[DRAFT] Medical Research Grants Provisions

[Vothazortland]

Medical Research Grants Provisions

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Research

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that mandated medical research spending could have a quite positive affect on the quality of healthcare, scientific knowledge, welfare systems and overall greatness of World Assembly Nations, outweighing any negatives;

FURTHER BELIEVING that the additional economic burden created by said mandate would not be unduly hard for the nations of the World Assembly to pay for under their current laws on taxation;

CONVINCED that research, especially in the field of healthcare, is necessary for a country to advance and become better;

SURPRISED that provisions such as these do not already exist;

HEREBY

1. REQUIRES all member nations of the World Assembly to reserve a portion of their yearly budget larger than zero point zero one percent for medical research;
2. EXPECTS that all member nations of the World Assembly divide up said allocated money between state-led research and research grants given to private citizens and organizations for medical research, specifically in the fields of new medicines, new medical procedures, new cures for previously incurable diseases, and new insight into human biology;
3. CREATES the regulations below on who and what may obtain a research grant from this amendment;
(a) Any organization seeking to apply for a grant must be one of science, such as a university, a museum or a laboratory. Prevalence is given to experienced organizations, such as ones with a long history in science, or ones that have published multiple scientific papers;
(b) Any private citizen seeking to apply for a research grant must have post-secondary education from a reputable institute that pertains to what they wish to study. Prevalence is given to citizens with experience working as a researcher;
(c) Any parties wishing to apply must submit a document outlining what they wish to research, how they will do it, and how much money they will require to the nation they wish to receive a grant from. Said nation must then review said document and may only approve the party applying if it meets their standards of ethics and legality, along with using the scientific method, not costing too much money, and having a use in the field of health;
(d) Once a party has met all the requirements above, obtained their grant and begun research, they must submit to an inspection every six months by the nation they received their grant from. This inspection must check that the party:
Has not broken from their outline
Continues to follow ethical and legal standards
Has not misappropriated the funds they were given
If a party has been found to break any of these rules, they must have the remainder of their grant money taken away and used to fund other scientists;
4. RECOMMENDS that any new discoveries in medical research, funded by this mandate or not, be immediately put to use in each nations healthcare system.
5. FURTHER REQUIRES that all nations that have allocated said money must use all of it for research or grants;

Araraukar's Re-Write

The World Assembly,

Believing that adequate funding for medical research is vital for the healthcare that the member nations provide for their inhabitants,

Aware that increased scientific knowledge does not directly translate into quality of said healthcare, but rather makes better quality treatments possible,

Convinced that a healthy population is important for the well-being of a nation, allowing it to excel in other areas as well,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. "medical research" as scientific research done in the field of medicine,
2. "scientific article" as a research report in the field of medicine that is published in a peer-reviewed or otherwise accredited publication;
3. "research grant" as a monetary contribution to be used for medical research,

2. Requires all member nations of the World Assembly to reserve a portion of their yearly budget for medical research, to be distributed at least in part in the form of research grants,

3. Also requires member nations to appoint a governmental agency, council or official to oversee both the granting of and application process for research grants,

4. Encourages member nations to allow both public and private legal entities and institutions to apply for research grants,

5. Sets these requirements for applying for a research grant:

1. The research conducted must apply the scientific method,
2. The research must be conducted in the field of medicine, and follow both national and international laws and guidelines on such research,
3. Prior to the start of the research project, a detailed plan must be made for the research to be conducted as well as for the use of funds,
4. At the end of the research project, a scientific article must be published, along with a final report on the use of funds,
5. If any funds of the research grant are left at the end of the project, they must be returned,

6. Research grant recipients must submit to a governmental audit at any time during their research project, and are encouraged to provide regular reports on their progress and use of funds,

7. If, during the course of the research project a radical deviation from the original plan is required by changing circumstances or new information, a new plan must be submitted and approved before the research grant funds can be used for the new research,

8. Any recipient of a research grant found to be breaking any of the above requirements will be held responsible for the repayment of the government either full or in part, as determined by the government,

9. Encourages member nations to consider both national and international applicants for research grants.

P.S. Feel free to provide constructive criticism, I want this act to be the best it can be before it is proposed. Thank you!

[The Atlae Isles]

OOC: Got here before Araurakar. So, welcome to the GA forums!

Can't tell if this is illegal at the moment. But other people like Separatist Peoples and Imperium Anglorum might chop it up. By chopping it up I mean criticizing it by the policy itself. But here is a list of proposal rules if it can help.

From what I can tell, this might violate GA #219. Here's a list of passed GA resolutions so you don't get conflicted.

But ultimately, I'm glad that you didn't post this draft on the proposal list, like so many others. It helps us a lot. This way, we can help you in the editing process before it becomes law, if it isn't illegal for duplication or contradiction.

[Vothazortland]

Thanks for the help The Atlae Isles! I'll make sure to check out that law you said might be too similar to mine.

[Calladan]

Should there be standards for private medical research? (And maybe even state medical research?)

I am not suggesting that there are.... moral standards (for want of a better phrase) but that if the government is going to hand over tax-payer money to private institutions for them do use, that the research the private institutions are doing should at least be held to some level of professionalism.

I realise it can vary from nation to nation, and that the standards can be national, rather than WA wide, but still - I think ethical and professional standards are not out of line for research when government money is involved.

(Just to make it clear - I am not suggesting the government direct the research itself. That is a recipe for disaster as we have learned time and again! But if the Calladan government is going to hand over what amounts to hundreds of thousands of Coins to LangLabs to do medical research, we don't want to find out they have been conducting research that would make hardened war criminals blush and throw up at the thought of).

[Vothazortland]

Should there be standards for private medical research? (And maybe even state medical research?)

I am not suggesting that there are.... moral standards (for want of a better phrase) but that if the government is going to hand over tax-payer money to private institutions for them do use, that the research the private institutions are doing should at least be held to some level of professionalism.

I realise it can vary from nation to nation, and that the standards can be national, rather than WA wide, but still - I think ethical and professional standards are not out of line for research when government money is involved.

(Just to make it clear - I am not suggesting the government direct the research itself. That is a recipe for disaster as we have learned time and again! But if the Calladan government is going to hand over what amounts to hundreds of thousands of Coins to LangLabs to do medical research, we don't want to find out they have been conducting research that would make hardened war criminals blush and throw up at the thought of).

This is a good point, and one I didn't think of. I'll make sure to amend the bill to involve a standard of ethics and professionalism in research funded by it. Thank you!

[Vothazortland]

If anyone more experienced than me with NationStates sees anything that could be potentially against General Assembly rules in this act, please leave a reply stating what you see is wrong, which rules it contradicts, and how I can fix it so I can make this act GA ready. Thank you!

[Araraukar]

If anyone more experienced than me with NationStates sees anything that could be potentially against General Assembly rules in this act, please leave a reply stating what you see is wrong, which rules it contradicts, and how I can fix it so I can make this act GA ready. Thank you!

OOC: If others haven't picked it apart by Monday, I'll do my best, but this weekend is busybusybusy for me (good busy, but still). Meanwhile, have you yourself crosschecked it against all the relevant passed resolutions?

[Vothazortland]

If anyone more experienced than me with NationStates sees anything that could be potentially against General Assembly rules in this act, please leave a reply stating what you see is wrong, which rules it contradicts, and how I can fix it so I can make this act GA ready. Thank you!

OOC: If others haven't picked it apart by Monday, I'll do my best, but this weekend is busybusybusy for me (good busy, but still). Meanwhile, have you yourself crosschecked it against all the relevant passed resolutions?

From what I have found, searching using words such as science, knowledge, innovation, technology, treatments and cure, I have found two other resolutions that apply here (though there may be others I have overlooked). They are resolutions #322 and #219. I will look into whether they conflict mine or not. Either way, thanks for your help with this act!

[Araraukar]

From what I have found, searching using words such as science, knowledge, innovation, technology, treatments and cure

OOC: Also try "health", "research" and "disease".

[Vothazortland]

From what I have found, searching using words such as science, knowledge, innovation, technology, treatments and cure

OOC: Also try "health", "research" and "disease".

Checking them brings up nothing new, but thanks for thinking of them.

[Vothazortland]

There appears to be no more issues/ways to improve the bill, so I shall propose this act to the General Assembly 2 days from now if there isn't anymore action over here.

[Araraukar]

Alrighty then, let's see what this beastie had for its last meal! *ties the thing onto the table and, ignoring its screams, pulls out the Proposal Scalpel^TM*

Increased Spending on Medical Research Act

Are you sure you want to keep this title? While it is accurate, anything with "increased spending" in the very title will make many voters go "Lol, no", as most nations loathe anything WA-related that costs them money. You're unlikely to see them before trying to get this to vote, but it happens every time there is a proposal at vote that requires them to spend money on something.

Category: Health
Effect: Research

OOC: Tiny nitpick: it's not "effect", it's "Area of Effect".

BELIEVING that mandated medical research spending

Same as above applies to this one: starting with "spending" is probably not a good idea, as, despite a resolution requiring it, not all voters will ever bother to read the full proposal before deciding whether to vote for or against it. Especially the combination of "mandated spending" is a bad idea. This is just the preamble, why do you need to have "mandated" in it?

could have a quite positive affect on the quality of healthcare,

How? Merely increasing spending on medical research does not automatically raise healthcare quality.

(OOC: A lot of real world medical research is aimed at better understanding the anatomy and physiology, as well as trying to find new and better working medicines. That doesn't do jack shit for healthcare quality if the various nations don't bother to spend more on healthcare and ensure that doctors and nurses are qualified for their work, that they are professional, that they have the full array of equipment and medications available, and that all people can afford to get treated. Just think of the disparity in healthcare quality received between a wealthy Westerner and some poor African villager in a remote rural area.)

scientific knowledge

This, yes, as long as the research is performed to the standards of the scientific community.

welfare systems

Again, how? "Welfare" is not synonymous with "health" and even "health" is not synonymous with "medical research".

and overall greatness of World Assembly Nations

Bwahahahahahahaha- oh please don't tell me you actually mean this! Anyway, more seriously, this is the kind of fluff that sounds good in a rousing speech, but looks ridiculous on the paper. Also, I'm not sure most nations would make the connection between medical research and their "greatness".

outweighing any negatives

...what negatives? The increased spending? If so, you're basically arguing that increased spending will outweight increased spending, and that doesn't make any sense.

The whole preamble clause might better be broken up like this:

Believing that adequate funding for medical research is vital for the healthcare that the member nations provide for their inhabitants,

Aware that increased scientific knowledge does not directly translate into quality of said healthcare, but rather makes better quality treatments possible,

"Adequate funding" doesn't sound nearly as bad as "increased spending" (OOC: in addition to which, "mandated ... spending" sounds very much like you were desperately trying to make this fit the AoE in question), using the word "inhabitants" makes this echo the protections given by the Charter of Civil Rights, and explains the actual "better quality" possibility.

FURTHER BELIEVING that the additional economic burden created by said mandate would not be unduly hard for the nations of the World Assembly to pay for under their current laws on taxation;

Mentioning taxes at all makes this look very much illegal, as national taxes are something the WA can't meddle with, as per existing resolutions. Also, again, putting in wordings like "economic burden" is a bad idea as you're trying to convince nations to agree to the increased spending. You don't want to make the average voter think that this could burden their nation's budget. If I were you, I'd leave this out entirely. Make the active clauses do the increasing, not the preamble.

CONVINCED that research, especially in the field of healthcare, is necessary for a country to advance and become better;

Once more, how? How would increasing spending on medical research (OOC: note that the health category intentionally separates research from healthcare - they are related, but one does not equal the other) make a nation - and I suggest you consistently use "nation" throughout the whole document - "advance and become better"? What even counts as "advance"? Or "better"? This, again, sounds like a rousing speech thing that isn't necessarily a good idea in text.

If you absolutely must have something like this here, I would suggest this wording instead:

Convinced that a healthy population is important for the well-being of a nation, allowing it to excel in other areas as well

SURPRISED that provisions such as these do not already exist;

(OOC: That's because the category is fairly new, and also because few are willing to put a lot of amount into the research needed to write a quality proposal in the category. I don't think we have any medical doctors/researchers in the GA regulars' ranks.)
I would leave this one out entirely.

If you use my rewrites, this is what the preamble would look like:

Believing that adequate funding for medical research is vital for the healthcare that the member nations provide for their inhabitants,

Aware that increased scientific knowledge does not directly translate into quality of said healthcare, but rather makes better quality treatments possible,

Convinced that a healthy population is important for the well-being of a nation, allowing it to excel in other areas as well,

HEREBY

OOC: There's no need to use capital letters for everything.

1. REQUIRES all member nations of the World Assembly to reserve a portion of their yearly budget larger than zero point zero one percent for medical research;

Exact percentages, even setting a minimum one, are generally a bad idea. Even 0.01% out of a budget worth 1,292 trillions (OOC: which is what the current gameside budget for Araraukar is, and it has abysmally weak economy) would be 12,92 billions, which would be a stupidly large amount spent on just research. The whole healthcare, sure, but just research? No, don't do it. Just cut out everything between the words "budget" and "for". (OOC: Also, don't use the tab key or excessive spacing when writing these clauses, just leave them out from before the clause number and put one normal space after it.) "A portion" cannot be zero by definition.

2. EXPECTS that all member nations of the World Assembly divide up said allocated money between state-led research and research grants given to private citizens and organizations for medical research, specifically in the fields of new medicines, new medical procedures, new cures for previously incurable diseases, and new insight into human biology;

...private citizens aren't generally well-enough equipped to do scientific research in the medical field. Especially in the fields you list. Also, using "human" is a bad idea. Not everyone's population is fully, or even in part, human. (OOC: And even in real life a lot of the medical studies, especially in the case of new medicines, are done on animals, not humans.) Additionally, are you intentionally leaving out behavioral studies and the rest of psychology? Further, "expects" doesn't sound like a mandate. You'll want to avoid non-binding language if you want to issue a binding mandate.

On top of all of that, what if all things related to healthcare are currently done by the governmental agencies of the nation? Why would you want to mandate that money be given to inferior institutions or even private citizens, whom you don't even specify needing any qualifications in the field of medicine? With all the faults in this clause, I'd simply leave it out. The resolution can survive without it.

3. CREATES the regulations below on who and what may obtain a research grant from this amendment;

"Amendment"? Also, your lack of list code in this clause makes it damn near impossible to read. I'd break parts of it into different clauses, but I'll give you the breakdown of each part you now have. Also, if, like suggested, you nix clause 2 entirely, this header perhaps ought to read "Creates these regulations to direct the use of funding of medical research" or something like that. It could probably be put less clumsily, but more of that later.

(a) Any organization seeking to apply for a grant must be one of science, such as a university,

Even the ones that do not handle medical sciences?

a museum

What the actual fuck is this doing here? And, I repeat: "even the ones that do not handle medical sciences?"

or a laboratory

And once more from the top: "even the ones that do not handle medical sciences?"

Prevalence is given to experienced organizations, such as ones with a long history in science, or ones that have published multiple scientific papers;

This is also problematic since, once more, "science" does not equal "medical science", and also publishing scientific papers doesn't mean anything, unless 1) they are on the field of medical science and 2) published in an peer-reviewed or otherwise accredited publication. Otherwise they could publish them as leaflets to hand out to people and still satisfy this requirement.

(b) Any private citizen seeking to apply for a research grant must have post-secondary education from a reputable institute that pertains to what they wish to study. Prevalence is given to citizens with experience working as a researcher;

I get it that this is trying to make it so that independent researchers could get government grants to do their research, but, again, a truly private citizen, no matter if they were the best scientist in their field in the nation, rarely has the facilities or equipment to do quality medical research. Also, the "pertains to" seems to refer to the institute, not the education. And "education" does not mean "degree". Someone could've done a course on the history of art in a university that also trains medical doctors, and qualify for this, as currently written.

(c) Any parties wishing to apply must submit a document outlining what they wish to research, how they will do it, and how much money they will require to the nation they wish to receive a grant from. Said nation must then review said document and may only approve the party applying if it meets their standards of ethics and legality, along with using the scientific method, not costing too much money, and having a use in the field of health;

Ok, now, this starts out well, with requiring a research plan and use of scientific method and all that, but then it shoots itself in the foot with "not costing too much". A nation might well decide that anything that cost more than 0.000001% of their currency unit would be too much. And please don't make it a solid number or percentage either. It's a bad idea in general. Also "having a use in the field of health" is also a bad idea - a lot of medical research is based on other medical research that does not have a direct application. For example, you need to know how something works before you can make a medicine that affects the functioning, but the research into how it works does not directly have a use for anything but, perhaps, further research in the future.

(d) Once a party has met all the requirements above, obtained their grant and begun research, they must submit to an inspection every six months

What if the research project lasts less than six months? I think it would be better to just say "at any point during their project".

by the nation they received their grant from.

Wait, are you making this international now? A lot of nations will object to needing to fund or even consider funding research done in other nations. I think the better choice is to leave nationality out entirely other than encouraging nations to consider both national and international applications.

This inspection must check that the party:
Has not broken from their outline
Continues to follow ethical and legal standards
Has not misappropriated the funds they were given
If a party has been found to break any of these rules, they must have the remainder of their grant money taken away and used to fund other scientists;

This sounds cumbersome. It could probably be said in fewer words... *makes a note*

4. RECOMMENDS that any new discoveries in medical research, funded by this mandate or not, be immediately put to use in each nations healthcare system.

Not a good idea - a discovery doesn't mean it was a good idea to use immediately. Especially in the case of new medicines.

5. FURTHER REQUIRES that all nations that have allocated said money must use all of it for research or grants;

Not a good idea either. What if none of the applicants - in a year? you don't specify a time limit - fulfill the requirements? Would you force nations to pay out grants to sub-par applicants?

---

OOC: I've done a major rewrite of your proposal, but I haven't checked it against existing resolutions, nor have I added new stuff, I've basically just rearranged what you had, into a hopefully more sensible form. If you decide to use my wording and continue working on it (it's not ready for submission as is!), I want co-author credit.

The World Assembly,

Believing that adequate funding for medical research is vital for the healthcare that the member nations provide for their inhabitants,

Aware that increased scientific knowledge does not directly translate into quality of said healthcare, but rather makes better quality treatments possible,

Convinced that a healthy population is important for the well-being of a nation, allowing it to excel in other areas as well,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. "medical research" as scientific research done in the field of medicine,
2. "scientific article" as a research report in the field of medicine that is published in a peer-reviewed or otherwise accredited publication;
3. "research grant" as a monetary contribution to be used for medical research,

2. Requires all member nations of the World Assembly to reserve a portion of their yearly budget for medical research, to be distributed at least in part in the form of research grants,

3. Also requires member nations to appoint a governmental agency, council or official to oversee both the granting of and application process for research grants,

4. Encourages member nations to allow both public and private legal entities and institutions apply for research grants,

5. Sets these requirements for applying for a research grant:

1. The research conducted must apply the scientific method,
2. The research must be conducted in the field of medicine, and follow both national and international laws and guidelines on such research,
3. Prior to the start of the research project, a detailed plan must be made for the research to be conducted as well as for the use of funds,
4. At the end of the research project, a scientific article must be published, along with a final report on the use of funds,
5. If any funds of the research grant are left at the end of the project, they must be returned,

6. Research grant recipients must submit to a governmental audit at any time during their research project, and are encouraged to provide regular reports on their progress and use of funds,

7. If, during the course of the research project a radical deviation from the original plan is required by changing circumstances or new information, a new plan must be submitted and approved before the research grant funds can be used for the new research,

8. Any recipient of a research grant found to be breaking any of the above requirements, they will be held responsible for the repayment of the government either full or in part, as determined by the government,

9. Encourages member nations to consider both national and international applicants for research grants.

[Imperium Anglorum]

FURTHER BELIEVING that the additional economic burden created by said mandate would not be unduly hard for the nations of the World Assembly to pay for under their current laws on taxation;

Mentioning taxes at all makes this look very much illegal, as national taxes are something the WA can't meddle with, as per existing resolutions. Also, again, putting in wordings like "economic burden" is a bad idea as you're trying to convince nations to agree to the increased spending. You don't want to make the average voter think that this could burden their nation's budget. If I were you, I'd leave this out entirely. Make the active clauses do the increasing, not the preamble.

PARSONS: That isn't how 17 GA works. 17 GA says that the WA cannot actually meddle in national taxation codes, not that it cannot even dare to mention them.

There appears to be no more issues/ways to improve the bill, so I shall propose this act to the General Assembly 2 days from now if there isn't anymore action over here.

OOC: Use a proper formatting scheme. Foremost, there isn't any need to ALL CAPS speech at, really, next to anyone or anything; you can use list tags to format lists effectively, like so (I'm using the coding format from my resolution, Reducing Statelessness):

Code: Select all

Aware that people have been deprived of their citizenship by unscrupulous states to prevent them from exercising their societally guaranteed political rights,

Believing that this unjustly prevents people from exercising those rights to which they are rightfully entailed, and

This august World Assembly hereby:

[list=1][*]Prohibits nations from depriving a national of their nationality should such an action leave that national stateless; mandates that no national will be deprived of their nationality without the due process of law;


[*]Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation, to include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government;


[*]Determines that nations are to recognise passports verifiably and legitimately issued by both other member nations and by constituted World Assembly agencies as valid passports; reminds member nations that no mandates are here imposed on the nature of their border controls; and


[*]Requires that these passports follow the Passport Organisation's international norms on the standards for security and identification in all internationally recognised passports.[/list]

[Araraukar]

PARSONS: That isn't how 17 GA works. 17 GA says that the WA cannot actually meddle in national taxation codes, not that it cannot even dare to mention them.

Which is why I didn't say it makes it illegal but that it makes it look illegal.

[Vothazortland]

I quite like your rewrite, and will most likely use it (and give you credit too). However, there are a few things I might change;

8. Any recipient of a research grant found to be breaking any of the above requirements, they will be held responsible for the repayment of the government either full or in part, as determined by the government,

I would remove the comma and they, writing it like "...any of the above requirements will be held responsible...". That way it flows better.

4. Encourages member nations to allow both public and private legal entities and institutions apply for research grants,

It should probably say "...allow both public and private entities and institutions to apply for research grants".
Anyway, besides those little grammar nitpicks the re-write is great and I want to thank you for taking the effort to make it. Cheers!

[Frisbeeteria]

Haven't read the whole thread, don't care. I just hate the title. We make Resolutions, not Acts, and "increased spending" is a terrible thing to include in the title.

Try "Medical Research Enhancement" or "Targets for Medical Research". Maybe "Scientific Goals for Medical Research". Something lofty that doesn't sound like it's picking your pockets.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We make Resolutions, not Acts

Naaaaaaa-paaaaaaaahhh. The most famous act in the grand play that is the World Assembly.

[Araraukar]

However, there are a few things I might change

(OOC: Oh, yes, it wasn't even meant to be in submittable shape, just something to continue working from.)

I would remove the comma and they, writing it like "...any of the above requirements will be held responsible...". That way it flows better.

Except that way you would be holding the requirements responsible, not the people or organisations...

It should probably say "...allow both public and private entities and institutions to apply for research grants".

Yeah, that does sound better. (OOC: English isn't my first language, and my native (Finnish) approaches grammar in the opposite way to English, so I sometimes get confused with all the little words that change the meaning of things.)

I want to thank you for taking the effort to make it. Cheers!

You're welcome. This looks like the kind of idea that would benefit most WA nations, it just needs some work. And the title definitely needs to change.

---

We make Resolutions, not Acts

Naaaaaaa-paaaaaaaahhh. The most famous act in the grand play that is the World Assembly.

OOC: Hehehe, that came to mind the moment I read Fris's comment...

[Vothazortland]

What do you guys think of re-naming the act to "Medical Research Grants Act" ? A couple of people have stated that I should change the name to something that doesn't involve spending;

anything with "increased spending" in the very title will make many voters go "Lol, no", as most nations loathe anything WA-related that costs them money.

"increased spending" is a terrible thing to include in the title.

If there is another title you think is better, or you have something to say about mine, please tell me.

[Frisbeeteria]

We make Resolutions, not Acts

Naaaaaaa-paaaaaaaahhh. The most famous act in the grand play that is the World Assembly.

[grumble grumble whine] Yeah, yeah.

What do you guys think of re-naming the act to "Medical Research Grants Act" ?

Sounds like the WA is handing out the grants. How about "Medical Research Grants Provisions"

And despite the precedent of NAPA, can't you manage to lose the "act"?

[Vothazortland]

Sounds like the WA is handing out the grants. How about "Medical Research Grants Provisions"

And despite the precedent of NAPA, can't you manage to lose the "act"?

I like Medical Research Grants Provisions. Should encourage more people to vote for this act when and if it reaches the World Assembly. I'll change the thread's name to it, if no-one has any objections.

[Vothazortland]

I would remove the comma and they, writing it like "...any of the above requirements will be held responsible...". That way it flows better.

Except that way you would be holding the requirements responsible, not the people or organisations...

An easy mistake. If you write the whole line with my correction, like this;

8. Any recipient of a research grant found to be breaking any of the above requirements will be held responsible for the repayment of the government either full or in part, as determined by the government,

you see that the recipients are being held responsible, not the requirements.