NATION

PASSWORD

[Submitted] Protection of Research Subjects Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

[Submitted] Protection of Research Subjects Act

Postby Burninati0n » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:40 am

Members of the WA, please consider the below draft proposal.

Category: Health, Area of Effect: Bioethics

RECOGNIZING GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act," as an important step in the protection of sapient subjects of medical research, but that it does not protect communities (such as ethnic or racial communities) or animals in medical research, or extend protections in non-medical research.

BELIEVING that individuals, communities, and animals may have the right to protection while participating in any kind of research.

UNDERSTANDING legitimate concerns about restricting important research without sufficient justification.

AFFIRMING that scientific research is an essential endeavor in the struggle to reduce the impacts of disease, to ensure consumer product safety, and to further the cause of knowledge.

SEEKING therefore, to strike the proper balance between the necessity of conducting important research and the necessity of protecting sentient species involved in that research.

THEREFORE, the World Assembly,

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:
    "Sentience" as the capability of feeling but not of giving informed consent, and
    "Sapience" as the capability of feeling and giving informed consent.

REQUIRES that states protect members of sapient and sentient species that are subjects of research within their jurisdictions.

    1. Any research with sapient subjects carrying a reasonable level of risk to either the individual subject or to a community of which he is a member shall be required to undergo external review by an entity with sufficient organizational capacity and whose purpose is to protect the interests of the subjects of the research. Such entities will be referred to herein as "Institutional Review Boards" (IRBs).

      a. Member states may decide what constitutes a reasonable level of risk, or delegate that decision to organizations performing research.

      b. An IRB with "sufficient organizational capacity" to fulfill the requirement of external review must have the following characteristics:
        i. The IRB must be independent from the organization conducting the research in that it must not have a financial or other stake in the completion of the research.
        ii. The IRB must be composed of or receive active consultation from an expert or experts in the field at a similar or more advanced level than those conducting the research who also do not have a financial or other stake in the completion of the research.
        iii. The IRB's approval must be a prerequisite for the legal operation of research, and it must have the discretion to reject proposals that do not adequately protect subjects.
        iv. The IRB must review the purpose of the research and its proposed methods for the protection of its sapient subjects and procedures in the case of a negative impact to a subject. It must reject any research that does not provide sapient subjects with a minimum of:
          - a consent form that accurately, adequately, and understandably informs subjects of risks to themselves and to any community of which they are a member, safety procedures, and contacts in case the subject wishes to seek external recourse,
          - contact information and the qualifications of those conducting the research,
          - information about the selection of subjects for the research.

      c. Should a research subject come to believe that the protections guaranteed by this resolution were not adequately provided, they must be afforded the ability to be removed from the research and pursue whatever civil remedies are available in the jurisdiction in which the alleged violation occurred.

    2. Member states shall not use prisoners of war as research subjects.

    3. Member states must protect members of sentient species who are the subjects of research by:

      a. Reducing the use of sentient species as subjects in research that poses risks to them through research design that eliminates the risk or through research design that eliminates the use of a sentient subjects altogether when the same research objectives may be reasonably be obtained without posing those risks to sentient species or posing unreasonable risks to sapient species.

      b. Requiring that organizations keeping members of sentient species for the purposes of research provide a minimum level of care to those individuals with respect to their biological needs, including provision of appropriate sustenance and allowances for other needs that might arise and that the individual would plausibly be able to obtain if it was not a subject of research. In cases where specific research objectives must be achieved through the withholding of such care, only the minimum amount of care required to achieve the research objective may be withheld.

      c. Encouraging research that can reasonably be conducted with willing volunteers of a sapient species as subjects be conducted in this manner instead of using sentient subjects, especially in cases where risks are relatively low and willing volunteers could easily be found.


Please share your comments/criticisms/concerns.

Note: Passage of this proposal would render GAR#111 completely superfluous. (The requirements of that resolution are a proper subset of the requirements under this proposal.) Do I have to repeal GAR#111 before this can be considered? [I would otherwise seek the repeal of 111 if and only if this were passed.]

Related resolutions:
GAR #111
GAR #425

Original Draft: (Failed; lack of interest)
Category: Human Rights, Strength: Significant
RECOGNIZING that
- GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act," represents an important step in the protection of individuals participating in medical research,
- protection of communities (such as national or ethnic communities, racial communities, and communities based on sexual orientation or gender) and animals in medical research is not yet guaranteed by any resolution passed by this body,
- that the protection of individuals, groups, and animals in non-medical research is not yet guaranteed by any resolution passed by this body.

BELIEVING that communities of individuals and animals may be entitled to certain protections with respect to medical research, and that all sentient beings may be entitled to protections while participating in non-medical research as well.

UNDERSTANDING concerns about member states restricting medical research without sufficient justification, addressed by GAR #425, "Protection of Biomedical Research," may be legitimate.

SEEKING therefore, to strike the proper balance between the necessity of research and the necessity to protect sentient species involved in that research.

TO THIS END, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

DIRECTS Institutional Review Boards (IRB's), both those created by prior GA legislation and those that exist separately in individual member states to:

1. ensure the protection of communities in biomedical research as well as individuals by informing subjects of potential community ramifications of research as well as potential individual ramifications prior to accepting their informed consent.

2. consider the protection of other sentient species in biomedical research pursuant to later clauses in this resolution pertaining to the protection of other sentient species in non-biomedical research.

REQUIRES that member states protect the sentient subjects of non-biomedical research.

1. Member states shall protect sapient beings participating in non-biomedical research by requiring that any non-biomedical research with sapient test subjects that carries a reasonable level of risk to individuals or communities shall undergo IRB review, and IRB's created by previous GA resolutions shall extend their mandate to include such reviews.
a. Member states may decide what constitutes a reasonable level of risk, or delegate that decision to organizations performing research.
b. Should test subjects come to believe that the protections guaranteed by this resolution were not adequately provided, they must be afforded the ability to lodge an official complaint with their member state's respective IRB system.

2. Member states shall protect other sentient species participating in non-biomedical research by:
a. Encouraging research that can reasonably be conducted on species capable of giving informed consent be conducted on those species instead.
b. Eliminating the use of sentient species in research that poses risks to sentient species when the same research may be reasonably conducted without posing any risks to sentient species either through research design that eliminates the risk, or through research design that eliminates the use of a sentient species altogether.


I was looking at past resolutions for protections granted to animals -- a topic that has always been important to me -- and I found that I am intensely dissatisfied with the limitations of this resolution. It has been quite a while since I have been really involved in the WA, though, so please have pity on my draft attempt.

Point 1 -- I wrote this so as not to repeal the resolution and replace it, but to address the shortcomings of that resolution with a new one. I am specifically looking for comments on whether that is the correct (and legal) approach. (This is not intended to be an amendment; I am aware that amending past resolutions is not the right approach, but rather, whether it is a better idea to repeal/replace than to open a new resolution on the issue.)
Point 2 -- I'm not 100% sure of the reference to a previous WA resolution in the first line -- if there is a conventional format for doing so that I did not adhere to, I'd appreciate someone pointing that out.
Point 3 -- your general comments, criticisms, and concerns are also appreciated.
Last edited by Burninati0n on Thu May 03, 2018 4:55 am, edited 31 times in total.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:52 am

Just bumping this because it has been submitted since there were no comments, and I wasn't sure if that meant that (a) no one cares, or (b) it's actually good for submission!

If you are a WA Delegate and not in support of this proposal but could potentially get onboard, please tell me how.

User avatar
Kranostav
Attaché
 
Posts: 77
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:51 am

I'm not too confident that the language here justifies the use of a 'significant' strength.

Also, how could an animal or non-intelligent (to such a level as human intelligence) possibly give legal consent?
The Constitutional Monarchy of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:17 am

Kranostav wrote:I'm not too confident that the language here justifies the use of a 'significant' strength.

Oh? This extends bureaucratic control over ethics in research from the relatively small field of medical research involving sapients only to the much broader field of social science research and commercial research involving sentients. This proposal is, therefore, more broad and stronger than the resolution that affects merely medical research, and that resolution was labeled "significant."

Do you disagree?
Kranostav wrote:Also, how could an animal or non-intelligent (to such a level as human intelligence) possibly give legal consent?

It couldn't. That is, I believe, the thrust behind the idea of 2b at the bottom of the proposal. Do we disagree?
Last edited by Burninati0n on Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kranostav
Attaché
 
Posts: 77
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:35 am

Burninati0n wrote:
Kranostav wrote:I'm not too confident that the language here justifies the use of a 'significant' strength.

Oh? This extends bureaucratic control over ethics in research from the relatively small field of medical research involving sapients only to the much broader field of social science research and commercial research involving sentients. This proposal is, therefore, more broad and stronger than the resolution that affects merely medical research, and that resolution was labeled "significant."

Do you disagree?
Kranostav wrote:Also, how could an animal or non-intelligent (to such a level as human intelligence) possibly give legal consent?

It couldn't. That is, I believe, the thrust behind the idea of 2b at the bottom of the proposal. Do we disagree?

My view was the application of protections for sentient life being subsidiary to the original proposal protecting sapient life exclusively. I suppose your justification would fly as I was thinking more patient based instead of science based.

A problem may arise in the potential contradiction being that sapient species are generally sentient where as not all sentient species are sapient.

And yes that 2b makes more sense. I was confused at the mention of consent and if there was an assumption of implied consent.
The Constitutional Monarchy of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 2989
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:40 am

"Submitted already?! This was much too short a period of drafting. Being in these hallowed halls is, unfortunately for us ambassadors, a marathon and not a sprint."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:03 am

Kranostav wrote:My view was the application of protections for sentient life being subsidiary to the original proposal protecting sapient life exclusively. I suppose your justification would fly as I was thinking more patient based instead of science based.

Well the intent is that this resolution stands alone, as I am not seeking to repeal GAR111.

Essentially, GAR111 says "If you are doing medical research on sapient species, you need to get your research approved by an review board to ensure that patients are properly informed of risks."

This proposal says "if you are doing research of any kind on sentient species, you need to take adequate steps to protect them, and thus any research on sapient species should be subject to review. Also, you need to protect communities."
Kranostav wrote:A problem may arise in the potential contradiction being that sapient species are generally sentient where as not all sentient species are sapient.

And yes that 2b makes more sense. I was confused at the mention of consent and if there was an assumption of implied consent.

I believe that the uses of the terms in the draft are all correct and intentional -- please do let me know if you see an error in use somewhere, though. Yes, sentience = mere capacity to feel, sapience = higher brain capacities.

Perhaps a definitions section would be in order? Would welcome further opinions on that.
Kenmoria wrote:"Submitted already?! This was much too short a period of drafting. Being in these hallowed halls is, unfortunately for us ambassadors, a marathon and not a sprint."

I asked for comments and received no reply -- submitting has had, if nothing else, the intended result of getting a response!

I am quite willing to revise, which is why I have asked for comments.

And I should also note -- your response did not include any suggestions for changes; if no one has a suggested change, then what benefit is obtained by waiting??
Last edited by Burninati0n on Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4811
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:23 pm

I'd like to provide some additional comments later, but for now I'll point out that the proposal's awkward carveouts for "non-biomedical research" strongly suggest it is necessary to repeal Protection of Biomedical Research before the issue of improving World Assembly protection of medical ethics in research can be adequately addressed.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Last edited by Auralia on Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:56 am

Auralia wrote:I'd like to provide some additional comments later, but for now I'll point out that the proposal's awkward carveouts for "non-biomedical research" strongly suggest it is necessary to repeal Protection of Biomedical Research before the issue of improving World Assembly protection of medical ethics in research can be adequately addressed.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

A reasonable thought.

Since this draft got no comments but doesn't look like it has enough support in queue, I will redraft.

Christian Democrats marked this as improper category -- uncertain, but it doesn't matter because it won't get enough support and will need to be redone.

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 567
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:07 am

Christian Democrats marked this as improper category -- uncertain, but it doesn't matter because it won't get enough support and will need to be redone.

OOC:It is Health- Area of Effect Bioethics.
Last edited by Old Hope on Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:44 am

Old Hope wrote:OOC:It is Health- Area of Effect Bioethics.

Oh I see he thinks that, but the proposal also confers significant new human rights as well, which is why I am uncertain that it has to be in that category (eg. that the current category makes it illegal.)

Also, the proposal has the most wide and significant effects outside healthcare, hence my belief that it probably should stay in human rights.

EDIT: Second read, I think CD might be right. I'll do this on redraft.
Last edited by Burninati0n on Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4811
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:00 am

Burninati0n wrote:
Old Hope wrote:OOC:It is Health- Area of Effect Bioethics.

Oh I see he thinks that, but the proposal also confers significant new human rights as well, which is why I am uncertain that it has to be in that category (eg. that the current category makes it illegal.)

Also, the proposal has the most wide and significant effects outside healthcare, hence my belief that it probably should stay in human rights.

((OOC: Prior to the introduction of the Health -- Bioethics category and area of effect, it probably would be Human Rights. However, this category and area of effect specifically covers ethical regulation of medical research, which is precisely what you're doing with this proposal. In general you should use a more specific category if one is available.))
Last edited by Auralia on Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:01 am

Auralia wrote:((OOC: Prior to the introduction of the Health -- Bioethics category and area of effect, it probably would be human rights. However, this category and area of effect specifically covers ethical regulation of medical research, which is precisely what you're doing with this proposal.))

You guys are correct I think.

I'll do this on re-draft.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:58 am

Bumping this because I significantly modified the proposal and would appreciate comments. (Sorry for the double-post.)

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4811
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:59 am

Burninati0n wrote:Since this draft got no comments but doesn't look like it has enough support in queue, I will redraft.

((OOC: By the way, this isn't evidence of anything. You need to campaign to get something to quorum.))
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:02 am

Auralia wrote:(OOC: By the way, this isn't evidence of anything. You need to campaign to get something to quorum.)

Last time I did this, which was admittedly a long time ago, I did exactly zero campaigning, and it worked out OK!

But in any case, submitting it before was more of a publicity stunt than me thinking I was 100% ready to go.

I would like people to comment/criticize/concern before I make a TG-WA-Delegates effort to get it to queue/pass. As it stands I mostly wrote this myself in one shot, and I may be a smart guy, but I'm certain that someone will notice something I missed.
Last edited by Burninati0n on Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 2989
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:34 am

"Having an entire line in all-caps seems excessive to me."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:42 am

Kenmoria wrote:"Having an entire line in all-caps seems excessive to me."

Funny story, I actually find the allcaps in the beginnings of sentences in WA resolutions people tend to use to be super excessive, but that seems to be the thing to do, so :p.

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:25 pm

Burninati0n wrote:Members of the WA, please consider the below draft proposal.

Category: Health, Area of Effect: Bioethics

RECOGNIZING that GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act," represents an important step in the protection of individuals participating in medical research, but that it does not protect communities (such as national or ethnic communities, racial communities, and communities based on sexual orientation or gender) or animals in medical research, or extend protections in non-medical research.

BELIEVING that individuals, communities, and animals may have the right to protection while participating in any kind of research.

UNDERSTANDING concerns about member states restricting medical research without sufficient justification, discussed in GAR #425, "Protection of Biomedical Research," may be legitimate.

SEEKING therefore, to strike the proper balance between the necessity of research and the necessity to protect sentient species involved in that research.

TO THIS END, the World Assembly,

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. "Sentient species" as a species capable of feeling, but not capable of giving informed consent, and
    2. "Sapient species" as a species capable of feeling and giving informed consent.

REQUIRES that member states protect members of sapient species and sentient species that are subjects of research within the jurisdictions of member states.

    1. Any research with sapient subjects that carries a reasonable level of risk to either the individual subject or to a community of which he is a member shall be required to undergo external review by an entity with sufficient organizational capacity and whose purpose is to protect the interests of the subjects of the research.

      a. Member states may decide what constitutes a reasonable level of risk, or delegate that decision to organizations performing research.

      b. An entity with "sufficient organizational capacity" to fulfill the requirement of external review must have the following characteristics:
        i. The entity must be independent from the organization conducting the research and must not have a financial or other stake in the completion of the research, and be composed of or receive active consultation from an expert or experts in the field of research at a similar or more advanced level than those conducting the research who also do not have a financial or other stake in the completion of the research.
        ii. The entity must have the power to make its approval a prerequisite for the legal operation of research, the power to review all research practices as a unified proposal prior to granting its approval approval, the discretion to reject proposals that do not adequately protect subjects, and the power to impose requirements on the research practices it oversees.
        iii. The entity must review the purpose of the research and its proposed methods and procedures for the protection of its sapient subjects and in the case of a negative impact to a subject. To this end, it must reject any research that does not provide sapient research subjects with a minimum of:
          - a consent form that accurately, adequately, and understandably informs subjects of risks to themselves and to any community of which they are a part and to which they are a member, safety procedures, and contacts in case the subject wishes to seek external recourse,
          - contact information and the qualifications of those conducting the research,
          - information about the selection of subjects for the research.

      c. Should the research subjects come to believe that the protections guaranteed by this resolution were not adequately provided, they must be afforded the ability to be removed from the research and pursue whatever civil remedies are available in the jurisdiction in which the alleged violation occurred.

    2. Member states must protect members of sentient species who are the subjects of research by:

      a. Encouraging research that can reasonably be conducted with sapient species as subjects instead of sentient species be conducted in this manner instead.

      b. Eliminating the use of sentient species in research that poses risks to sentient species when the same research objectives may be reasonably be obtained without posing those risks to sentient species, either through research design that eliminates the risk, or through research design that eliminates the use of a sentient species altogether.

      c. Requiring that organizations keeping members of sentient species for the purposes of research provide a minimum level of care to those individuals with respect to their biological needs, including provision of appropriate sustenance and allowances for other needs that might arise and that the individual would be able to obtain if it was not a subject of research. In cases where specific research objectives must be achieved through the withholding of such care, only the minimum amount of care required to achieve the research objective may be withheld.


Please share your comments/criticisms/concerns.

Note: Passage of this proposal would render GAR#111 completely superfluous. (The requirements of that resolution are a proper subset of the requirements under this proposal.) Do I have to repeal GAR#111 before this can be considered?

Related resolutions:
GAR #111
GAR #425

Original Draft: (Failed; lack of interest)
Category: Human Rights, Strength: Significant
RECOGNIZING that
- GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act," represents an important step in the protection of individuals participating in medical research,
- protection of communities (such as national or ethnic communities, racial communities, and communities based on sexual orientation or gender) and animals in medical research is not yet guaranteed by any resolution passed by this body,
- that the protection of individuals, groups, and animals in non-medical research is not yet guaranteed by any resolution passed by this body.

BELIEVING that communities of individuals and animals may be entitled to certain protections with respect to medical research, and that all sentient beings may be entitled to protections while participating in non-medical research as well.

UNDERSTANDING concerns about member states restricting medical research without sufficient justification, addressed by GAR #425, "Protection of Biomedical Research," may be legitimate.

SEEKING therefore, to strike the proper balance between the necessity of research and the necessity to protect sentient species involved in that research.

TO THIS END, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

DIRECTS Institutional Review Boards (IRB's), both those created by prior GA legislation and those that exist separately in individual member states to:

1. ensure the protection of communities in biomedical research as well as individuals by informing subjects of potential community ramifications of research as well as potential individual ramifications prior to accepting their informed consent.

2. consider the protection of other sentient species in biomedical research pursuant to later clauses in this resolution pertaining to the protection of other sentient species in non-biomedical research.

REQUIRES that member states protect the sentient subjects of non-biomedical research.

1. Member states shall protect sapient beings participating in non-biomedical research by requiring that any non-biomedical research with sapient test subjects that carries a reasonable level of risk to individuals or communities shall undergo IRB review, and IRB's created by previous GA resolutions shall extend their mandate to include such reviews.
a. Member states may decide what constitutes a reasonable level of risk, or delegate that decision to organizations performing research.
b. Should test subjects come to believe that the protections guaranteed by this resolution were not adequately provided, they must be afforded the ability to lodge an official complaint with their member state's respective IRB system.

2. Member states shall protect other sentient species participating in non-biomedical research by:
a. Encouraging research that can reasonably be conducted on species capable of giving informed consent be conducted on those species instead.
b. Eliminating the use of sentient species in research that poses risks to sentient species when the same research may be reasonably conducted without posing any risks to sentient species either through research design that eliminates the risk, or through research design that eliminates the use of a sentient species altogether.


I was looking at past resolutions for protections granted to animals -- a topic that has always been important to me -- and I found that I am intensely dissatisfied with the limitations of this resolution. It has been quite a while since I have been really involved in the WA, though, so please have pity on my draft attempt.

Point 1 -- I wrote this so as not to repeal the resolution and replace it, but to address the shortcomings of that resolution with a new one. I am specifically looking for comments on whether that is the correct (and legal) approach. (This is not intended to be an amendment; I am aware that amending past resolutions is not the right approach, but rather, whether it is a better idea to repeal/replace than to open a new resolution on the issue.)
Point 2 -- I'm not 100% sure of the reference to a previous WA resolution in the first line -- if there is a conventional format for doing so that I did not adhere to, I'd appreciate someone pointing that out.
Point 3 -- your general comments, criticisms, and concerns are also appreciated.

I like this bill, and it will have my support. However, because of GENSEC (You guys aren't my favorite, appreciate your work though) this will violate HOC (House of Cards). I just learned this myself. In clause 1 you would be violating HOC because if the bill is repealed, this bill would still be recognizing it as if it was still in force. The same thing would be be happening by noting GAR 245. I understand your reasoning, but I would question whether it is needed.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:06 pm

I don't agree... Whether or not a resolution was repealed has no bearing on whether it was a step forward or not.

And anyway, those aren't operative clauses to begin with.

I could just straight remove them, but unless a GenSec member tells me this directly, I'm leaving it.

Thanks for your support, though -- and please moar feedback.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:18 am

If there are no further comments, I will consider submitting a second time.

I can't believe there are no more opinions on it, though -- I know people here have opinions.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7827
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:56 am

The above interpretation of the House of Cards rule is just wrong. We have GA Secretariat précédente. And it says that recognising past legislation is fine. And so it has been done already. For links and what-not, consult http://bit.ly/gensec-catalogue .
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 21 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:45 am

Thanks IA.

I am still looking for comments -- if I don't see any I'll probably submit in the next couple days.

Pls comment.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11668
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:12 am

OOC: Please tell me you're not seriously attempting to replace animal tests with human tests...
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:23 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Please tell me you're not seriously attempting to replace animal tests with human tests...

Sapient test subjects can consent, though, and don't need to be kept for testing purposes. The large effect of encouraging tests that can easily be conducted on willing sapient subjects instead of animal subjects (note that this is not required to be enforceable as worded) would be that companies that test consumer products on animals (soaps, shampoos, nail polishes, etc.) would be encouraged to test such things on consenting subjects instead.

Not only is this largely better scientific method, but it's more ethical as well.

Do you disagree?

Next

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Separatist Peoples

Remove ads