EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Scientific Research

StealthRolex

Under Lisbon the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes law.

This provides for the conducting of scientific research without constraint.

Article 13


Freedom of the arts and sciences

The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.

The only protections provided are to humans and are limited in Article 3 to

Article 3

Right to the integrity of the person


1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.


2. In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular:

-- the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law,


-- the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons,

-- the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain,


-- the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings.


Our guarantees not withstanding what protections are there to limit vivisection, embryo research or other forms of research that could be considered unethical in the other countries of europe.

In other words do you consider the right of scientists to operate constraint free to be a good thing?

marco_polo

I am very much in favour of freedom of thought and expression in the Sciences. Is there some reason why this would be undesirable?

Article 13 Freedom of the arts and sciences

The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.

Explanation
This right is deduced primarily from the right to freedom of thought and expression. It is to be exercised having regard to Article 1 and may be subject to the limitations authorised by Article 10 of the ECHR.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0017:0035:EN:PDF

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

Our guarantees not withstanding what protections are there to limit vivisection, embryo research in the other countries of europe.

In other words do you consider the right of scientists to operate constraint free to be a good thing?

1. let me highlight other countries of europe - for the same reasons other countries cant tell Ireland what to do, we cant tell them what to do

2. when you are lying on your deathbed and the disease you have could have been prevented by stem cell research, i sure hope you remember this thread

3. limiting science is what extreme religious fundamentalists (hello Coir) would love to do in order to drag us into their Taliban like feudal system

StealthRolex

Marco_polo

Freedom of expression is one thing. What this is referring to is the actual physical act of conducting research. While Dr. Mengele is dead and Dr. Frankenstein is a work of fiction the question here is should scientific research be allow, and supported in law, to be conducted without regard to ethics.
If freedom of expression was an argument then there would be no limits to anything.

ei.sdraob with all due respect:

1. EU directives frequently do tell Ireland what to do.

2. there are variations on stem cell research and not all are embryo or human embryo sourced. (note - original post edited for clarity). I do know my own mind on these issues so there will be no need for me to recall this thread.

3. Limiting the work of scientists is an ethical consideration and has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism - doctors are scientists and must work within ethical considerations. cf. medical jurisprudence.

The point I am attempting to make is in regards to allowing all forms of scientific research - nuclear, medical, physical, chemical, biological to be performed without constraint.

Many would consider the Taser device to be an unethical weapon as an example. There are differing attitudes to nuclear devices however many would consider most military research in the weaponry and anti personnel areas to be unethical. Leaving aside issues that would appear to be pertinent to Ireland alone (human embryos are not mentioned or implied in my original or edited post).

So, without reducing this to a Coir issue can we discuss the relative merits of restraint free scientific research?

Is the freedom to conduct scientific research with no limitations, bar those contained with the CHR which appear to be minimal, a scientific right?

PopeBuckfastXVI

The EU cannot ban certain types of research, but the member states can?

Big deal.

marco_polo

How did I know that Frankenstein was coming?

It is not unrestricted as I have pointed out previously, but which seems to have been ignored. Any individual rights are always subject to some limitations and balanced against the "common good" of society so to speak. This is no different.

Explanation on Article 13 — Freedom of the arts and sciences
This right is deduced primarily from the right to freedom of thought and expression. It is to be exercised having regard to Article 1 and may be subject to the limitations authorised by Article 10 of the ECHR.

Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_10_-_expression

Tasers are a product of engineering by the way.

ei.sdraob

Anyone else find it highly ironic

that the OP is using a computer connected via internet to boards.ie servers in order to post an anti Science/Technology thread



rofl

StealthRolex wrote:

1. EU directives frequently do tell Ireland what to do.

they tell ALL members what to do and are agreed by ALL members with the approval of ALL ministers of each country (and yes that includes Irelands representatives)

do I really need to explain again how the EU works?

StealthRolex wrote:

2. there are variations on stem cell research and not all are embryo or human embryo sourced. (note - original post edited for clarity). I do know my own mind on these issues so there will be no need for me to recall this thread.
.

Once again you dont know the outcome of research until (well duh) you researched it

It would be highly fitting so see certain medical research banned and then the people opposing this research contracting a disease that may have been curable

who are you to deprive people of hope and technology that can save / prolong their lives :mad:

StealthRolex wrote:

3. Limiting the work of scientists is an ethical consideration and has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism - doctors are scientists and must work within ethical considerations. cf. medical jurisprudence.
.

Scientists, Engineers and Doctors are already limited by their professional ethical codes of conducts

Its not EUs place to interfere in these long established ethical policies

I myself hold a BSc and MEng degrees and ethics is something we hear alot about and have to keep at the very top of the list when performing any research or constructing new technologies

For example i was involved recently in RFID research, the problems of privacy were at the very top of the list all the times

Once again its not EUs job to interfere, professional organisations have long established codes of conducts and ethical polices

StealthRolex wrote:

The point I am attempting to make is in regards to allowing all forms of scientific research - nuclear, medical, physical, chemical, biological to be performed without constraint.

As i said there are already constraints, obviously since you are not a doctor/scientist/engineer you are not aware of them, but they are there

And by the way yes research into all of the above has led to you being able to sit now in front of a computer and post your opinions, instead of spending time digging for spuds in order to be able to put some food on table

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

How did I know that Frankenstein was coming?

you're psychic? or you were looking for the cheapest shot


[/QUOTE]

marco_polo wrote: »

Tasers are a product of engineering by the way.

and engineering has nothing to do with science?

last time I was involved engineering was an extension of science, or more correctly applied science. Without science there would be no engineering.

Scientific research gave us nuclear and atomic weapons

Engineering gave us the production and delivery

engineering is not science is not an argument or and answer to this question

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Anyone else find it highly ironic

that the OP is using a computer connected via internet to boards.ie servers in order to post an anti Science/Technology thread



rofl

this is not an "anti science/technology" thread. It is a question on ethics or the lack of.

I have no problem with science or technology. I do have a question regarding giving researchers in science licence to operate without restriction.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

this is not an "anti science/technology" thread. It is a question on ethics or the lack of.

I have no problem with science or technology. I do have a question regarding giving researchers in science licence to operate without restriction.

Good thing then that's not what you're talking about. At the very worst reading it says the EU can't restrict scientific research, which is good as it's not it's place to do so. The member states individually still can place any restrictions they want on scientific research, of course, which is good, because it's very much a social/ethical policy which should be decided at member state level.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

Scientific research gave us nuclear and atomic weapons

Engineering gave us the production and delivery

engineering is not science is not an argument or and answer to this question

you logic is very flawed (may I ask, are you a Coir fundamentalist?)


but then again you are not a scientist or engineer, so let me explain



there is no problem with Science/Engineering

the problem is how Science/Engineering

is used in:

* Politics
* Economics
* Commerce



for example a simple metal tube

has well known scientific properties such as melting point, durability etc

engineering can incorporate this tube into a cannon that can kill people


is it the fault of science/engineering that a cannon is used to kill people?


the same tube can be shapped to drill a well or store liquids, in order to provide water in a village


is it the fault of science/engineering that a cylinder can be used to keep people alive?



sigh

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

this is not an "anti science/technology" thread. It is a question on ethics or the lack of.

I have no problem with science or technology. I do have a question regarding giving researchers in science licence to operate without restriction.

And as I have pointed out twice it is not without restriction, and is subject to limitation as laid down within Article 10 of the ECHR.

Quite seperate to this it is also subject to limitation by the national laws of each member state (the COFR is applicable only to within the domain of EU law). Lisbon or the COFR changes nothing in this regard.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

this is not an "anti science/technology" thread. It is a question on ethics or the lack of.

I have no problem with science or technology. I do have a question regarding giving researchers in science licence to operate without restriction.

Science doesn't have a license to operate without restriction

as i told you for the Nth time, various professional bodies have long standing ethical codes (ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath?)

that has nothing to do with EU



you are displaying complete lack of understanding of how science and technology operate and what ethical policies are in place across many disciplines


Your attempt at raising the backward issues that religious fundamentalist nutcases such as Coir have with Science and research will not stick here


so give up now and save face

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Science doesn't have a license to operate without restriction

as i told you for the Nth time, various professional bodies have long standing ethical codes (ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath?)

that has nothing to do with EU



you are displaying complete lack of understanding of how science and technology operate and what ethical policies are in place across many disciplines


Your attempt at raising the backward issues that religious fundamentalist nutcases such as Coir have with Science and research will not stick here


so give up now and save face

The Hippocratic Oath contains references to many things that doctors now perform that they previously did not. As an example from the modern version:

"I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."

I think you will find that there are certain countries where abortion and assisted suicide are acceptable practice. This is not under discussion.

Please do not lump me with those involved in Coir or other organisations.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Hippocratic Oath contains references to many things that doctors now perform that they previously did not. As an example from the modern version:

"I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."

I think you will find that there are certain countries where abortion and assisted suicide are acceptable practice. This is not under discussion.

Please do not lump me with those involved in Coir or other organisations.

I linked to the Oath its an example of a very old Ethical document (2400 years) in medicine, there are many modern versions in multiple fields of science/engineering and research


like you said there are certain countries where certain practices are allowed, same with certain scientific research


it is not the place of these countries to tell us what to do, and neither it is our place to force our ways on others


for example the often "controversial" stem cell research

. In the European Union, stem cell research using the human embryo is permitted in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands; however it is illegal in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal.

you first post in this very thread is based on a false premise

In other words do you consider the right of scientists to operate constraint free to be a good thing?

hence your whole logical argument derived from this is a failure


repeat after me,

it is not the job of the EU or EU Treaties to "constrain" scientific research, the only constraints are with respect to Human rights charter, it is down to individual countries like it is now to decide what and what its not "ethical"

your whole thread is an attempt to spread fud imho, sorry to appear harsh but i will say it as it is, theres no need to tip toe, lets call a spade a spade

/

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you logic is very flawed (may I ask, are you a Coir fundamentalist?)


but then again you are not a scientist or engineer, so let me explain



there is no problem with Science/Engineering

the problem is how Science/Engineering

is used in:

* Politics
* Economics
* Commerce



for example a simple metal tube

has well known scientific properties such as melting point, durability etc

engineering can incorporate this tube into a cannon that can kill people


is it the fault of science/engineering that a cannon is used to kill people?


the same tube can be shapped to drill a well or store liquids, in order to provide water in a village


is it the fault of science/engineering that a cylinder can be used to keep people alive?



sigh

I am a scientist actually and find your rebuttals rather simplistic. Tell me how far did your scientific train go - group cert?

Before going any further I am not currently working in Japan and using whales, or rather the remains they bring in under the guise of "scientific research".

My area of expertise is ballistics and one of the areas we have been discussing is the use of captivity bred primates in the development and assessment of frangible rounds for use in terrorist situations where there is a risk of collateral damage to non-terrorists and alternative methods of incapacitation.
The issue here is we cannot replicate the effects of certain drugs and hormones on an individuals ability to continue to be dangerous despite receiving what to a normal human would be an incapacitating wound, shot placement not withstanding. The current model using anaesthetised cats and rhesus monkeys is insufficient particularly since the advent of the suicide bomber and the development of more complex trigger mechanisms.

It is just a discussion at the moment and as there is the possibility of receiving funding from a military research fund there are concerns as to whether or not we can develop this where we are or will we need to move to an alternate research location. It is entirely possible that we may scrap this line of research for something else or let someone else pursue it. My personal feelings on this issue are separate issue as the threat from terrorists is such that this research is for the greater good.

The issue here is while I have concerns regarding the political issues surrounding this treaty and how it will change the nature of the EU, I am also concerned that the legal position of scientific research may lead to research of a more distaseful nature in the future.

So my question remains - is it right not to impose limits on scientific research or should a line be drawn somewhere?
Currently there is, or rather will be, no line.

If we are allowed to operate constraint free where does it stop. This is not a FUD issue - it is a legitimate question.

In Ireland there are no limits speficied in the Constitution and the law prevails.

In the EU with the CFR becoming legal it is entirely possible that if anyone does find some scientific research to be unethical a legal challenge may set the line in an inaccesible place. Is this a good thing for scientists or the european community as a whole?

Please remember this Treaty is not just about Ireland it is about everyone in Europe. Once ratified we will all be legally citizens of Europe as well as Ireland.

PopeBuckfastXVI

In your opinion should the EU have the right to restrict areas of scientific research within member states?

That's what this boils down to, without all the speeches, analogies and CV's on both sides of the argument.

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

In the EU with the CFR becoming legal it is entirely possible that if anyone does find some scientific research to be unethical a legal challenge may set the line in an inaccesible place. Is this a good thing for scientists or the european community as a whole?

So now your are angling for a reason that is the complete opposite to the one for which you started the thread?

Are there many balistics companies on Da Northside BTW?

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Are there many balistics companies on Da Northside BTW?

That's probably out of order marco...

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Good thing then that's not what you're talking about. At the very worst reading it says the EU can't restrict scientific research, which is good as it's not it's place to do so. The member states individually still can place any restrictions they want on scientific research, of course, which is good, because it's very much a social/ethical policy which should be decided at member state level.

True but unfortunatley having it written in to the CHR means that it is no longer, or may no longer be, a member state issue.

This is the issue - not the nature of the research but should it be supported at such a high level and with no constraint.

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's probably out of order marco...

I am not aware of any ammunitions companies operating in Ireland, if I am mistaken then I will withdraw said remark.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

True but unfortunatley having it written in to the CHR means that it is no longer, or may no longer be, a member state issue.

Incorrect - CFR only applies to EU legislation and Member State legislation implementing EU legislation. Member states are free to restrict what they like using national legislation.

Nothing to see here, move along now folks...

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

So now your are angling for a reason that is the complete opposite to the one for which you started the thread?

angling or not I believe my original question was open.

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

I am not aware of any ammunitions companies operating in Ireland, if I am mistaken then I will withdraw said remark.

For obvious reasons I can neither confirm nor deny nor can I state my current location.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

True but unfortunatley having it written in to the CHR means that it is no longer, or may no longer be, a member state issue.

This is the issue - not the nature of the research but should it be supported at such a high level and with no constraint.

Having anything written into the Charter doesn't, and can't, change whether that thing is a member state issue or not. The Charter only applies to EU legislation, EU institutions, and member state law only when implementing/transcribing EU law. It cannot legally be used to give the EU any new competences.

That's not arguable - it's the case. Therefore, the fact is that the EU currently sets no boundaries on scientific research, and after Lisbon would continue to set no boundaries on scientific research. You therefore have no argument here at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In your opinion should the EU have the right to restrict areas of scientific research within member states?

That's what this boils down to, without all the speeches, analogies and CV's on both sides of the argument.

No - it is my opinion that the EU should not consider scientific research to be a fundamental freedom. But that is my opinion.

I am curious as to how may others would consider it a good thing to have unconstrainted scientific research enshrined as a "Fundamental Right".

Scientific research is a very open term

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Scientific research is a very open term

Oh yeah? How will that be misinterpreted then?

Intelligent Design!?

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having anything written into the Charter doesn't, and can't, change whether that thing is a member state issue or not. The Charter only applies to EU legislation, EU institutions, and member state law only when implementing/transcribing EU law. It cannot legally be used to give the EU any new competences.

That's not arguable - it's the case. Therefore, the fact is that the EU currently sets no boundaries on scientific research, and after Lisbon would continue to set no boundaries on scientific research. You therefore have no argument here at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

With due respect the CFR does not currently have the kind of teeth it will after ratification.

But again my question is, should there be no boundaries?

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Oh yeah? How will that be misinterpreted then?

Intelligent Design!?

This is a political forum - not appropriate to introduce fantasy here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

With due respect the CFR does not currently have the kind of teeth it will after ratification.

But again my question is, should there be no boundaries?

What teeth will it have after ratification? Be specific, list the 'teeth'.

Your question creates a false dichotomy. There should be no boundaries defined by the EU.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

With due respect the CFR does not currently have the kind of teeth it will after ratification.

That's irrelevant, because the Charter is governed by the points I have outlined - it does not create new competences, and it only applies to EU legislation and institutions.

StealthRolex wrote: »

But again my question is, should there be no boundaries?

That's a separate question, since the EU isn't in charge of setting the boundaries. The EU does not set, and has no competence to set, limitations based on public morality, because public morality is part of the self-determination of the character of the member nations (as per the German case).

Those two things together mean that ethical limits on research are not a competence of the EU, and the Charter rights cannot be used to challenge ethical limits set by the member states under national law.

A + B = C.

cordially,
Scofflaw