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

[Bananaistan]

Currently this proposal has enough approvals to be next at vote. It has been marked illegal so far by members of GenSec as follows:

1 day ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Area of Effect should be Research
1 day ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Illegal — Area of Effect should be Research.
1 day 3 hours ago: Separatist Peoples: Legal
1 day 18 hours ago: Christian Democrats: Illegal — This proposal violates the Category Rule because the Area of Effect is incorrect, it violates the Contradiction Rule with respect to the informed consent provisions of the Patient's Rights Act (#29) and Biomedical Donor Rights (#217), and it partially duplicates Biomedical Innovation Organization (#219).

A further complication is that by the time this would come to vote, Tinfect's resolution will have passed meaning we need to consider duplication/contradiction.

I vote that we discuss and rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

Seconded. I think its legal. I don't see any contradiction. I know the big issue is the AoE, but I think authors should get more leeway when it comes to subcategories or areas of effect. Here, Research is one possibility, but Heathcare is also valid based on IA's arguments.

[Wrapper]

Guys, I'm pretty sure that you have less time than you think to act on this. The approval clock will expire before voting has been completed on the proposal at vote, and I'm pretty sure that if it's still marked illegal by that time, it will drop from the queue. I believe there's just a bit less than two days left (minor update on Saturday?) if you're going to change your minds.

[Bananaistan]

Seconded. I think its legal. I don't see any contradiction. I know the big issue is the AoE, but I think authors should get more leeway when it comes to subcategories or areas of effect. Here, Research is one possibility, but Heathcare is also valid based on IA's arguments.

Is there a potential duplication with Protection of Biomedical Research when it passes? My initial thoughts are that there isn't. Clause 1 in IA's proposal "Prohibits member nations from banning the research in or the use of embryonic stem cells" seems to me to be a mere clarification of sections 4 and 5 of Protection Of Biomedical Research, similar to how new resolutions can clarify what is or isn't a CPP in COCR.

I agree regarding the Area of Effect. Give authors the leeway. We'd be entering into too much factual judgement otherwise. On the face of it the resolution is one part research and one part healthcare. Which part is greater? That's a bloody hard call to make.

However, if you look at it a bit more closely. What impact does a one line prohibition on banning a particular type of research have on research in a particular nation? I do not believe that anyone could take it as a given that in every member state, someone, either government or private industry, is immediately going to start throwing money at stem cell research. Now the other part is only an encouragement to actually fund healthcare in line with the AoE description. Which one amounts to more? I don't know and I don't want to make that judgement nor do I think GenSec should. IMO the AoE could reasonably be either.

I also don't see the contradiction with GAR#29 and GAR#217. I agree with SL's comment here.

In short, I vote legal on all counts. As it is possible with the blizzard ongoing here that there will be powercuts and I could be cut off for a few days, I have marked the proposal as legal in the CP.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We should probably consider this, yes.

I continue to hold that the only potential problem with the proposal is the AoE issue. I've tended to use even a slightly askew AoE as "Illegal" fodder in the proposal queue in the past, but only where there were other issues - I don't think I've ever used Area of Effect as the sole disqualifier unless it was truly egregious. I agree with the principle that authors should have some leeway. And there's not a whole lot of leeway required here - it's not as though the proposal simply has no effect on healthcare.

I'm finding myself less and less married to the strict interpretation of this position as time passes...

You're guaranteeing the ability to do a particular kind of research (Research); and encouraging the funding of said research (Research); and encouraging the funding of treatments stemming from that same research (Healthcare, if you like...). On balance, the correct AoE is Research. Not all of my colleagues are super hard-assed about that in the proposal queue, but I think it's reasonable to expect submission with the correct category or AoE.

[Christian Democrats]

Guys, I'm pretty sure that you have less time than you think to act on this. The approval clock will expire before voting has been completed on the proposal at vote, and I'm pretty sure that if it's still marked illegal by that time, it will drop from the queue. I believe there's just a bit less than two days left (minor update on Saturday?) if you're going to change your minds.

[violet] coded the system to hold such a proposal for a week.

Seconded. I think its legal. I don't see any contradiction. I know the big issue is the AoE, but I think authors should get more leeway when it comes to subcategories or areas of effect. Here, Research is one possibility, but Heathcare is also valid based on IA's arguments.

If a proposal that starts with the words "promoting research" is not a research proposal, I don't know what is.

In the past, Sedge recommended that we be strict on categories and subcategories because stat changes affect more than 27,000 players. The category and the stats might not seem that important to GA regulars, but GA regulars are only a few dozen players. What is more important for more players is how their nations' rankings are impacted by our decisions in this area.

[Bananaistan]

Tbh, the 27,000 players wouldn't be my greatest concern so much as the GA regulars and others who engage in discussion on the GA on the forums here, on their RMBs and offsite. And I'd be loathe to worry about stat effects beyond what is publicly known to all in the category description. We shouldn't rule on the basis of hidden stats. We should rule on the basis of the publicly promulgated rules.

If a proposal that starts with the words "promoting research" is not a research proposal, I don't know what is.

The proposal is a research proposal but I don't feel it's fair to make that decision solely on two words in the title. It is also a healthcare proposal. The title fits the content. The AoE fits part of the content. The big question IMO is what's the weighting between the two parts of the proposal and I just can't see how a requirement that will see some nations merely deleting a line of domestic law and plenty of others taking no action at all outweighs the healthcare part.

[Christian Democrats]

The Health category has four areas of effect:

• Healthcare
• International Aid
• Research
• Bioethics

Now, think about the kind of proposal for which each area of effect was designed.

In some sense, Research and Bioethics are opposite areas of effect. Research promotes a reduction of ethical regulations and guidelines, and Bioethics promotes stronger ethics in medical research. Certainly, embryonic stem cell research is precisely the sort of situation for which Research was designed. If this proposal doesn't belong squarely in Research, then Research is a pointless subcategory.

IA's proposal is taking a hard stance on a controversial issue of bioethics, and it's taking the side of researchers over ethicists. At any rate, his proposal here is more Research-like than proposals that have been categorized as Research in the past (see, e.g., Preserving Antimicrobials). The Healthcare area of effect should be reserved primarily for proposals that pursue ethically uncontroversial policies, such as improving hospitals, providing free ambulatory services, or facilitating access to medical care in rural communities.

[Wrapper]

[violet] coded the system to hold such a proposal for a week.

Ah. Well. I'll just climb back into my hole then while you folks carry on....

[Bears Armed]

I agree with CD on this.

(My apologies for not posting earlier, but I've spent most of the last 2½ days in bed with flu-like symptoms...)

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think CD is wrong about the difference between Research and Healthcare (and Bioethics), but I think a problem arises when we try to categorize procedures that are controversial, since that's such a subjective thing. I think this reasonably fits into both Research and Healthcare, and I'm really loathe to say one is wrong.

I'm on the record as dissenting from this sort of strict approach to category, so it stands to reason that extends to AoE. That said, a strict interpretation of our last ruling on proposals that fit into more than one category supports similar treatment to AoEs.

[Christian Democrats]

Look at the preamble of the proposal too:

Seeing that the cause of science requires knowledge of all sorts, lest our ignorance doom people to deep and dreamless slumbers which most people more directly know as death.

Healthcare doesn't have anything to do with knowledge, but Research does.

Believing that the weight of morality is clearly on the side of protecting existing lives [ . . . ] rather than ending the 'life' of a non-sentient and body of cells which lacks consciousness.

This is a moral argument for removing ethical regulations, not a policy argument for facilitating healthcare access.

Also, consider IA's own comments:

It could also fit in research and conceivably, bioethics (if this comes up again, I'd love to put it in there). But I selected healthcare because I like that category more (mostly because of statwank).

Do we really want to encourage players to "statwank" by putting their proposals in less appropriate but more "likeable" categories?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Do we really want to encourage players to "statwank" by putting their proposals in less appropriate but more "likeable" categories?

Like, say, putting the promotion of nude beaches under Healthcare, even though said beaches contribute no funding to healthcare (and arguably cost healthcare money, due to increased skin cancer rates)?

At least IA's proposal actually has a positive effect on healthcare. Either both of these proposals are legal, or they're both illegal.

[Christian Democrats]

Do we really want to encourage players to "statwank" by putting their proposals in less appropriate but more "likeable" categories?

Like, say, putting the promotion of nude beaches under Healthcare, even though said beaches contribute no funding to healthcare (and arguably cost healthcare money, due to increased skin cancer rates)?

At least IA's proposal actually has a positive effect on healthcare. Either both of these proposals are legal, or they're both illegal.

You haven't voted on the nudist beaches proposal yet. I'm willing to change my mind. Can you think of a more appropriate category?

For IA's "Promoting Research" proposal, I can easily think of a more appropriate category: Research.

[Separatist Peoples]

Like, say, putting the promotion of nude beaches under Healthcare, even though said beaches contribute no funding to healthcare (and arguably cost healthcare money, due to increased skin cancer rates)?

At least IA's proposal actually has a positive effect on healthcare. Either both of these proposals are legal, or they're both illegal.

You haven't voted on the nudist beaches proposal yet. I'm willing to change my mind. Can you think of a more appropriate category?

For IA's "Promoting Research" proposal, I can easily think of a more appropriate category: Research.

I don't think we should be so paternalistic with areas of effect. Authors should have some leeway with AoEs when there is a reasonable argument and it could realistically fit in more than one. Picking what is best detracts from the author's job.

Is bad enough we do it with category. Lets leave a little leeway within the categories.

[Christian Democrats]

You haven't voted on the nudist beaches proposal yet. I'm willing to change my mind. Can you think of a more appropriate category?

For IA's "Promoting Research" proposal, I can easily think of a more appropriate category: Research.

I don't think we should be so paternalistic with areas of effect. Authors should have some leeway with AoEs when there is a reasonable argument and it could realistically fit in more than one. Picking what is best detracts from the author's job.

Is bad enough we do it with category. Lets leave a little leeway within the categories.

I don't like the categories and subcategories, and I've expressed a desire to switch to proposal-by-proposal stats in the past. As long as we have categories and subcategories, however, we should enforce them and prevent "statwanking."

IA has basically admitted that this is a Research proposal. He placed it in Healthcare merely because he prefers the stats.

We should deliver a decision that proposals must be placed in categories and subcategories where they clearly fit (e.g., a proposal "promoting research" is a Research proposal). If there is not a clear fit -- in other words, if there is not a category and subcategory where a proposal clearly fits more than any other category and subcategory -- then the fit must be reasonable.

[Ransium]

Proposal by proposal stats has been deemed essentially not possible by admin. All the more reason to get more proposal categories online as soon as possible.

[Separatist Peoples]

Proposal by proposal stats has been deemed essentially not possible by admin. All the more reason to get more proposal categories online as soon as possible.

I'll post what I have tomorrow. Computer ate my original.

[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.

[Frisbeeteria]

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

Just out of curiousity, has IA posted anything in the last 6 months which wasn't effectively trolling GenSec for a controversial ruling? I don't see them trying to add to International Law as much as tweaking you guys so they can complain when the decision goes against them. It's gotten to the point that I dread seeing a new topic from them.

[Bears Armed]

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.

I'll sign on to that.

[Separatist Peoples]

SL, are you officially on the Illegal side?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

SL, are you officially on the Illegal side?

...yeah. I'd like to have flexibility for authors, but not at the expense of making categories and AoE's meaningless.

I too will sign onto CD's analysis.

[Separatist Peoples]

SL, are you officially on the Illegal side?

...yeah. I'd like to have flexibility for authors, but not at the expense of making categories and AoE's meaningless.

I too will sign onto CD's analysis.

Ok. No problem, I just saw you considering both sides and wanted to be sure where you landed. I can write a dissent.

[Christian Democrats]

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

In the meantime, I'll make a post in the challenge topic.