethical principles (including matters such as research subject confidentiality) prior to publication in an ISC database. If a particular submission does not meet relevant ethical standards, ISC will explain the deficiency to the submitting member nation and refuse publication pending resubmission in compliance with the standards.
3. To ensure openness and transparency in science, the ISC will annotate each of its publications to indicate if some information from the original has been redacted for ethical reasons, and state the ethical principle involved.

International Cooperation in Science

~*~*~*~ Education and Creativity ~*~*~*~ Education ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Briefly recalling the following history on this subject:

1. The General Assembly founded the World Assembly Science Programme (WASP) with GAR #87, giving it the original mission of housing a meteorological agency to support agriculture and other economic activities and freedoms.
2. The General Assembly later passed GAR #92, the Cooperation in Science Act, to make international scientific inquiry an end in and of itself; expanding WASP's mission to include research and dissemination of data across a broad category of science.
3. The Cooperation in Science Act was repealed by GAR #319, because it proved too political, and also it did not do enough, and also it did not pay for itself, and it generally needed a broader mandate and more oversight, and because of the children.
4. The Cooperation in Science Act was replaced by GAR #322, On Scientific Cooperation, which was later repealed by GAR #594, because it collected too much data, and allowed too much censorship, but also did not let WASP do enough to censor things, and something about confusion between science and psudo-science.
5. On Scientific Cooperation was replaced by GAR #604, Access to Scientific Knowledge, which sought to fix the errors identified in the repeal of On Scientific Cooperation but failed to do so and was itself repealed in short order by GAR #612 after an ethics scandal involving research subject confidentiality.

Convinced of the merits of international scientific cooperation as both a means to a better future and an end in and of itself, despite our past difficulties in coming to a comfortable international model for mutual scientific benefit and growth.

Recognizing that each Member Nation has its own interest in the scientific progress made by its people, and that other nations have no right to demand the fruits of that labor or to dictate how it will be handled.

Deciding to steer clear of prior problems in scientific cooperation legislation by building a basic framework for international scientific cooperation, without making demands on Member Nations that frustrate scientific progress, politicize scientific work, or result in ethical quandries and other such problems.

Therefore, the General Assembly enacts the following provisions:

Article I: Definitions
When used in this resolution, "science" or "scientific" means any matter characterized by the scientific method of hypothesizing, experimenting (or otherwise testing a hypothesis), observing the results, and evaluating the hypothesis in light of the results.

Article II: Founding the International Science Cooperation
The International Scientific Cooperation (ISC) is hereby established within the World Assembly Science Programme, and tasked with the following duties:

1. To establish an international forum for the free exchange of scientific ideas;
2. To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them;
3. To provide support for the joint international scientific studies and projects undertaken by Member Nations, upon request;

Article III: Rights of Member Nations
Member Nations shall have the following rights with respect to the ISC:

1. The right to determine whether the Member Nations' scientific literature or any part thereof may be received by ISC, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, ethics, and security.
2. The right to have ISC treat all types of scientific inquiry equally, without prejudice to political viewpoint or deference to established dogma or consensus, and regardless of controversiality.
3. The right to equal access to the content maintained in ISC's scientific database.
4. The right to determine what scientific inquiry to pursue at their national level, and whether to pursue a scientific inquiry with aid from other Member Nations, except as may be explicitly directed by future WA resolutions.

[/list]

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Rough draft incoming but figured better get started on this.

[Attempted Socialism]

I like the definition. It gives credence to my long-held belief that law, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and history are fundamentally non-scientific endeavours, and that unethical human experimentation is integral to the social sciences.


Or, in other words, I suggest you take a look at the drafting thread for the other resolution where we also had this discussion.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I like the definition. It gives credence to my long-held belief that law, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and history are fundamentally non-scientific endeavours, and that unethical human experimentation is integral to the social sciences.


Or, in other words, I suggest you take a look at the drafting thread for the other resolution where we also had this discussion.

Can you point me there, I may have missed it?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

When used in this resolution, "science" or "scientific" means any matter characterized by the scientific method of hypothesizing, experimenting (or otherwise testing a hypothesis), observing the results, and evaluating the hypothesis in light of the results.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. What is this needed for? Everyone knows what constitutes 'science'.

The International Scientific Cooperation (ISC) is hereby established within the World Assembly Science Programme, and tasked with the following duties:
[list=a][*]To establish an international forum for the free exchange of scientific ideas;

'A physical forum? Or an online one? Or something else meant by 'forum'? If the latter, that should be clarified.'

The right to determine whether the Member Nations' scientific literature or any part thereof may be received by ISC, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, ethics, and security.

'Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420: 'Scientific literature is an embarassment and lies and the ISC may not receive it because it will misinform the multiverse!!!''

[Attempted Socialism]

I like the definition. It gives credence to my long-held belief that law, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and history are fundamentally non-scientific endeavours, and that unethical human experimentation is integral to the social sciences.


Or, in other words, I suggest you take a look at the drafting thread for the other resolution where we also had this discussion.

Can you point me there, I may have missed it?

Here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=515097


I'll also just note that a large part of the criticism of Access to Scientific Knowledge was that the CSD did not independently anonymise data; you're making the same mistake here.

[The Orwell Society]

On a preliminary read, I support. I will try and give you some useful feedback after I'm done watching a movie

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I like the definition. It gives credence to my long-held belief that law, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and history are fundamentally non-scientific endeavours, and that unethical human experimentation is integral to the social sciences.

Thanks. I think you're right generally that many studies are not themselves science, although they may be good fodder for scientific inquiry. We can imagine a science of the law or a science of linguistics which forms hypotheses about those subjects, tests them, observes the results, and reevaluates the hypothesis accordingly.

It is in this way that most "social sciences" are sciences.

Or, in other words, I suggest you take a look at the drafting thread for the other resolution where we also had this discussion.

I'll take a look and see what I can pull for a next draft.

When used in this resolution, "science" or "scientific" means any matter characterized by the scientific method of hypothesizing, experimenting (or otherwise testing a hypothesis), observing the results, and evaluating the hypothesis in light of the results.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. What is this needed for? Everyone knows what constitutes 'science'.

Sigh. I would have thought so too, my dear forest, but confusion about the subject is what prompted one of the repeals I mentioned in the preamble.

The International Scientific Cooperation (ISC) is hereby established within the World Assembly Science Programme, and tasked with the following duties:
[list=a][*]To establish an international forum for the free exchange of scientific ideas;

'A physical forum? Or an online one? Or something else meant by 'forum'? If the latter, that should be clarified.'

Just a forum (Oxford defines it as "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged"). Unless there is very strong political will for one form or another I prefer not to get bogged down in a debate with the ephemeral or very distant nations about whether they can access a physical forum, or with the non-magical nations about how they can access the wizard's forum, or with the middle-aged nations about what an "internet" or "online" is.

The right to determine whether the Member Nations' scientific literature or any part thereof may be received by ISC, according to national laws on subjects such as privacy, ethics, and security.

'Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420: 'Scientific literature is an embarassment and lies and the ISC may not receive it because it will misinform the multiverse!!!''

I am considering a quid pro quo model where only nations which contribute to the project may access its fruits (although I realize that creates a whole 'nother layer of regulatory complexity). Anyway, if "Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420" believes scientific literature is just emabrassing misinformation the international community is probably better off without their contributions, don't you think?

I'll also just note that a large part of the criticism of Access to Scientific Knowledge was that the CSD did not independently anonymise data; you're making the same mistake here.

Copy that. I'll review the debate and see if I can enshrine some basic research ethics behaviors for ISC. If you have specific ideas I can incorporate as a short cut please don't be shy in proposing them.

[Attempted Socialism]

I like the definition. It gives credence to my long-held belief that law, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and history are fundamentally non-scientific endeavours, and that unethical human experimentation is integral to the social sciences.

Thanks. I think you're right generally that many studies are not themselves science, although they may be good fodder for scientific inquiry. We can imagine a science of the law or a science of linguistics which forms hypotheses about those subjects, tests them, observes the results, and reevaluates the hypothesis accordingly.

It is in this way that most "social sciences" are sciences.

I... thought the sarcasm was blatant enough to be picked up.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Thanks. I think you're right generally that many studies are not themselves science, although they may be good fodder for scientific inquiry. We can imagine a science of the law or a science of linguistics which forms hypotheses about those subjects, tests them, observes the results, and reevaluates the hypothesis accordingly.

It is in this way that most "social sciences" are sciences.

I... thought the sarcasm was blatant enough to be picked up.

No, I didn't follow. Many humanities are not scientific. The law is not scientific. One may approach the study of the law in a more-or-less scientific way, but at the end of the day the law is a human institution driven by human wants and needs, not the careful result of a scientific process of testing, observation, and analysis.

What point were you trying to make with sarcasm?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. What is this needed for? Everyone knows what constitutes 'science'.

Sigh. I would have thought so too, my dear forest, but confusion about the subject is what prompted one of the repeals I mentioned in the preamble.

'I don't think that a definition of an obvious term is necessary to resolve that, as it is more likely than not that 'sciences' may be misdefined, as Ambassador Illum has pointed out. Just require the ISC to not publish information that does not meet a standard of peer review and replicability.'

'A physical forum? Or an online one? Or something else meant by 'forum'? If the latter, that should be clarified.'

Just a forum (Oxford defines it as "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged"). Unless there is very strong political will for one form or another I prefer not to get bogged down in a debate with the ephemeral or very distant nations about whether they can access a physical forum, or with the non-magical nations about how they can access the wizard's forum, or with the middle-aged nations about what an "internet" or "online" is.

'Then use the word 'medium', rather than 'forum'.'

'Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420: 'Scientific literature is an embarassment and lies and the ISC may not receive it because it will misinform the multiverse!!!''

I am considering a quid pro quo model where only nations which contribute to the project may access its fruits (although I realize that creates a whole 'nother layer of regulatory complexity). Anyway, if "Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420" believes scientific literature is just emabrassing misinformation the international community is probably better off without their contributions, don't you think?

'Would it not be better for member states to be required to provide the ISC with scientific information? Moreover, I don't agree that contributions of Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420 is necessarily a bad thing. The information would not be pseudoscientific if the ISC is tasked with checking the information for accuracy, and that a nation's government is pseudoscientific does not mean that research published there is necessarily also pseudoscientific. There is nothing to lose, but much new information in the sciences to gain from such mandatory provision.'

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

'Would it not be better for member states to be required to provide the ISC with scientific information? Moreover, I don't agree that contributions of Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420 is necessarily a bad thing. The information would not be pseudoscientific if the ISC is tasked with checking the information for accuracy, and that a nation's government is pseudoscientific does not mean that research published there is necessarily also pseudoscientific. There is nothing to lose, but much new information in the sciences to gain from such mandatory provision.'

Do others feel the same: that it is appropriate for the WA to demand and compel access to the scientific literature of member nations?

[Attempted Socialism]

I... thought the sarcasm was blatant enough to be picked up.

No, I didn't follow. Many humanities are not scientific. The law is not scientific. One may approach the study of the law in a more-or-less scientific way, but at the end of the day the law is a human institution driven by human wants and needs, not the careful result of a scientific process of testing, observation, and analysis.

What point were you trying to make with sarcasm?

So you're purposefully excluding from your paper database ("To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them;") the humanities, mathematics, and much of social science, because of your own limited understanding of science.

Thank you for being very clear and up front on that, it makes it very easy to be opposed.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

No, I didn't follow. Many humanities are not scientific. The law is not scientific. One may approach the study of the law in a more-or-less scientific way, but at the end of the day the law is a human institution driven by human wants and needs, not the careful result of a scientific process of testing, observation, and analysis.

What point were you trying to make with sarcasm?

So you're purposefully excluding from your paper database ("To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them;") the humanities, mathematics, and much of social science, because of your own limited understanding of science.

Thank you for being very clear and up front on that, it makes it very easy to be opposed.

Now now, no need to be so cranky. How would you define the concept?

I think establishing a publicly-accessible database for the humanities and mathematics and painting and art and etc. is a worthwhile endeavor but I don't understand why they need to be lumped in with the database for science. I'm not closed minded on the matter, it just seemed to me better to let each subject stand apart. After all, nations may be more guarded with their scientific research than with the cultural products of their work in humanities (or, sometimes, it's the other way around).

[Attempted Socialism]

So you're purposefully excluding from your paper database ("To receive submissions of scientific experiments, studies, articles, comments, notes, and other papers, and to establish a publicly-accessible database for them;") the humanities, mathematics, and much of social science, because of your own limited understanding of science.

Thank you for being very clear and up front on that, it makes it very easy to be opposed.

Now now, no need to be so cranky. How would you define the concept?

I think establishing a publicly-accessible database for the humanities and mathematics and painting and art and etc. is a worthwhile endeavor but I don't understand why they need to be lumped in with the database for science. I'm not closed minded on the matter, it just seemed to me better to let each subject stand apart. After all, nations may be more guarded with their scientific research than with the cultural products of their work in humanities (or, sometimes, it's the other way around).

I'm not cranky. I just don't think someone who isn't aware of, say, the IRL thousands of scientific law journals (4690 with "law" in their title on the Master Journals list), scientific philosophy journals (7050 with "philosophy" in their title), scientific mathematics journals (12740 with "mathematics" in their title), scientific history journals (11890 with "history" in their title) and so on should be refusing their scientific status or comparing them to a publishing of a painting.

One of the heaviest single books I have in my home is the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. It's a scientific work examining, as the title indicates, constitutional law across time and space. But to you, apparently, it's a painting, because it doesn't engage in experiments by randomly selecting people for treatment and control groups with different constitutions.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“I see no major errors. And the definition is necessary to narrow down which specific field the resolution addresses, since multiple fields of work include the word ‘science’. The Clevesian people support this.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Now now, no need to be so cranky. How would you define the concept?

I think establishing a publicly-accessible database for the humanities and mathematics and painting and art and etc. is a worthwhile endeavor but I don't understand why they need to be lumped in with the database for science. I'm not closed minded on the matter, it just seemed to me better to let each subject stand apart. After all, nations may be more guarded with their scientific research than with the cultural products of their work in humanities (or, sometimes, it's the other way around).

I'm not cranky. I just don't think someone who isn't aware of, say, the IRL thousands of scientific law journals (4690 with "law" in their title on the Master Journals list), scientific philosophy journals (7050 with "philosophy" in their title), scientific mathematics journals (12740 with "mathematics" in their title), scientific history journals (11890 with "history" in their title) and so on should be refusing their scientific status or comparing them to a publishing of a painting.

One of the heaviest single books I have in my home is the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. It's a scientific work examining, as the title indicates, constitutional law across time and space. But to you, apparently, it's a painting, because it doesn't engage in experiments by randomly selecting people for treatment and control groups with different constitutions.

I defined science as it would have been understood by its early practitioners; the ones who used a system of hypothesis, testing, observation, and rigorous analysis to draw conclusions about the natural world and lead us out of the dark ages, into the enlightenment.

I do see your point. I feel that philosophizing about science (i.e. what it means to "know" something, what it means for something to have occurred, whether observations by a subjective observer can ever truly lead to objective conclusions, etc.) may be appropriate fodder for a science database. I suspect there may be similar work done in fields like "marine science and the law" where academic study (though perhaps not traditional observational science) is done on how two important human subjects intersect and interact with one another.

Again, if you want to work with me on a better definition of what should be included I'm 100% interested. If we can work together to find a suitably broad and narrow definition it would definitely improve the draft.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'm not cranky. I just don't think someone who isn't aware of, say, the IRL thousands of scientific law journals (4690 with "law" in their title on the Master Journals list), scientific philosophy journals (7050 with "philosophy" in their title), scientific mathematics journals (12740 with "mathematics" in their title), scientific history journals (11890 with "history" in their title) and so on should be refusing their scientific status or comparing them to a publishing of a painting.

One of the heaviest single books I have in my home is the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. It's a scientific work examining, as the title indicates, constitutional law across time and space. But to you, apparently, it's a painting, because it doesn't engage in experiments by randomly selecting people for treatment and control groups with different constitutions.

I defined science as it would have been understood by its early practitioners; the ones who used a system of hypothesis, testing, observation, and rigorous analysis to draw conclusions about the natural world and lead us out of the dark ages, into the enlightenment.

I'm not sure who this is referring to. Galileo is often said to be the first scientist, but apparently not, as he did not put forth what we would consider hypotheses to test and affirm or falsify. Are we then in the territory of the Rationalists, who lend their name to the Age of Reason? No, we can't be. Empiricists? But they were lambasted by later scientists (Even the heirs holding to logical positivism) for not setting up their hypothesis in advance and ready to test it. It sounds close to the Popperian falsification demarcation. While a bold claim, I don't think many scholars would regard Popperian critical rationalists as early practitioners of science.

I do see your point. I feel that philosophizing about science (i.e. what it means to "know" something, what it means for something to have occurred, whether observations by a subjective observer can ever truly lead to objective conclusions, etc.) may be appropriate fodder for a science database. I suspect there may be similar work done in fields like "marine science and the law" where academic study (though perhaps not traditional observational science) is done on how two important human subjects intersect and interact with one another.

Again, if you want to work with me on a better definition of what should be included I'm 100% interested. If we can work together to find a suitably broad and narrow definition it would definitely improve the draft.

This is why I referred to the earlier thread. I went over my (IC) reasoning in some detail, though the specifics applied to that draft.

"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.

What I might ask is, why do you insist on excluding the scientists and scientific journals of any number of fields, such as law, history, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, as well as all the sciences where experiments on sapient beings would be grossly unethical and are thus not done? Why, if you want to promote international scientific cooperation, are these fields deliberately kept out?

[Honeydewistania]

Psudo-science -> pseudoscience

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

Galileo totally counts as a scientist in the way I describe. He's literally the father of observational astronomy. He observed the motion of the heavenly bodies, analyzed the information mathematically, and concluded (hypothesized) from his observations and math that Copernicus was likely right about the earth revolving around the sun. But nevermind.

I am happy to try a broader definition, which you will see in the above draft. While I have incorporated your ideas, I worry about defining science by what it is subjectively "intended" to do. With all due respect to the learned professor, defining science based on the subjective intentions of people seems to make the whole thing feel less scientific. An artist may paint a leaf falling from the tree and say that they intended thereby to improve world knowledge of what a falling leaf looks like, but we would hardly say that makes the endeavor more or less scientific. Edit: Then again, there is a long tradition of natural scientists sketching their observations, including our friend Darwin; so perhaps the artist is being scientific after all.

Nonetheless, you seem to have strong views on this and are probably better versed in the subject than I personally am. No one is smarter than the combined knowledge of their peers, so I'll go with you unless there comes substantial pushback.

Psudo-science -> pseudoscience

Thanks.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Alright, I had some time to really play around with this concept and the criticism of my spelling made me look back at those prior resolutions and see if I had really addressed the legitimate prior concerns. I might be going overboard at this point and I don't remember if I'm over the character limit or not.

I adopted AS's vision for the definition of science (while still including a reference to the elementary school-version of the concept which my kid would understand).

I made some changes for the Forest of Aeneas although, notably, I didn't compel nations like Antiscientific World Assembly Colony 69420 to turn over their embarrassing misinformation about science.

Here are the features in brief I tried for in the present draft, which might be controversial:

1. Member Nations are not compelled to turn over their science literature to the WA
2. A whole article is dedicated to ethical concerns
3. There is a quid pro quo system to incentivize participation, whereby member nations get access to the international database if they contribute to it or are making good faith efforts to do so.
4. There is grant money available, if member nations agree to make the fruit of those grants public.
5. There is an oversight committee, to depoliticize things.

[Tinhampton]

"the International Scientific Cooperation" sounds like an action, not an organisation.

"the their" in Article IV.a is a typo.

[Attempted Socialism]

*snip*

Galileo totally counts as a scientist in the way I describe. He's literally the father of observational astronomy. He observed the motion of the heavenly bodies, analyzed the information mathematically, and concluded (hypothesized) from his observations and math that Copernicus was likely right about the earth revolving around the sun. But nevermind.

I am happy to try a broader definition, which you will see in the above draft. While I have incorporated your ideas, I worry about defining science by what it is subjectively "intended" to do. With all due respect to the learned professor, defining science based on the subjective intentions of people seems to make the whole thing feel less scientific. An artist may paint a leaf falling from the tree and say that they intended thereby to improve world knowledge of what a falling leaf looks like, but we would hardly say that makes the endeavor more or less scientific. Edit: Then again, there is a long tradition of natural scientists sketching their observations, including our friend Darwin; so perhaps the artist is being scientific after all.

I can't speak for your experience, but science is very much a social phenomenon, with all the inherited issues of being an enterprise by fallible humans. While the natural sciences attempt to distance themselves from being a human endeavour, they still make fundamental ontological assumptions ("Core wagers" to borrow from Jackson) that lead them down certain paths, but which cannot be subject to evidence because the ontology itself defines what constitutes evidence. I find Kuhns contributions essential to have in mind here, that science is developed within a paradigm (Or, if you'll allow the Marxist terminology, under the umbrella of a superstructure), and that paradigm is a social construct. Science cannot be divorced from the human condition.

Nonetheless, you seem to have strong views on this and are probably better versed in the subject than I personally am. No one is smarter than the combined knowledge of their peers, so I'll go with you unless there comes substantial pushback.

One of my heroes at my faculty described the Great Debates in international relations as a long-lasting civil war and later compared the neopositivists trying to apply their methods to IR as the Sith building the Deathstar and at another point as the Germans going through Belgium. I think he was intentionally hyperbolic the second time (Given that it was one of his disciples who introduced me to Analogies at War). After... gosh, has it been 8 years? ... in the trenches I am passionate on this topic, yes. I also find The Conduct of Inquiry to be the only philosophy of science textbook that I enjoy re-reading. It still excites the passions half a decade later.

I'll sleep on your new draft and see if I have some ideas but for now I'll just withdraw my opposition.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*
I'll sleep on your new draft and see if I have some ideas but for now I'll just withdraw my opposition.

Thanks!

"the International Scientific Cooperation" sounds like an action, not an organisation.

"the their" in Article IV.a is a typo.

Typo fixed summarily.

Re: committee name. Maybe if I threw in a hyphen it would look more correct? "International Scientific Co-Operation" or "ISCO"? I could be boring and put Agency, or Committee, or Organization after it? Maybe the Scientific Cooperation Initiative so it can be shortened to SCI?

Clever naming is not my strong suit.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

'International Scientific Cooperation Organisation'