It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DanielJacksonKree
originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: DanielJacksonKree
How does one steer a hurricane?
You'll have to ask HAARP boys and perhaps all those guys in black ops
2. DECISION-MAKING FOR SRM RESEARCH PROJECTS
Scope and Requirements:
The core of any governance system for SRM research will be the process of making decisions whether or not, or under what conditions and with what restrictions, proposed activities may proceed. No such system now exists, and in its absence any nation may conduct SRM – even at large scale, over its own territory, over others‟ with permission, or at sea – so long as there is no territorial violation or hostile intent. As a practical matter, such activity would no doubt attract immediate pressure from other nations to desist, but no existing international law prohibits or regulates it.
4. TRANSPARENCY IN SRM RESEARCH AND GOVERNANCE
The general presumption in public decision-making is maximal transparency – to support informed decisions, and to guard against incompetence, corruption, or capture of decision making processes. This general presumption applies to SRM, with the high stakes and novelty of the issues conferring even greater than normal need for transparency in several ways.
First, effective assessment and decision-making on research project proposals requires access to all relevant information. For projects of such scale as to require international assessment and approval, there must be full disclosure to the decision process of technical details about the proposed activity and methods; scientific information relevant to assessing resultant risk, including results from similar past activities; prompt access to ongoing data and results once projects are underway; and possibly (as discussed below), information on the identity of project participants, sources of finance, and relevant intellectual property and its owners.
In addition, given widespread suspicion of SRM from many citizens and organizations, building legitimacy of SRM research governance is likely to require broad dissemination of information about what is done, how decisions are made, and what results are observed. This must be made widely available, to national governments, participants in whatever consultative or deliberative processes have been established, and the interested public. In the first instance, the presumption should be that as much as possible of the information generated through project proposals, assessment and approval, implementation, and subsequent monitoring and evaluation, should be subject to such broader distribution – both in raw form and with summaries and syntheses, to allay suspicions that the system is being rigged or risks are being concealed.
There are, however, certain compelling reasons that can over-ride this general presumption for transparency and justify limiting availability of information in specific instances.
These can include:
- Protecting confidential information belonging to individuals or of competitive significance between enterprises or researchers.
- The cost and administrative burden of providing information (This may be particularly significant for small or standardized projects);
- Safety, security, and management of international conflict