[PASSED] Protection of Biomedical Research

[The New California Republic]

I don't think the WA should be overbearing on our right to run our research how we want to! This is overreach.

Ambassador Sofia Kerman rises.

"Ambassador, *everything* the WA does interferes with the right of nations to run things as they wish. Perhaps the Ambassador from Jashakhia would like to expand on this 'overreach' argument and give proper reasons as to why Jashakhia opposes the proposal at vote?"

OOC: Exactly. The argument could be easily made that if a nation does not like the "overreach" of the WA, then they are free to leave. Membership in the WA is voluntary after all...

[Jabberwocky]

Good point

[Araraukar]

Do you think there should be ethics regulations regarding research on non-sapient, non-sentient animals?

OOC: Please give me an example of one such animal?

Do you think there should be ethics regulations regarding research on plants and fungi?

No. And I say this as one who has an RP account of a (sapient) plant hivemind and would fight you in physical combat to defend the viewpoint that higher plants and fungi are sentient even in RL...

[Wrapper]

Do you think there should be ethics regulations regarding research on non-sapient, non-sentient animals?

OOC: Please give me an example of one such animal?

"Non-sentient animals would then include sponges, corals, anemones, and hydras."

[Scotrun]

Would this proposal render the issue of abortion regulated by international law? Also, why should it include the mandate that determines what is sentient/sapient for all member nations and overrides regulations concerning the sentience/sapience inside the member nations themselves? How does this affect national sovereignty?

[Attempted Socialism]

Would this proposal render the issue of abortion regulated by international law? Also, why should it include the mandate that determines what is sentient/sapient for all member nations and overrides regulations concerning the sentience/sapience inside the member nations themselves? How does this affect national sovereignty?

"Abortion is already legal, per On Abortion and Reproductive Freedom. This resolution does not affect that in any way, shape or form. The resolution Rights of Sapient Species rule govern what is sapient, and what rights such species have. To my memory there's no resolution on sentience itself, though a basic dictionary should do. Like all World Assembly resolutions, this one in some way affects what nations can do, so like all World Assembly resolutions, this will temper national sovereignty. I put it to you that any argument on national sovereignty is nonsensical, since World Assembly membership requires nations to set aside their sovereignty at the door."

[ESQuiri]

I commend my colleagues in the WA for taking up this important issue.

However, speaking in my capacity as Chief Executive and Head Merchant of the company, in our view, this proposal is not only flawed but counter-productive. By establishing a system of funding and protection as the proposal does, the only result can be one which secures only an artificial market that is encouraged by what amounts to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. While such systems are not unique to the field of biomedical research, they are universally discredited by any application of the laws of economic interactions between entities.

Biomedical research is, however, one arena where such a disastrous framework holds the potential to cause even more negative consequences than mere market ripple effects. Enactment would result in a permanent sidelining of medical innovation, which is a central component the promotes the ability of a free biomedical market to continue its life-saving objectives. Open, fair, and free competition is the best assurance of quality and affordable medical advancement, as it is with virtually all products that bring forth social good.

Accordingly, we have voted against the resolution, and encourage others to join us by either changing their vote or by voting against it. We are consulting with our own advisors on an independent proposal, and making contingency plans should this resolution be carried.

In hope,

Esquiri
Chief Executive and Head Trader
Imperial Nation States Charter Co.

[Jebslund]

I commend my colleagues in the WA for taking up this important issue.

However, speaking in my capacity as Chief Executive and Head Merchant of the company, in our view, this proposal is not only flawed but counter-productive. By establishing a system of funding and protection as the proposal does, the only result can be one which secures only an artificial market that is encouraged by what amounts to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. While such systems are not unique to the field of biomedical research, they are universally discredited by any application of the laws of economic interactions between entities.

Biomedical research is, however, one arena where such a disastrous framework holds the potential to cause even more negative consequences than mere market ripple effects. Enactment would result in a permanent sidelining of medical innovation, which is a central component the promotes the ability of a free biomedical market to continue its life-saving objectives. Open, fair, and free competition is the best assurance of quality and affordable medical advancement, as it is with virtually all products that bring forth social good.

Accordingly, we have voted against the resolution, and encourage others to join us by either changing their vote or by voting against it. We are consulting with our own advisors on an independent proposal, and making contingency plans should this resolution be carried.

In hope,

Esquiri
Chief Executive and Head Trader
Imperial Nation States Charter Co.

Ambassador Sofia Kerman rises.

"Mr. Chief Executive, where in this proposal do you see a mandate, or, indeed, even a call for funding? One would assume a company man such as yourself would wholeheartedly approve of a proposal in favor of deregulation of an industry, and I see no language in this bill which calls for or mandates an increase in funding to any corporations. Would you care to elaborate?"

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted for this.

[Micropenesia]

...Also, why should it include the mandate that determines what is sentient/sapient for all member nations and overrides regulations concerning the sentience/sapience inside the member nations themselves? How does this affect national sovereignty?

...Like all World Assembly resolutions, this one in some way affects what nations can do, so like all World Assembly resolutions, this will temper national sovereignty. I put it to you that any argument on national sovereignty is nonsensical, since World Assembly membership requires nations to set aside their sovereignty at the door."

With all due respect to the tenured opinion of the Envoy from the Solidarity Movement of Attempted Socialism, I must contend against the idea that by participating in the WA a nation cannot retain any sovereignty. The fact is that participation in the WA is not compulsory, and any nation that joins is only able to do so because it is universally understood and accepted with a national sovereignty--i.e., ability to choose for themselves. Therefore, participation in the WA means that a nation is willing to potentially compromise for the sake of a greater good, which the WA represents. The fact that any nation that has joined the WA can disassociate themselves from the WA if and when it suits their national goals further supports the concept of national sovereignty. By logical extension, if a nation lost their sovereignty by merely joining the WA, they would not be capable of removing themselves from the WA if they chose to do so.

The power of the WA is not that it is a single voice, but is in fact a chorus of voices.

[ESQuiri]

I commend my colleagues in the WA for taking up this important issue.

However, speaking in my capacity as Chief Executive and Head Merchant of the company, in our view, this proposal is not only flawed but counter-productive. By establishing a system of funding and protection as the proposal does, the only result can be one which secures only an artificial market that is encouraged by what amounts to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. While such systems are not unique to the field of biomedical research, they are universally discredited by any application of the laws of economic interactions between entities.

Biomedical research is, however, one arena where such a disastrous framework holds the potential to cause even more negative consequences than mere market ripple effects. Enactment would result in a permanent sidelining of medical innovation, which is a central component the promotes the ability of a free biomedical market to continue its life-saving objectives. Open, fair, and free competition is the best assurance of quality and affordable medical advancement, as it is with virtually all products that bring forth social good.

Accordingly, we have voted against the resolution, and encourage others to join us by either changing their vote or by voting against it. We are consulting with our own advisors on an independent proposal, and making contingency plans should this resolution be carried.

In hope,

Esquiri
Chief Executive and Head Trader
Imperial Nation States Charter Co.

Ambassador Sofia Kerman rises.

"Mr. Chief Executive, where in this proposal do you see a mandate, or, indeed, even a call for funding? One would assume a company man such as yourself would wholeheartedly approve of a proposal in favor of deregulation of an industry, and I see no language in this bill which calls for or mandates an increase in funding to any corporations. Would you care to elaborate?"

By sealed instrument, an envoy hand-delivers a document to the honorable ambassador, before promptly vanishing behind a corner. The instrument remains confidential, for now ...

[Jebslund]

With all due respect to the tenured opinion of the Envoy from the Solidarity Movement of Attempted Socialism, I must contend against the idea that by participating in the WA a nation cannot retain any sovereignty. The fact is that participation in the WA is not compulsory, and any nation that joins is only able to do so because it is universally understood and accepted with a national sovereignty--i.e., ability to choose for themselves. Therefore, participation in the WA means that a nation is willing to potentially compromise for the sake of a greater good, which the WA represents. The fact that any nation that has joined the WA can disassociate themselves from the WA if and when it suits their national goals further supports the concept of national sovereignty. By logical extension, if a nation lost their sovereignty by merely joining the WA, they would not be capable of removing themselves from the WA if they chose to do so.

The power of the WA is not that it is a single voice, but is in fact a chorus of voices.

Ambassador Sofia Kerman rises.

"With all due respect to the Envoy from Micropenesia, be that as it may, the World Assembly, by its very function, interferes with national sovereignty, in the form of the compromise you have mentioned. *Every* resolution set forth by this Assembly puts the goals of the World Assembly as a whole before the desires of its individual members, and *every* resolution takes decisions with regards to the subject of said resolution away from the member nations. Yes, national sovereignty should be respected, but it cannot be the sole basis of any decisions made by this Assembly. As has been pointed out, if you do not wish to be told what to do, you are free to leave. If you have an argument besides resenting being told what to do, please state it.".

By sealed instrument, an envoy hand-delivers a document to the honorable ambassador, before promptly vanishing behind a corner.

Mr. Ambassador, I grant you, the proposal is craftily stated in such a way that it purports to provide for a freeing of the market. However, subjected member states to international ethic codes is not only an affront to the guaranteed and inherent sovereignty of member states, but also holds on the intrinsically contradictory position that freedom is secured by standardization. Not only is an agency mandate dramatically expanded (an agency who is at best dubiously accountable), the proposal is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces of economic cooperation and competition. True cooperation is achievable only when the obligations of efficiency organically allow for the alignment of interests; in short, it cannot be mandated. While the proposal may have some merit in providing short-time benefit, it is self-defeating in the long-term. We appeal to you personally, and encourage that this communication be made public.

Kindly,

Esquiri
Chief Executive and Head Trader
Imperial Nation States Charter Co.

Sofia takes a moment to read the document aloud before proceeding,

"Mr. Chief Executive is hereby reminded that the Ambassador he is addressing is, in fact, female", she takes a moment to adjust her blouse for emphasis, "And that the ethics codes mentioned are called to be reduced to a bare minimum, which, last this Ambassador checked, constitutes a freeing of the market in that any ethics regulations not deemed necessary to protect test subjects from undue harm are to be discarded. Ethics regulations such as religious laws, personal biases of certain... solo leaders, mandates written by the poorly educated based on outdated information, and the like."

She pauses for breath before continuing.

"As to being unable to force cooperation, tell that to the automobile industry of many nations, who, by forced comparing of notes, produce safer, more efficient, more reliable cars than could ever have been achieved without standardisation, and the proposal at vote does not even really call for that much. The proposal's mandates regarding cooperation begin and end with the sharing of information, which would allow research to proceed faster by way of helping to prevent every nation researching a given field from having to reinvent the wheel. Scientific progress benefits from sharing of information, it does not suffer from it, and, if it happened organically, it would not *need* to be mandated.".

Sofia pauses once more.

"As an aside, Mr. Chief Executive, we are in an assembly meeting. You are free to make your arguments vocally.".

[Attempted Socialism]

...Like all World Assembly resolutions, this one in some way affects what nations can do, so like all World Assembly resolutions, this will temper national sovereignty. I put it to you that any argument on national sovereignty is nonsensical, since World Assembly membership requires nations to set aside their sovereignty at the door."

With all due respect to the tenured opinion of the Envoy from the Solidarity Movement of Attempted Socialism, I must contend against the idea that by participating in the WA a nation cannot retain any sovereignty. The fact is that participation in the WA is not compulsory, and any nation that joins is only able to do so because it is universally understood and accepted with a national sovereignty--i.e., ability to choose for themselves. Therefore, participation in the WA means that a nation is willing to potentially compromise for the sake of a greater good, which the WA represents. The fact that any nation that has joined the WA can disassociate themselves from the WA if and when it suits their national goals further supports the concept of national sovereignty. By logical extension, if a nation lost their sovereignty by merely joining the WA, they would not be capable of removing themselves from the WA if they chose to do so.

The power of the WA is not that it is a single voice, but is in fact a chorus of voices.

The Ambassador sighs loudly as she turns on her microphone.
"Ambassador, when your Republic joined this venerable Assembly, you accepted that any extant resolutions of the Assembly govern your nation above your national laws. That is a rule if you want to be a member of this Assembly, just like any club or society may have rules that demand of you to set aside your own narrow interests in favour of the interests of the whole. Furthermore, since the Assembly here can legislate on any topic, insofar that we could theoretically repeal any prior resolution and make new ones with absolute power invested in the World Assembly, by joining you have not just agreed that the current level of World Assembly interference, but that a concerted majority could theoretically demand absolute interference."
The Ambassador looks over at the delegation from the Republic of Micropenesia with a stern and steady expression, like a schoolteacher instructing an insolent pupil.
"That's why I said that any argument about national sovereignty is nonsensical. By joining, you have accepted that the theoretical extend of World Assembly influence is unlimited, and that the practical extend is down to a simple majority vote. When joining these august halls, you have set aside by the door any claim to national sovereignty, and you can pick up that claim if you leave."
'MacBeth' Illum seems slightly irate.
"Now, if you want a high-brow debate on national sovereignty that is fine, but we know that any resolution that comes to the floor will in some way demand of us some action of, or some restriction upon, our nations. Asking if and how this resolution will affect national sovereignty is like asking if and how the next sea will be wet as well."

[The New California Republic]

Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 13,766 votes to 3,856.

It passed with flying colors. Good job!

[Attempted Socialism]

Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 13,766 votes to 3,856.

It passed with flying colors. Good job!

"Only 78%? I guess United Massachusetts prayers really made an impact."

[Jebslund]

Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 13,766 votes to 3,856.

It passed with flying colors. Good job!

Ambassador Sofia Kerman allows herself a brief moment of celebratory snacking (a small bag of Schickehosen-brand snack crisps, the logo of which is, rather inexplicably, a Tiger-II with a pair of golden boxers draped over the gun) before returning to her prim and stuffy self.

"On behalf of Jebslund, this Ambassador heartily thanks all who voted to pass this resolution. Now let us all prepare for the inevitable storm of poorly-written repeal attempts.".

[ESQuiri]

With all due respect to the tenured opinion of the Envoy from the Solidarity Movement of Attempted Socialism, I must contend against the idea that by participating in the WA a nation cannot retain any sovereignty. The fact is that participation in the WA is not compulsory, and any nation that joins is only able to do so because it is universally understood and accepted with a national sovereignty--i.e., ability to choose for themselves. Therefore, participation in the WA means that a nation is willing to potentially compromise for the sake of a greater good, which the WA represents. The fact that any nation that has joined the WA can disassociate themselves from the WA if and when it suits their national goals further supports the concept of national sovereignty. By logical extension, if a nation lost their sovereignty by merely joining the WA, they would not be capable of removing themselves from the WA if they chose to do so.

The power of the WA is not that it is a single voice, but is in fact a chorus of voices.

Ambassador Sofia Kerman rises.

"With all due respect to the Envoy from Micropenesia, be that as it may, the World Assembly, by its very function, interferes with national sovereignty, in the form of the compromise you have mentioned. *Every* resolution set forth by this Assembly puts the goals of the World Assembly as a whole before the desires of its individual members, and *every* resolution takes decisions with regards to the subject of said resolution away from the member nations. Yes, national sovereignty should be respected, but it cannot be the sole basis of any decisions made by this Assembly. As has been pointed out, if you do not wish to be told what to do, you are free to leave. If you have an argument besides resenting being told what to do, please state it.".

By sealed instrument, an envoy hand-delivers a document to the honorable ambassador, before promptly vanishing behind a corner.

Mr. Ambassador, I grant you, the proposal is craftily stated in such a way that it purports to provide for a freeing of the market. However, subjected member states to international ethic codes is not only an affront to the guaranteed and inherent sovereignty of member states, but also holds on the intrinsically contradictory position that freedom is secured by standardization. Not only is an agency mandate dramatically expanded (an agency who is at best dubiously accountable), the proposal is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces of economic cooperation and competition. True cooperation is achievable only when the obligations of efficiency organically allow for the alignment of interests; in short, it cannot be mandated. While the proposal may have some merit in providing short-time benefit, it is self-defeating in the long-term. We appeal to you personally, and encourage that this communication be made public.

Kindly,

Esquiri
Chief Executive and Head Trader
Imperial Nation States Charter Co.

Sofia takes a moment to read the document aloud before proceeding,

"Mr. Chief Executive is hereby reminded that the Ambassador he is addressing is, in fact, female", she takes a moment to adjust her blouse for emphasis, "And that the ethics codes mentioned are called to be reduced to a bare minimum, which, last this Ambassador checked, constitutes a freeing of the market in that any ethics regulations not deemed necessary to protect test subjects from undue harm are to be discarded. Ethics regulations such as religious laws, personal biases of certain... solo leaders, mandates written by the poorly educated based on outdated information, and the like."

She pauses for breath before continuing.

"As to being unable to force cooperation, tell that to the automobile industry of many nations, who, by forced comparing of notes, produce safer, more efficient, more reliable cars than could ever have been achieved without standardisation, and the proposal at vote does not even really call for that much. The proposal's mandates regarding cooperation begin and end with the sharing of information, which would allow research to proceed faster by way of helping to prevent every nation researching a given field from having to reinvent the wheel. Scientific progress benefits from sharing of information, it does not suffer from it, and, if it happened organically, it would not *need* to be mandated.".

Sofia pauses once more.

"As an aside, Mr. Chief Executive, we are in an assembly meeting. You are free to make your arguments vocally.".

In way to offer a public apology for the mistaken gender of the honorable Ambassador, the Chief Executive and Head Trader of the Imperial Nation States Charter Co. offers his sincerest apology. A result of faulty information, which by no means excuses the mistake, the Chief Executive of the Company again reiterates his deepest regret over the error.

Speaking for the opposition to that resolution carried, we do take issue with the slightly disparaging comments regarding any possible future repeal attempts. For myself, I attempted to engage in opposition in good faith, focusing on the policy ramifications of the resolution rather than the ability of those with whom I disagreed. It seems only reasonable that the same be afforded when offered in reverses. I respectfully ask the Ambassador to withdraw the comment.

[Jebslund]

In way to offer a public apology for the mistaken gender of the honorable Ambassador, the Chief Executive and Head Trader of the Imperial Nation States Charter Co. offers his sincerest apology. A result of faulty information, which by no means excuses the mistake, the Chief Executive of the Company again reiterates his deepest regret over the error.

Speaking for the opposition to that resolution carried, we do take issue with the slightly disparaging comments regarding any possible future repeal attempts. For myself, I attempted to engage in opposition in good faith, focusing on the policy ramifications of the resolution rather than the ability of those with whom I disagreed. It seems only reasonable that the same be afforded when offered in reverses. I respectfully ask the Ambassador to withdraw the comment.

"With respect, Mr. Chief Executive, the comment will be withdrawn and an apology issued should it be proven untrue. Many of the delegations of this assembly would happily aid in the drafting of any repeal attempt, or, indeed, any proposal, at the merest request, so lack of ability is truly no excuse for any proposal to be put forth in such disarray as to make it clear no such request was made. The Aurelian delegation, for example, has put forth a rather well-written repeal attempt, one which has been in the works very nearly since the beginning of voting on GR#420 began. You own apology is graciously accepted."

[ESQuiri]

In way to offer a public apology for the mistaken gender of the honorable Ambassador, the Chief Executive and Head Trader of the Imperial Nation States Charter Co. offers his sincerest apology. A result of faulty information, which by no means excuses the mistake, the Chief Executive of the Company again reiterates his deepest regret over the error.

Speaking for the opposition to that resolution carried, we do take issue with the slightly disparaging comments regarding any possible future repeal attempts. For myself, I attempted to engage in opposition in good faith, focusing on the policy ramifications of the resolution rather than the ability of those with whom I disagreed. It seems only reasonable that the same be afforded when offered in reverses. I respectfully ask the Ambassador to withdraw the comment.

"With respect, Mr. Chief Executive, the comment will be withdrawn and an apology issued should it be proven untrue. Many of the delegations of this assembly would happily aid in the drafting of any repeal attempt, or, indeed, any proposal, at the merest request, so lack of ability is truly no excuse for any proposal to be put forth in such disarray as to make it clear no such request was made. The Aurelian delegation, for example, has put forth a rather well-written repeal attempt, one which has been in the works very nearly since the beginning of voting on GR#420 began. You own apology is graciously accepted."

As a final communiqué on this matter, the Ambassador is notified that the repeal draft introduced by Aurelia is the product of a collaborative effort including myself and others who were opposed to the original resolution, a fact which the proposal's author can confirm. Perhaps the honorable Ambassador should first confirm her information regarding the oppositional effort to the resolution, lest it be faulty, before patronizingly suggesting anything other than the facts of the matter.

[Jebslund]

"With respect, Mr. Chief Executive, the comment will be withdrawn and an apology issued should it be proven untrue. Many of the delegations of this assembly would happily aid in the drafting of any repeal attempt, or, indeed, any proposal, at the merest request, so lack of ability is truly no excuse for any proposal to be put forth in such disarray as to make it clear no such request was made. The Aurelian delegation, for example, has put forth a rather well-written repeal attempt, one which has been in the works very nearly since the beginning of voting on GR#420 began. You own apology is graciously accepted."

As a final communiqué on this matter, the Ambassador is notified that the repeal draft introduced by Aurelia is the product of a collaborative effort including myself and others who were opposed to the original resolution, a fact which the proposal's author can confirm. Perhaps the honorable Ambassador should first confirm her information regarding the oppositional effort to the resolution, lest it be faulty, before patronizingly suggesting anything other than the facts of the matter.

"And the Chief Executive is reminded that the draft introduced by Aurelia was specifically noted by this Ambassador to be well-written. Should no other repeal drafts be put forth, Mr. Chief Executive, or should the majority of such drafts and/or proposals be of similar quality to the draft put forth by Aurelia et al, you shall receive the retraction you have requested with an apology. As the matter stands, however, time shall tell if any proposals put forth in the event of the failure of the draft the Aurelian delegation et al have put forth are up to par, or if the repeal effort of the opposition shall be successful."