NationStates

Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/

[PASSED] Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=478543

Page 1 of 5

[PASSED] Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:44 pm
by Maowi
"Here is a draft for a replacement for GAR 477 should the upcoming proposal to repeal it be successful. Feedback is appreciated."

Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics


The World Assembly,

Appalled at the unnecessary infliction of severe pain and distress on animals in the name of science,

Aware of the all too high frequency of such occurrences,

Acknowledging that there are, unfortunately, circumstances in which society as a whole greatly benefits from the use of animal experimentation in scientific research and product development,

Hoping to reduce the harm inflicted on these animals to the minimum necessary to obtain such benefits,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "animal" is defined as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain;

    2. "animal experimentation" is defined as the use of animals for scientific experimentation or product development; and

    3. an "animal research institute" is defined as any organisation which carries out animal experimentation.

    1. Animal research institutes may not harm animals physically or psychologically beyond the extent to which doing so is necessary to:

      1. achieve a scientific or product development aim, subject to clause 2.b. of this resolution, or

      2. avoid the infliction of comparable physical or psychological harm on a sapient to achieve a scientific or product development aim.

    2. Animal research institutes may not develop products whose main purpose is to harm animals physically or psychologically unless the product minimises the suffering of an animal harmed or killed for a lawful purpose or its function is of material benefit to its sapient owner.

    3. Animal research institutes may not conduct animal experimentation on animal species at risk of extinction, unless in order to aid conservation efforts of the animal species.

  3. The World Health Authority Animal Experimentation Board (AEB) is established, and charged with researching alternatives to animal experimentation and making any findings derived from said research available, free of charge, to animal research institutes.

  4. Animal research institutes must provide the AEB with accurate and comprehensive reports on all animal experimentation they carry out; the AEB must review these reports and submit them to the WACC where they find evidence of noncompliance with this resolution.

    1. Animal research institutes may petition the World Assembly General Fund for funding, which must be granted where the animal research institute is in genuine need of it for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation and the government of which the animal research institute is a subject refuses or is unable to provide sufficient funding.

    2. Animal research institutes must use all funding thus obtained from the World Assembly General Fund for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation only.

  6. When not undergoing animal experimentation, animals in animal research institutes must be provided with, at minimum:

    1. sufficient nutrition for the preservation of the animals' long-term physical health,

    2. a hygienic living space, and

    3. a sufficiently uncrowded and spacious living space so as to avoid distress on the animals' behalf.

  7. Animal research institutes may not kill animals they have used for animal experimentation, unless as a result of lawful animal experimentation, except as stipulated in clause 8 of this resolution.

  8. When an animal research institute no longer needs an individual animal for animal experimentation,

    1. it must return the animal to the habitat in which it was captured, if it was initially captured for animal experimentation, the habitat is not private property, it is able to survive independently for the long term in the habitat, and it poses no risk of destroying this habitat; otherwise,

    2. it must hand over custody of the animal to a person or body which will provide it with the necessities described in clause 6 of this resolution, and must make a substantial and meaningful effort to locate such a person or body; where none is located,

    3. it must keep the animal, continuing to abide by the regulations of clause 6 of this resolution, or kill the animal, causing it as little pain and distress as possible.


Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics


The World Assembly,

Appalled at the unnecessary infliction of severe pain and distress on animals in the name of science,

Aware of the all too high frequency of such occurrences,

Acknowledging that there are, unfortunately, circumstances in which society as a whole greatly benefits from the use of animal experimentation in scientific research and product development,

Hoping to reduce the harm inflicted on these animals to the bare minimum necessary to obtain such benefits,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "animal" is defined as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain;

    2. "animal experimentation" is defined as the use of animals for scientific experimentation or product development; and

    3. a "research institute" is defined as any institute which carries out animal experimentation.

    1. Research institutes may only harm animals physically or psychologically to the extent to which doing so is necessary to achieve a scientific or product development aim, subject to clause 2.b. of this resolution.

    2. Research institutes may not develop products whose main purpose is to harm animals physically or psychologically unless the product is of material benefit to its sapient owner and minimises the suffering of an animal killed for a lawful purpose.

  3. The World Health Authority Animal Experimentation Board (AEB) is established, and charged with researching alternatives to animal experimentation and making any findings derived from said research available, free of charge, to research institutes.

  4. Research institutes must provide the AEB with accurate and comprehensive reports on all animal experimentation they carry out; the AEB must review these reports and submit them to the WACC where they find evidence of noncompliance with this resolution.

    1. Research institutes may petition the World Assembly General Fund for funding, which must be granted where the research institute is in genuine need of it for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation and the government of which the research institute is a subject refuses or is unable to provide sufficient funding.

    2. Research institutes must use all funding thus obtained from the World Assembly General Fund for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation only.

  6. When not undergoing animal experimentation, animals in research institutes must be provided with, at minimum:

    1. sufficient nutrition for the preservation of the animals' long-term physical health,

    2. a hygienic living space, and

    3. a sufficiently uncrowded and spacious living space so as to avoid distress on the animals' behalf.

  7. Research institutes may not kill animals they have used for animal experimentation, unless as a result of animal experimentation, except as stipulated in clause 8 of this resolution.

  8. When a research institute no longer needs an individual animal for animal experimentation,

    1. it must return the animal to the habitat in which it was captured, if it was initially captured for animal experimentation, this habitat is not private property, it is able to survive independently for the long term in this habitat, and it poses no risk of destroying this habitat; otherwise,

    2. it must hand over custody of the animal to a person or body which will provide it with the necessities described in clause 6 of this resolution, and must make a substantial and meaningful effort to locate such a person or body; where none is located,

    3. it must keep the animal, continuing to abide by the regulations of clause 6 of this resolution, or kill the animal, causing it as little pain and distress as possible.
Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics


The World Assembly,

Appalled at the unnecessary infliction of severe pain and distress on animals in the name of science,

Aware of the all too high frequency of such occurrences,

Acknowledging that there are, unfortunately, circumstances in which society as a whole greatly benefits from the use of animal experimentation in scientific research and product development,

Hoping to reduce the harm inflicted on these animals to the bare minimum necessary to obtain such benefits,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "animal" is defined as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is able to experience pain;

    2. "animal experimentation" is defined as the use of animals for scientific experimentation or product development; and

    3. a "research institute" is defined as any institute which carries out animal experimentation.

    1. Research institutes may only harm animals physically or psychologically to the extent to which doing so is necessary to achieve a scientific or product development aim, subject to clause 2.b. of this resolution.

    2. Research institutes may not develop products whose main purpose is to harm animals physically or psychologically.

  3. The World Health Authority Animal Experimentation Board (AEB) is established, and charged with researching alternatives to animal experimentation and making any findings derived from said research available, free of charge, to research institutes.

  4. Research institutes must provide the AEB with accurate and comprehensive reports on all animal experimentation they carry out; the AEB must review these reports and submit them to the WACC where they find evidence of noncompliance with this resolution.

    1. Research institutes may petition the World Assembly General Fund for funding, which must be granted where the research institute is in genuine need of it for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation and the government of which the research institute is a subject refuses or is unable to provide sufficient funding.

    2. Research institutes must use all funding thus obtained from the World Assembly General Fund for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation only.

  6. When not undergoing animal experimentation, animals in research institutes must be provided with, at minimum:

    1. sufficient nutrition for the preservation of the animals' long-term physical health,

    2. a hygienic living space, and

    3. a sufficiently uncrowded and spacious living space so as to avoid distress on the animals' behalf.

  7. Research institutes may not kill animals they have used for animal experimentation, unless as a result of animal experimentation, except as stipulated in clause 8 of this resolution.

  8. When a research institute no longer needs an individual animal for animal experimentation,

    1. it must return the animal to the habitat in which it was captured, if it was initially captured for animal experimentation, this habitat is not private property, it is able to survive independently for the long term in this habitat, and it poses no risk of destroying this habitat; otherwise,

    2. it must hand over custody of the animal to a person or body which will provide it with the necessities described in clause 6 of this resolution, and must make a substantial and meaningful effort to locate such a person or body; where none is located,

    3. it must keep the animal, continuing to abide by the regulations of clause 6 of this resolution, or kill the animal, causing it as little pain and distress as possible.
Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics


The World Assembly,

Appalled at the unnecessary infliction of severe pain and distress on animals in the name of science,

Aware of the all too high frequency of such occurrences,

Acknowledging that there are, unfortunately, circumstances in which society as a whole greatly benefits from the use of animal experimentation in scientific research and product development,

Hoping to reduce the harm inflicted on these animals to the bare minimum necessary to obtain such benefits,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "animal" is defined as a sentient, non-sapient being;

    2. "animal experimentation" is defined as the use of animals for scientific experimentation or product development; and

    3. a "research institute" is defined as any institute which carries out animal experimentation.

  2. Research institutes may only harm animals physically or psychologically to the extent to which doing so is necessary to achieve a scientific or product development aim.

  3. The World Health Authority Animal Experimentation Board (AEB) is established, and charged with researching alternatives to animal experimentation and making any findings derived from said research available, free of charge, to research institutes.

  4. Research institutes must provide the AEB with accurate and comprehensive reports on all animal experimentation they carry out; the AEB must review these reports and submit them to the WACC where they find evidence of noncompliance with this resolution.

    1. Research institutes may petition the World Assembly General Fund for funding, which must be granted where the research institute is in genuine need of it for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation and the government of which the research institute is a subject refuses or is unable to provide sufficient funding.

    2. Research institutes must use all funding thus obtained from the World Assembly General Fund for the minimisation of harm to animals during animal experimentation only.

  6. When not undergoing animal experimentation, animals in research institutes must be provided with, at minimum:

    1. sufficient nutrition for the preservation of the animals' long-term physical health,

    2. a hygienic living space, and

    3. a sufficiently uncrowded and spacious living space so as to avoid distress on the animals' behalf.

  7. The AEB is charged with researching and issuing publicly available regulations on what constitutes fulfillment of the minimum requirements of clause 6 of this resolution.

  8. Research institutes may not kill animals they have used for animal experimentation, unless as a result of animal experimentation, subject to clause 9 of this resolution.

  9. When a research institute no longer needs an individual animal for animal experimentation,

    1. it must return the animal to the habitat in which it was captured, if this habitat is not private property, it is able to survive independently for the long term in this habitat, and it poses no risk of destroying this habitat; otherwise,

    2. it must hand over custody of the animal to a person or body which will provide it with the necessities described in clause 6 of this resolution, and must make a substantial and meaningful effort to locate such a person or body; where none is located,

    3. it must keep the animal, continuing to abide by the regulations of clause 6 of this resolution, or kill the animal, causing it as little pain and distress as possible.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:17 am
by Kenmoria
“Clause 8 disallows the killing of animals generally by the institute, not just those that have been tested. Consider, for example, that the clause bans the use of flypaper, ant-killer or other pest-killing devices within test facilities.”

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:44 am
by Maowi
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 8 disallows the killing of animals generally by the institute, not just those that have been tested. Consider, for example, that the clause bans the use of flypaper, ant-killer or other pest-killing devices within test facilities.”

"Thank you, you're right - that should be fixed now."

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:44 am
by Bears Armed
Maowi wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 8 disallows the killing of animals generally by the institute, not just those that have been tested. Consider, for example, that the clause bans the use of flypaper, ant-killer or other pest-killing devices within test facilities.”

"Thank you, you're right - that should be fixed now."

OOC
Only the killing of sentient animals. It seems likely to me that nations would claim flies and ants to be not sentient, and that the Compliance authorities would accept this.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:52 am
by Kenmoria
Bears Armed wrote:
Maowi wrote:"Thank you, you're right - that should be fixed now."

OOC
Only the killing of sentient animals. It seems likely to me that nations would claim flies and ants to be not sentient, and that the Compliance authorities would accept this.

(OOC: Those may have been poor examples, but some pests are certainly sentient, such as rodents.)

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:59 am
by Desmosthenes and Burke
Bears Armed wrote:
Maowi wrote:"Thank you, you're right - that should be fixed now."

OOC
Only the killing of sentient animals. It seems likely to me that nations would claim flies and ants to be not sentient, and that the Compliance authorities would accept this.


That point is actually contested IRL. There seems to be a consensus emerging that they feel pain (or at least that they have neurological responses consistent with what we consider pain in mammalia). See generally:

Thang M. Khuong, Qiao-Ping Wang, John Manion, Lisa J. Oyston, Man-Tat Lau, Harry Towler, Yong Qi Lin, G. Gregory Neely. Nerve injury drives a heightened state of vigilance and neuropathic sensitization in Drosophila. Science Advances, 2019; 5 (7): eaaw4099 DOI

Origins of consciousness
Andrew B. Barron, Colin Klein
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2016, 113 (18) 4900-4908; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1520084113

Not sure if that really matters to the proposal author though.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:44 am
by Maowi
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Only the killing of sentient animals. It seems likely to me that nations would claim flies and ants to be not sentient, and that the Compliance authorities would accept this.


That point is actually contested IRL. There seems to be a consensus emerging that they feel pain (or at least that they have neurological responses consistent with what we consider pain in mammalia). See generally:

Thang M. Khuong, Qiao-Ping Wang, John Manion, Lisa J. Oyston, Man-Tat Lau, Harry Towler, Yong Qi Lin, G. Gregory Neely. Nerve injury drives a heightened state of vigilance and neuropathic sensitization in Drosophila. Science Advances, 2019; 5 (7): eaaw4099 DOI

Origins of consciousness
Andrew B. Barron, Colin Klein
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2016, 113 (18) 4900-4908; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1520084113

Not sure if that really matters to the proposal author though.

OOC: I think that BA was saying that given the contested nature of the assertion that flies etc. are not sentient, the WACC would not be able to refute the interpretation of the law that pests such as insects are allowed to be killed. But there's still Kenmoria's point about other, definitely sentient pests, like rodents, and I think adding that clarification does not cause problems in terms of pests about whose sentience there is no clear consensus.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:40 am
by Maowi
OOC: Bump - any more feedback?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:43 am
by United States of Americanas
Looks good to me. Following the thread.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:24 am
by Kenmoria
“I recommend adding ‘sufficient’ before the final ‘funding’ in clause 5, as governments may be proving only paltry amounts of support.”

PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:31 am
by Maowi
Kenmoria wrote:“I recommend adding ‘sufficient’ before the final ‘funding’ in clause 5, as governments may be proving only paltry amounts of support.”

"Done, thank you - and I also added a clause 5.b. to ensure that research institutes only use funding as appropriate."

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:50 am
by Maowi
OOC: Bump; any more thoughts?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 3:23 pm
by Araraukar
Maowi wrote:OOC: Bump; any more thoughts?

OOC: So is the proposal only for sentient animals? And proven sentient by who or what measure?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:44 am
by Maowi
Araraukar wrote:
Maowi wrote:OOC: Bump; any more thoughts?

OOC: So is the proposal only for sentient animals? And proven sentient by who or what measure?

OOC: Yes, it is only for sentient animals. If an animal is unable to feel anything or respond to stimuli, I don't think it necessarily needs protecting (in this context). I was trying to adopt a non human-centric approach to the definition and that was the best way I could think of of doing that, although you have a point about it lacking an objective measure for sentience. I suppose I could charge the WA committee with determining which species are sentient and which are not.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:21 pm
by Araraukar
Maowi wrote:OOC: I suppose I could charge the WA committee with determining which species are sentient and which are not.

OOC: Don't. Even requiring the nations themselves (NOT a committee) to licence any animal testing (as tends to get done in RL anyway) would make more sense - the nations would then be responsible for any sentience determinations based on available scientific knowledge. (I mean, they all must start from somewhere - such a research might reveal an animal species not believed to have been sentient (like a sponge) to be sentient instead. It's hard to know unless you do tests on them.)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:41 pm
by Kenmoria
Maowi wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: So is the proposal only for sentient animals? And proven sentient by who or what measure?

OOC: Yes, it is only for sentient animals. If an animal is unable to feel anything or respond to stimuli, I don't think it necessarily needs protecting (in this context). I was trying to adopt a non human-centric approach to the definition and that was the best way I could think of of doing that, although you have a point about it lacking an objective measure for sentience. I suppose I could charge the WA committee with determining which species are sentient and which are not.

(OOC: I don’t necessarily think there is any need for a complex method of ascertaining the sentience of animals. Since member nations must comply with legislation in good faith, they would have to use the best means available to them in order to determine sentience in order to avoid noncompliance finds.)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:10 pm
by Morover
"Because of the inclusion of 'product development' in clause 2, a company could claim they were building animal torture devices in order to comply with World Assembly laws and still abuse animals."

"Now, why any wretched 'institution' would do such a thing, I don't know. But I figured it's worth mentioning."

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:44 am
by Maowi
OOC: Regarding the sentience thing - perhaps I could reword it so that an "animal" is explicitly defined as a non-sapient being able to experience pain, or maybe as one with a nervous system, so as to directly get to the desired effect without having to go through the potentially manipulable term of "sentient" ... I think having "with a nervous system" is probably easier to objectively ascertain and, with good faith compliance, should be enough.
Morover wrote:"Because of the inclusion of 'product development' in clause 2, a company could claim they were building animal torture devices in order to comply with World Assembly laws and still abuse animals."

"Now, why any wretched 'institution' would do such a thing, I don't know. But I figured it's worth mentioning."

"In that case, they'd probably have to market and sell them as animal torture devices; if marketed as something else, non-compliance becomes obvious. I suppose it would be possible to add a short clause banning the production of ... uh ... animal torture devices ... I'm not sure whether any reasonable nation would allow their production in the first place ... but better safe than sorry, I guess. I might add that when I next edit the draft."

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:40 pm
by Araraukar
Maowi wrote:"In that case, they'd probably have to market and sell them as animal torture devices; if marketed as something else, non-compliance becomes obvious"

IC: "A choke chain is not a torture device unless used as such," Linda said with a shrug. "I could personally torture you just fine with just a hairbrush, so are you going to ban those too? Also, this can easily run into the same problems the first one did; namely that it's not possible to study pain responses and research new effective pain medications, without causing pain to the study subjects. Banning any causing of pain to animals would destroy a large and important part of medical industry."

OOC: Also, don't think just causing the animal pain right then and there; long-term pain syndrome is a thing and while I'm personally not very happy for the need of animal models to study cures for it, it's still better to use non-sapient animals than humans when testing medications you're not sure 1. work and 2. aren't poisonous.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:17 am
by Kenmoria
“How would clause 9a apply to animals that are bred in the lab, specifically for experimentation?”

PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:33 pm
by Maowi
Araraukar wrote:
Maowi wrote:"In that case, they'd probably have to market and sell them as animal torture devices; if marketed as something else, non-compliance becomes obvious"

IC: "A choke chain is not a torture device unless used as such," Linda said with a shrug. "I could personally torture you just fine with just a hairbrush, so are you going to ban those too? Also, this can easily run into the same problems the first one did; namely that it's not possible to study pain responses and research new effective pain medications, without causing pain to the study subjects. Banning any causing of pain to animals would destroy a large and important part of medical industry."

OOC: Also, don't think just causing the animal pain right then and there; long-term pain syndrome is a thing and while I'm personally not very happy for the need of animal models to study cures for it, it's still better to use non-sapient animals than humans when testing medications you're not sure 1. work and 2. aren't poisonous.


"I think the distinction to draw there is whether the product being developed is one that exists for the purpose of causing pain to animals, or if it is necessary to cause pain to animals to develop the product. I do not intend to ban causing pain to animals; like you, I believe that would be ... impractical, to say the least. But harming animals for the purpose of creating something specifically intended to inflict pain on animals? That's not something I can get behind. (OOC: When I finally get some time to properly revise it) I'll update the draft to ensure that that's specifically what the proposal targets.

Kenmoria wrote:“How would clause 9a apply to animals that are bred in the lab, specifically for experimentation?”


"Oh yes, thanks for bringing that up - I'll make sure to edit that so that it specifies that only animals which have been captured in the first place must be returned to the place they were captured from."

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:23 pm
by Maowi
OOC: OP updated with new draft.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:52 pm
by Araraukar
Maowi wrote:OOC: OP updated with new draft.

OOC: More than half asleep, but why's clause 8 saying they can't kill the animals, referring to clause 9, which says they can kill the animals? So which is it?

Also, clause 7, why? The proposal is supposed to spell out the minimum requirements. The committee's not needed to handhold scientists/professionals who most likely know better than some random committee how to take care of their research animals.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:43 am
by Teretstein
non-sapient


Replace that with non-sentient.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:45 am
by Araraukar
Teretstein wrote:
non-sapient

Replace that with non-sentient.

OOC: No. A normal housecat is sentient. A human is sentient and sapient. The proposal only intends to exclude sapient animals (like humans).
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Page 1 of 5
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/