Article 15(1)(b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). While the interpretation of this provision has not really been a focus of attention in the past, this is changing. A danger lies in construing this provision as entitling states to comprehensively regulate the field of science, at the expense of scientific and academic freedom. Scientific or academic freedom, rather than state regulation, guarantees creativity and innovation in the field of science for the benefit of society at large. This article raises four caveats to guide all those tasked with interpreting Article 15(1)(b) – specifically, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, right now preparing a General Comment on Article 15(1)(b). Firstly, it is crucial to have conceptual clarity of, and understand the differences between, the REBSPA, freedom of science, academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to education. Secondly, science, by its very nature, is not susceptible to being managed. An ‘adequate’ framework for science should limit state intervention and empower the scientific fraternity. Thirdly, regulation has lately often entailed the adoption of a corporatist approach to science in universities and research institutions. This damages science. Fourthly and finally, UNESCO's recent Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers of 2017 constitutes only an imperfect blueprint to guide interpretation of the REBSPA. It fails to address various threats (impact agenda science, peer review, ethical regulation, entrepreneurialisation, accountability excess, absence of rights of participation in governance, and so on) to scientific and academic freedom. Relying throughout on the notion that a science system must be ‘adequate for science’, the article concludes with a set of 22 recommendations on how the REBSPA should be construed so as to duly respect scientific and academic freedom. The current science regime needs to be fundamentally rethought in the light of such freedom. Otherwise – and many experts concur – we shall soon witness the fatal collapse and disintegration of modern science. Freedom as a pillar of science, and of the REBSPA, is in danger of being lost.

中文翻译：

---

所有的科学和学术自由都去哪儿了？什么是“足够的科学”？享受科学进步及其应用利益的权利

《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第 15(1)(b) 条保护人人享有科学进步及其应用（REBSPA）利益的权利。虽然过去对该条款的解释并没有真正成为关注的焦点，但这种情况正在发生变化。危险在于将这一条款解释为赋予国家全面规范科学领域的权利，而牺牲科学和学术自由。科学或学术自由，而不是国家监管，保证了科学领域的创造力和创新，以造福整个社会。本文提出了四个警告，以指导所有负责解释第 15(1)(b) 条的人——特别是联合国经济、社会和文化权利委员会，目前正在准备对第 15(1)(b) 条的一般性评论。首先，对 REBSPA、科学自由、学术自由、言论自由和受教育权有清晰的概念并理解它们之间的区别至关重要。其次，就其本质而言，科学不易被管理。一个“适当的”科学框架应该限制国家干预并赋予科学博爱力量。第三，监管最近经常需要在大学和研究机构中采用社团主义的科学方法。这损害了科学。第四也是最后一点，联合国教科文组织最近发布的 2017 年科学和科学研究人员建议书只是指导 REBSPA 解释的不完美蓝图。它未能解决各种威胁（影响议程科学、同行评审、道德监管、创业、过度问责、缺乏参与治理的权利等）对科学和学术自由的影响。文章始终依赖于科学系统必须“适合于科学”这一概念，最后提出了一套关于如何解释 REBSPA 以充分尊重科学和学术自由的 22 条建议。鉴于这种自由，需要从根本上重新考虑当前的科学制度。否则——许多专家都同意——我们将很快目睹现代科学的致命崩溃和瓦解。作为科学支柱和 REBSPA 的自由，有丧失的危险。文章最后提出了一套关于如何解释 REBSPA 以充分尊重科学和学术自由的 22 条建议。鉴于这种自由，需要从根本上重新考虑当前的科学制度。否则——许多专家都同意——我们将很快目睹现代科学的致命崩溃和瓦解。作为科学支柱和 REBSPA 的自由，有丧失的危险。文章最后提出了一套关于如何解释 REBSPA 以充分尊重科学和学术自由的 22 条建议。鉴于这种自由，需要从根本上重新考虑当前的科学制度。否则——许多专家都同意——我们将很快目睹现代科学的致命崩溃和瓦解。作为科学支柱和 REBSPA 的自由，有丧失的危险。