[PASSED] Repeal Convention on Animal Testing

[Maowi]

OOC: Yes, that all makes sense, but where are you getting that reports on only some of the procedures are going to be sent? The target says that reports on all procedures must be sent to the committee.

OOC: "All procedures carried out on animals", not all procedures carried out in the laboratory! So, you don't need to report your procedures on data storage or human resources management or whatever, only what you do to the animals.

OOC: Yep, that's what I meant. I'd still argue that includes a lot of unnecessary things, although as Kenmoria points out, I guess RNT means that doesn't really matter. The main problem here is that research labs can avoid reporting a whole lot of stuff.

(Edited for typoes)

[Araraukar]

The main problem here is that research labs can avoid reporting a whole lot of stuff.

OOC: So you're arguing both that they don't report enough and that what they're required to report, is too much? How does that make any sense?

[Maowi]

The main problem here is that research labs can avoid reporting a whole lot of stuff.

OOC: So you're arguing both that they don't report enough and that what they're required to report, is too much? How does that make any sense?

OOC: I was arguing that by the language of the target, pretty much any level of detail in reporting is permitted, although I guess RNT probably means that erring on the side of too much reporting wouldn't really be encountered.

[Kenmoria]

“The first clause omits speech marks around GA #447’s name, whereas the last clause includes them. Furthermore, you are still missing a line break between two clauses.”

[Concrete Slab]

“The first clause omits speech marks around GA #447’s name, whereas the last clause includes them. Furthermore, you are still missing a line break between two clauses.”

OOC: I am making all the necessary edits on a Google Doc. I will have a new draft posted shortly.

[Concrete Slab]

A new draft has been released.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:

OOC all: It is the same mechanism used to differentiate between Manslaughter and murder.

In practice, that's probably a whole different beast. Disclaimer: not a lawyer, but I get the impression that the problem with manslaughter vs murder lies more in identifying what actions were in fact taken, and once those are established, the rest is clear(ish). With something like this, on the other hand, a person doing something with malicious intent would take pretty much the same actions as someone doing it out of negligence/ignorance. I don't think it's a valid comparison to make.

OOC: And how exactly is this a flaw in the resolution? Negligence can also be done with malicious intent.

Nope, the research lab still carried out the test with malicious intent.

Oh, sorry, I forgot inanimate objects had intent.

Relevant:

Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law

Nowhere does it mention specific individuals, if it was carried it with malicious intent, it doesnt matter who ordered the procedure.

It is possible, especially when the facilities themselves have to make that report.

Are you saying that you expect facilities to report themselves for non-compliance?

Relevant:

Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
Reporting instances of noncompliance with the ethical requirements mandated in this resolution to the local authorities for penalisation;

Whats the problem with reporting the details of every procedure that relates to the actual experiment?

From Convention on Animal Testing:

4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:

1. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

The only criterion given there is that the procedures to be reported are carried out on animals. That's amazingly broad. And if facilities are allowed to pick and choose which ones to report, why can't they leave out the procedures involved in the animal testing, as well as all the other irrelevant ones?

Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

[Maowi]

OOC:

OOC:



In practice, that's probably a whole different beast. Disclaimer: not a lawyer, but I get the impression that the problem with manslaughter vs murder lies more in identifying what actions were in fact taken, and once those are established, the rest is clear(ish). With something like this, on the other hand, a person doing something with malicious intent would take pretty much the same actions as someone doing it out of negligence/ignorance. I don't think it's a valid comparison to make.

OOC: And how exactly is this a flaw in the resolution? Negligence can also be done with malicious intent.

Sure. It can also happen with no malicious intent. And the point I'm making, which you seem to be missing, is that malicious intent or negligence with malicious intent can be disguised as negligence without malicious intent. The target resolution provides no practicable enforcement mechanism.

Oh, sorry, I forgot inanimate objects had intent.

Relevant:

Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law

Nowhere does it mention specific individuals, if it was carried it with malicious intent, it doesnt matter who ordered the procedure.

Again, you're missing the point (whether through wilful or sincere negligence ). In the scenario outlined in this repeal, there is no entity, whether an individual or a facility or whatever, which is both harming animals and is doing so maliciously. I just don't see how a facility can have malicious intent to do anything.

Are you saying that you expect facilities to report themselves for non-compliance?

Relevant:

Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
Reporting instances of noncompliance with the ethical requirements mandated in this resolution to the local authorities for penalisation;

I was commenting on your response to this proposal's "believing" clause, which seemed to suggest that you were intending for facilities to report themselves for non-compliance. And you still haven't addressed at all the problem brought up in said clause.

From Convention on Animal Testing:

4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:

1. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

The only criterion given there is that the procedures to be reported are carried out on animals. That's amazingly broad. And if facilities are allowed to pick and choose which ones to report, why can't they leave out the procedures involved in the animal testing, as well as all the other irrelevant ones?

Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

As I stated in response to both Kenmoria and to Ara, I am satisfied that RNT would prevent instances of facilities being forced to report every unnecessary detail. Again, however, you have yet to address the problem brought up in this repeal - i.e. that certain perfectly legitimate interpretations of the term "procedure" would allow facilities to avoid reporting a vast majority of cases of animal abuse. To give you the example I gave earlier, this definition ...

"A surgical operation"

... is relevant and applicable in this context, and is also very narrow.

[Concrete Slab]

OOC: Made some more updates to the draft. If there are not many more critiques, I would like to submit this soon.

[Concrete Slab]

OOC: I will be putting submission on hold until GA activity dies down.

[Concrete Slab]

The proposal has been submitted for delegate approval.

[Concrete Slab]

OOC: Hello again, everyone. I was just recently made aware that a counter campaign had been launched against my proposal, so I thought I'd make some responses here. MG's text will be in italics and mine will be normal.

Greetings delegate, I have noticed that you have approved the repeal attempt of the passed resolution Convention on Animal Testing. I want to request that you unapprove it as it relies on flawed logic and sometimes on outright lies.
For example:
"Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm to the animal than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, making conviction impossible because the administrator has the malicious intent while the employee actual carries out the procedure,"
Is incorrect. The definition of ethical testing in GA#477 reads as follows: ""Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;"
It does not specify that the person carrying out the test has to be doing it with malicious intent, as long as the test itself is done with malicious intent, it is not ethical. I shall be challenging the proposal's legality if it gets to vote based on this argument.

How could the testing be done with malicious intent if the person doing the testing has no malicious intent? And even if you manage to contort the words to fit what you describe, the interpretation that the person physically carrying out the testing has to have this intent for the testing to be unethical is definitely a reasonable one, and is derived from the resolution text directly enough so as not to be in bad faith. It is also an interpretation extremely likely to be taken by any member nation wishing not to limit their scientific progress with animal rights regulations - i.e. most of the nations that had not already put such regulation in place before the passage of your resolution.

Furthermore, arguments like these are not objective errors in the resolution itself:
"Realizing that it is difficult and laborious to prove whether an individual intended to maliciously harm a test animal or if the harm was caused by negligence or carelessness,"
"Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming their negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”"

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with "objective errors," but they are certainly flaws in the resolution's execution, making it very difficult to enforce it and to put to effect what little substance is left after the ways member nations can exploit its loopholes are taken out of the equation.

My last counter argument will be with this clause:
"Further worried that Clause 7 is rendered almost useless, as test animals can be killed in a non-cruel manner before reaching “former test animal” status, as killing test animals is only prohibited after experiments on them are concluded,"
Which is an outright lie. Once the testing period on the animal is finished it is now considered a former test animal; killing animals during testing would not be beneficial to any testing lab as it hinders the results.

You are, deliberately or not, missing the point of that argument, which is that the killing of the animals can be carried out non-cruelly during, but at the very end of the testing after the main substance has been completed. There is plenty of motivation for research facilities to do that, which is a far simpler alternative to having to put in the effort of finding the animal a foster home.

I encourage all delegates who see this to approve the proposal, found here.

[Marxist Germany]

How could the testing be done with malicious intent if the person doing the testing has no malicious intent? And even if you manage to contort the words to fit what you describe, the interpretation that the person physically carrying out the testing has to have this intent for the testing to be unethical is definitely a reasonable one, and is derived from the resolution text directly enough so as not to be in bad faith. It is also an interpretation extremely likely to be taken by any member nation wishing not to limit their scientific progress with animal rights regulations - i.e. most of the nations that had not already put such regulation in place before the passage of your resolution.

OOC: Because the objective of the test itself is to harm the animal.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with "objective errors," but they are certainly flaws in the resolution's execution, making it very difficult to enforce it and to put to effect what little substance is left after the ways member nations can exploit its loopholes are taken out of the equation.

These are not problems with the resolution, it is not my duty to tell nations how they can prove intention, and for the second argument, a one-size-fits-all approach would not work; "finished", means finished, so once the laboratory has finished its testing on the animal, it is considered a former test subject.

You are, deliberately or not, missing the point of that argument, which is that the killing of the animals can be carried out non-cruelly during, but at the very end of the testing after the main substance has been completed. There is plenty of motivation for research facilities to do that, which is a far simpler alternative to having to put in the effort of finding the animal a foster home.

No I am not, when the research lab writes up a report, they will have to provide a scientific reason for this killing that was done after they finished the tests, otherwise it is not testing and rather euthanisation.

[Maowi]

OOC:

How could the testing be done with malicious intent if the person doing the testing has no malicious intent? And even if you manage to contort the words to fit what you describe, the interpretation that the person physically carrying out the testing has to have this intent for the testing to be unethical is definitely a reasonable one, and is derived from the resolution text directly enough so as not to be in bad faith. It is also an interpretation extremely likely to be taken by any member nation wishing not to limit their scientific progress with animal rights regulations - i.e. most of the nations that had not already put such regulation in place before the passage of your resolution.

OOC: Because the objective of the test itself is to harm the animal.

That does not change the fact that there is a reasonable interpretation of the target resolution which allows research facilities to avoid having to protect the animals they test on.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with "objective errors," but they are certainly flaws in the resolution's execution, making it very difficult to enforce it and to put to effect what little substance is left after the ways member nations can exploit its loopholes are taken out of the equation.

These are not problems with the resolution, it is not my duty to tell nations how they can prove intention, and for the second argument, a one-size-fits-all approach would not work; "finished", means finished, so once the laboratory has finished its testing on the animal, it is considered a former test subject.

The target doesn't give any sort of metric at all by which it could be possible to prove intent - nothing about, just as an example, the WABB researching humane and inhumane methods of animal testing and publicising their findings. And "finished means finished" is not a great explanation of your resolution. Clause 5 "requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiments ..." the future of the animal is decided. Nothing stops them continuing with experiments - whether they're useless or not, they're still experiments - which will eventually kill the animal in a non-cruel manner.

You are, deliberately or not, missing the point of that argument, which is that the killing of the animals can be carried out non-cruelly during, but at the very end of the testing after the main substance has been completed. There is plenty of motivation for research facilities to do that, which is a far simpler alternative to having to put in the effort of finding the animal a foster home.

No I am not, when the research lab writes up a report, they will have to provide a scientific reason for this killing that was done after they finished the tests, otherwise it is not testing and rather euthanisation.

Where does your resolution say research facilities have to provide scientific reasons for their actions? And what does the killing being euthanasia change? If it is carried out on a test animal, it is legal. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

[Potted Plants United]

Where does your resolution say research facilities have to provide scientific reasons for their actions?

OOC: Definition A right there after the word "Hereby". Under that resolution's definitions you can't be a research facility if you don't do animal testing for scientific purposes.

[Maowi]

Where does your resolution say research facilities have to provide scientific reasons for their actions?

OOC: Definition A right there after the word "Hereby". Under that resolution's definitions you can't be a research facility if you don't do animal testing for scientific purposes.

OOC: Fair enough, in a way. I think the definition of "research facility" doesn't preclude the situation described in the repeal because it doesn't say that everything it does have to have a scientific purpose; as long as it does some animal testing with a scientific purpose, it falls under the definition. What I think is more relevant to your point is the definition of "test animal" ("a sentient but not sapient animal in the custody of any research facility for scientific purposes"). However, it is very easy for a facility to state that they are using the animal to test a method of euthanasia. At the point of the animal's death, therefore, it would still be a "test animal" and so it would be legal for it to be killed in a non-cruel manner.

[Potted Plants United]

it would still be a "test animal" and so it would be legal for it to be killed in a non-cruel manner.

OOC: Given it's a resolution against animal cruelty, I don't see what's the supposed fault in that?

[Concrete Slab]

it would still be a "test animal" and so it would be legal for it to be killed in a non-cruel manner.

OOC: Given it's a resolution against animal cruelty, I don't see what's the supposed fault in that?

The fault is that the animals are killed instead of given to foster homes because it's a much cheaper alternative.

[Potted Plants United]

The fault is that the animals are killed instead of given to foster homes because it's a much cheaper alternative.

OOC: Again, where's the problem in that? They still need to be killed humanely.

[Concrete Slab]

The fault is that the animals are killed instead of given to foster homes because it's a much cheaper alternative.

OOC: Again, where's the problem in that? They still need to be killed humanely.

But the resolution in question is trying to prevent them from being killed.

[Maowi]

OOC: Exactly. It makes a whole clause almost useless (on top of the counter-campaign telegram being simply inaccurate)

[Kenmoria]

My last counter argument will be with this clause:
"Further worried that Clause 7 is rendered almost useless, as test animals can be killed in a non-cruel manner before reaching “former test animal” status, as killing test animals is only prohibited after experiments on them are concluded,"
Which is an outright lie. Once the testing period on the animal is finished it is now considered a former test animal; killing animals during testing would not be beneficial to any testing lab as it hinders the results.

(OOC: This is possibly the best argument given in the counter-telegram, and relies on far more creative interpretation by member states in order to falsify. More specifically, member nations must kill the animal at the exact end of the test, before the testing period itself as ended. This could be achieved if some tests did not include the animal, merely parts thereof. They could also simply do some unhelpful tests on the animal’s corpse, though this would be slightly bad-faith.)

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Again, where's the problem in that? They still need to be killed humanely.

But the resolution in question is trying to prevent them from being killed.

OOC: No, it's trying to prevent them from being abandoned. Adopted out if possible, but if not (and in vast majority of cases it's going to be a "not", let's be honest), then humanely put down.

[Morover]

"Forgive me if this question was answered before my arrival, but has there actually been a replacement proposal drafted? My support, currently, is contingent on a replacement draft being ready to go upon the supposed passage of the repeal."

[Maowi]

"Forgive me if this question was answered before my arrival, but has there actually been a replacement proposal drafted? My support, currently, is contingent on a replacement draft being ready to go upon the supposed passage of the repeal."

OOC: I've got a replacement draft which I'll get around to posting later today. I can't guarantee that it'll be ready for submission immediately after the passage of the repeal, if it does pass, but hopefully it shouldn't take too long ...