[CHALLENGE] Promoting Research On Life In Foetuses ...

[Bananaistan]

So Sciongrad is missing . . . can we deliver a 3-2 ruling that this proposal is illegal?

• If a proposal clearly fits into one subcategory more than another subcategory, it should be placed in the former subcategory. A desire to "statwank" does not excuse placing a proposal in a subcategory that is less appropriate.
  
• If a proposal does not clearly fit into one subcategory more than another subcategory, the fit must be reasonable.
  
• The Research subcategory is, in many ways, the opposite of the Bioethics subcategory. The former subcategory reduces restrictions on medical research or provides additional funding for medical research, whereas the latter subcategory tightens ethical restrictions and, therefore, slows medical research. The Healthcare subcategory facilitates access to ordinary medical services.
  
• The "Promoting Research" proposal clearly fits into Research more than Healthcare. It's promoting the development of new treatments rather than facilitating access to treatments that already exist. As submitted, the proposal violates the Category Rule.

IA should not be upset with this result since he basically acknowledged that Research was the proper subcategory.

FWIW, I agree with points 2, 3 & 4 here. However, point no 1 seems to me to be bordering on an "I know it when I see it" standard and I can't support that. Can we come up with some test to try to see just how clearly the fit in one AoE is greater than the fit in another?

[Christian Democrats]

So Sciongrad is missing . . . can we deliver a 3-2 ruling that this proposal is illegal?

• If a proposal clearly fits into one subcategory more than another subcategory, it should be placed in the former subcategory. A desire to "statwank" does not excuse placing a proposal in a subcategory that is less appropriate.
  
• If a proposal does not clearly fit into one subcategory more than another subcategory, the fit must be reasonable.
  
• The Research subcategory is, in many ways, the opposite of the Bioethics subcategory. The former subcategory reduces restrictions on medical research or provides additional funding for medical research, whereas the latter subcategory tightens ethical restrictions and, therefore, slows medical research. The Healthcare subcategory facilitates access to ordinary medical services.
  
• The "Promoting Research" proposal clearly fits into Research more than Healthcare. It's promoting the development of new treatments rather than facilitating access to treatments that already exist. As submitted, the proposal violates the Category Rule.

IA should not be upset with this result since he basically acknowledged that Research was the proper subcategory.

FWIW, I agree with points 2, 3 & 4 here. However, point no 1 seems to me to be bordering on an "I know it when I see it" standard and I can't support that. Can we come up with some test to try to see just how clearly the fit in one AoE is greater than the fit in another?

Any standard on subcategories will almost inevitably vary from category to category. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any possible bright-line rule for subcategorizing Health proposals, Education and Creativity proposals, Environmental proposals, and Advancement of Industry proposals. As far as generalization goes, the test of "clear fit" provides sufficient guidance in my opinion.

Someone, for example, could write a proposal regulating automobiles and, then, make a semi-sophisticated, jargon-filled argument that, down the line, it would impact all industries. Nonetheless, at its heart, it would still be an Automotive proposal, not All Businesses.

It might be theoretically unsatisfactory to say that "clear fit" is commonsensical, but it is a practical approach. Nobody here has disputed that "Promoting Research" fits better into Research than Healthcare. Unanimity will usually be pretty good evidence of clarity.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll try to write up an opinion soon -- by tomorrow at the latest.

As promised:

“Promoting Research on Life in Foetuses and Embryos” was submitted to the General Assembly on February 27, 2018, as a Health/Healthcare proposal. Three members of the Secretariat voted that the proposal violates the Category Rule because Healthcare is the wrong Area of Effect. Given that the proposal has reached quorum, we today issue a full written opinion, standing by our initial judgment. The proposal is illegal.

“Promoting Research” attempts to improve the health of member state populations by legalizing and promoting embryonic stem cell research and any discoveries that might result therefrom. Doubtless, this proposal belongs in the Health category. What is in dispute in the present case is the proper Area of Effect, or subcategory, whether Healthcare, Research, Bioethics, or International Aid. The purpose of the Healthcare subcategory is to facilitate or expand access to common or ordinary medical services that are already in existence. The Research subcategory reduces restrictions on medical research or provides additional funding for medical research, so new or improved treatments can be developed for future use. The Bioethics subcategory slows medical research or restrains doctors by imposing moral regulations, such as informed consent requirements. International Aid encourages or requires member states to provide medical assistance to one another or to coordinate on health issues of transnational concern.

On at least two previous occasions, the Secretariat has made decisions regarding the Category Rule. In International Aviation Act, we held that a proposal may not be subcategorized as Strong, unless it has a coercive impact on member states. In Trade of Endangered Organisms, we held that the “most noticeable consequence” of a proposal is the primary consideration in determining its category. The Secretariat has not been overbearing in its application of the Category Rule. So far, we have embraced a moderate approach that requires rational categorization; and we have rejected the extreme approach of strict categorization, where every single clause would have to fit the category and subcategory.

Based on our interpretation of the General Assembly Rules and our understanding of precedent, we are convinced that a proposal must be placed in a certain subcategory if it clearly fits into that subcategory more than any other subcategory. On the other hand, if a proposal does not clearly fit into one particular subcategory, the fit must be reasonable. In this case, “Promoting Research” clearly fits into Research. All members of the Secretariat, including the dissenters, hold the view that Research would have been the best subcategory for this proposal. The author’s subjective preference for Healthcare—“I selected healthcare because I like that category more (mostly because of statwank)”—is an unpersuasive argument. “Statwanking” has never been a sufficient justification for choices of category and subcategory.

In light of today’s decision and the recent passage of Resolution 425, Protection of Biomedical Research, the Secretariat anticipates that the author will abandon this proposal or else substantially revise it. Thus, we do not reach other legality concerns, expressed by several member states, arising under the Duplication Rule and the Contradiction Rule.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Looks good to me. I would make one small change at the end of the fourth paragraph:

“Statwanking” has never been a proper sufficient justification for choices of category and subcategory.

I join.

[Separatist Peoples]

Looks good to me. I would make one small change at the end of the fourth paragraph:

“Statwanking” has never been a proper sufficient justification for choices of category and subcategory.

I join.

I might not use the term statwanking. I might use the term statistical effects. Statwanking has a pretty informal and negative connotation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The author himself used the word "statwank" to describe his primary motivation for selecting the AoE. I don't think we're out of line to quote him on that.

[Bears Armed]

Looks good to me. I would make one small change at the end of the fourth paragraph:

“Statwanking” has never been a proper sufficient justification for choices of category and subcategory.

I join.

I would prefer that change as well.
Anyway, i join.

[Christian Democrats]

Small change made, and opinion delivered:

viewtopic.php?p=33608961#p33608961

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sep, do you have dissent language you want / have time to add to this? Minus that, this thread is due for archiving.

[Separatist Peoples]

My dissent:

I respectfully disagree with my colleauges. Per prior rulings in which I dissented, I believe strict application of category and subcategory choices second-guesses authors and ignores the possibility that more than one appropriate option. Imposing a best choice rule involves GenSec into judgment calls about the most appropriate category, which in turn invites more Challenges. This is not in the community's best interest.