Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Scientific Research

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    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?

    This is a stupid question considering you posted the above quote which clearly shows constraints attached to scientific research!

    What is your point?


  • Options
    #33
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    meditraitor wrote: »
    This is a stupid question considering you posted the above quote which clearly shows constraints attached to scientific research!

    What is your point?

    In some cases it is finding out if there is a separation between an ability to type and an ability to read.

    Some of our test subjects can type but so far none can read.


  • Options
    #34
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    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.

    ECJ = teeth.


  • Options
    #35
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    StealthRolex wrote: »

    Some of our test subjects can type but so far none can read.

    Does that not tell you something, if no one else can see what you point is then maybe........... think about it a bit longer.


  • Options
    #36
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    meditraitor wrote: »
    Does that not tell you something, if no one else can see what you point is then maybe........... think about it a bit longer.

    If you read what I posted you would see that I agree that certain limitations have been imposed so outside of those limitations...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    ECJ = teeth.

    You'll need to be more specific. An acronym an equivalence and a noun don't make much of an argument.

    You've already been told that the CFR only applies to EU legislation, and national implementation or transposition of EU legislation. Are you disagreeing with this?


  • Options
    #38
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    If you read what I posted you would see that I agree that certain limitations have been imposed so outside of those limitations...

    Really? Why didnt you write that then, what I read was
    StealthRolex wrote:
    In other words do you consider the right of scientists to operate constraint free to be a good thing?

    I replied to your post (above) as I understood it....

    Certain limitations should and will be imposed on scientific research, these limitations will be set by individual states and the charter will not enforce or force states to relax/increase their own set limitations as long as the research does not exceed the limitations set out in the charter.


  • Options
    #39
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    meditraitor wrote: »
    Really? Why didnt you write that then, what I read was



    I replied to your post (above) as I understood it....

    Certain limitations should and will be imposed on scientific research, these limitations will be set by individual states and the charter will not enforce or force states to relax/increase their own set limitations as long as the research does not exceed the limitations set out in the charter.

    When implementing or transcribing EU law.

    To finish your last sentence...


  • Options
    #40
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    I don't get why the thread is still going, seems to have been sorted by about the 3rd post :confused:


  • Options
    #41
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    It seems some clarification is needed.

    Is there any merit to giving scientific research such a high level of protection if it is constraints are supposed to remain within the laws of the member states?

    To me it is illogical and I am questioned both why it is there and given that it cannot at this stage be removed how it might be used in the future.

    While scientific research is a necessity and while some if it might be distasteful to the save the whale crowd and the tree huggers it, imo, should not be considered a fundamental human right.

    Now, if you will forgive me some of the monkeys have woken up and they're looking for their nuts.

    I had considered sending them to Coir headquarters but I'm not sure they have the right kind of nuts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    It seems some clarification is needed.

    Is there any merit to giving scientific research such a high level of protection if it is constraints are supposed to remain within the laws of the member states?

    To me it is illogical and I am questioned both why it is there and given that it cannot at this stage be removed how it might be used in the future.

    While scientific research is a necessity and while some if it might be distasteful to the save the whale crowd and the tree huggers it, imo, should not be considered a fundamental human right.

    Now, if you will forgive me some of the monkeys have woken up and they're looking for their nuts.

    I had considered sending them to Coir headquarters but I'm not sure they have the right kind of nuts.

    All it does is prevent the EU from passing any laws / directives that suppress Academic Freedom within the limited scope that it has the authority to law down directives / regulations. Specifically this does not include matters of morality etc as pointed out earlier, because these remain soley the responsibility of the member states.

    The full range of EU competencies in the area of science and technology domain are listed in
    Title XIX - RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE of the TFEU.

    And is pretty much limited to the following activities:
    Article 164 [180]
    [ex Art. 164 EC, amended]
    In pursuing these objectives, the Community Union shall carry out the following activities,
    complementing the activities carried out in the Member States:
    (a) implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities;
    (b) promotion of cooperation in the field of Community Union research, technological development and demonstration with third countries and international organisations;
    (c) dissemination and optimisation of the results of activities in Community Union research, technological development and demonstration;
    (d) stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Community Union.


  • Options
    #43
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Yeah its a stay the hell away from these issues clause. They are up to member states.

    Science needs that because different states have very different views on what is acceptable on issues like stem cell research.

    A better way of viewing it might be that it is a "we aren't touching that one with a barge pole" clause.


  • Options
    #44
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    For obvious reasons I can neither confirm nor deny nor can I state my current location.

    I don't really care to be honest, however that since you are fully indending to vote the obvious conclusion I drew was that you are an Irish Citizen resident in the country.

    I just found the posibility that there may be a company based in Ireland that is testing live frangible rounds of ammunition on anaesthetised cats and rhesus monkeys to be slightly surprising.

    Nothing more to say on the matter, feel free not to divulge any more top secret information.


  • Options
    #45
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    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?



    You do realise that embryonic research is being carried out and will continue to be carried out in Ireland regardless of Lisbon right?


  • Options
    #46
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Objective: Present a logically flawed assumption as fact in the hopes of confusing a few more people about the lisbon treaty. Points will be deducted if you expose outright euro-sceptic tendancies - pursue the 'concerned pro-european' to enhance your image as a fellow europhile who has suddenly - and to their unending horror - discovered disturbing undercurrents in the EU project.

    Method: Is it right that $CONTROVERSIAL_TOPIC_IRRELEVANT_TO_LISBON_TREATY will be [disallowed|allowed] if Lisbon is ratified by Ireland? Is it right that the EU are making us [not] do this?



    It's almost like that Daily Mail-o-matic headline maker in it's simplicity.


  • Options
    #47
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    bleg wrote: »
    You do realise that embryonic research is being carried out and will continue to be carried out in Ireland regardless of Lisbon right?

    I think you will find it is stem cell research not embryonic research and uses imported stem cell lines not embryos. Also as Lisbon enshrines no limits in law I fail to see your point.


Advertisement