[SUBMITTED] Ethical Genetic Engineering

[Pollepao]

While the earlier proposal someone else made on a similar topic was rather silly, it did get me thinking. The end result is this.

Ethical Genetic Engineering
Council: World Assembly │ Category: Human Rights │ Strength: Significant │ Proposer: Pollepao

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that many civilizations have the technological capability to provide extensive genetic reengineering, including but not limited to; the transformation of an individual from one species to another and complete biological gender-swapping, and;

Concerned that genetically engineered individuals may be exploited, that genetic engineering may be abused, and that international regulations and medical standards neglect to provide for the care, protection and rights of gengenineered individuals;

Hereby;

A) Defines genetic engineering and genetic reengineering as the direct artificial alteration or manipulation or the DNA, RNA or other comparable genome of a person, animal, plant, virus, bacteria or fetus, and;

B) Further defines a gengenineered person as a sapient person that has been genetically engineered;

C) Mandates that only qualified professionals shall perform genetic engineering upon any individual, animal, fetus, virus, bacteria or plant, and;

D) Obligates member states of the World Assembly to monitor the health standards and ethical conduct of genetic engineers, genetic engineering labs and genetic engineering as a whole within their nation;

E) Urges World Assembly member-states to crackdown on black market genetic engineering;

F) Mandates that all gengineered individuals shall keep at least the same legal and cultural rights as they held before genetic engineering;

G) Declares the genetic engineering of any sentient individual without prior consent or in the case of a minor or fetus, the prior consent of the parent or legal guardian of that individual, illegal, and;

H) Further declares that no individual may undergo genetic engineering if the procedure would endanger their life, unless the risk of the procedure is less than the risk of denying treatment, and;

I) Mandates that no corporation, organization, individual, government or other legal body may patent or hold a patent on a genetic code, species, or life form, and;

J) Clarifies that this resolution shall have no effect on the individual legal status of genetic engineering in member states.

Changes from draft 2 in red.

Ethical Genetic Engineering
Council: World Assembly │ Category: Human Rights │ Strength: Significant │ Proposer: Pollepao

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that many civilizations have the technological capability to provide extensive genetic reengineering, including but not limited to; the transformation of an individual from one species to another and complete biological gender-swapping, and;

Concerned that international guidelines and medical standards neglect to provide for the care, protection and rights of gengenineered individuals;

Hereby;

A) Defines genetic engineering and genetic reengineering as the direct artificial alteration or manipulation or the DNA, RNA or other comparable genome of a person, animal, plant, virus, bacteria or fetus, and;

B) Further defines a gengenineered person as a sapient person that has been genetically engineered;

C) Mandates that only qualified professionals shall perform genetic engineering upon any individual, animal, fetus, virus, bacteria or plant, and;

D) Obligates member states of the World Assembly to establish monitor the health standards and ethical conduct of genetic engineers, genetic engineering labs and genetic engineering as a whole within their nation;

E) Urges World Assembly member-states to crackdown on black market genetic engineering;

F) Mandates that all gengineered individuals shall keep at least the same legal and cultural rights as they held before genetic engineering;

G) Declares the genetic engineering of any sentient individual without prior consent or in the case of a minor, the prior consent of the parent or legal guardian of that individual, illegal, and;

H) Further declares that no individual may undergo genetic engineering if the procedure would endanger their life, unless the risk of the procedure is less than the risk of denying treatment, and;

I) Further acknowledges that this resolution shall have no effect on the individual legal status of genetic engineering in member states.

[Hirota]

Hello Ambassador,

Concerned that no international guidelines and medical standards have been laid down to provide the greatest possible care, protection and rights for gengenineered individuals;

I'd like to bring to your attention resolution 29, Patient's Rights Act, which would include such individuals....so it's not entirely true that there is no guidelines (although it is the subject of a repeal thread)- but you could make the case that there is only limited provision if you wanted to keep this particular section of preamble. Also, it's not a particularly big problem that I doubt anyone will make a tremendous fuss over.

Otherwise, looks well written, can't see anything that jumps out to me as illegal, and something I'd be inclined to support and ask my delegate to consider endorsing.

Regards,

[Knootoss]

In the present form this proposal would outlaw gardening and procreation unless people get a degree first and obtain written consent from their garden and/or spouse first. NAY.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Pollepao]

Dear Ambassador Aram,

We see no reason why this would outlaw or even effect gardening. Clause A defines genetic engineering as

A) "Defines genetic engineering and genetic reengineering as the genetic manipulation and modification of a person, animal, plant, virus or fetus at the base level of the DNA of that entity;"

We fail to see how gardening is genetic manipulation of the DNA of plants. Nor does Pollepao see ...

"G) Declares the genetic engineering of any individual without prior consent or in the case of a minor, the prior consent of the parent or legal guardian of that individual, illegal, and;"

... as applying to plant life. Plant life (unless its sentient) does not make up an individual.

As to the Ambassador of Hirota's comments,

We thank you for your input, and we have modified that preamble to better describe the current situation.

Also, we would like to point out the addition of a new clause (Clause F), regarding the rights of gengenineered individuals.

[Knootoss]

"Well you see, when a boy and a girl like each other very much, they sometimes rub their tummies together and the result is that the stork delivers a little baby to mummy nine months later. That baby has 50% of the DNA of mummy and 50% of the DNA of daddy. It's true for bees and plants as well! Except there aren't any storks involved."

[Pollepao]

That is natural procreation. However, we do see your point and we will modify the definition to better define it as artificial modification.

[Dagguerro]

We fail to see how gardening is genetic manipulation of the DNA of plants.

It is. It's how we have most of the "garden variety" plants that we have today, through selective breeding and cross-pollination and so on. Which is technically genetic manipulation.

- Lord Swift

[Pollepao]

Very well, Lord Swift. Does the new draft correct this problem?

[Dashiopolis]

G) Declares the genetic engineering of any individual without prior consent or in the case of a minor, the prior consent of the parent or legal guardian of that individual, illegal

And how, ambassador, do you expect our farmers to gather the consent of a plant? Or our doctors of a virus?

This needs rewording. Perhaps: "Declares the genetic engineering of any citizen or legal resident without prior..."

[Floreria]

x

[Hirota]

G) Declares the genetic engineering of any individual without prior consent or in the case of a minor, the prior consent of the parent or legal guardian of that individual, illegal

And how, ambassador, do you expect our farmers to gather the consent of a plant? Or our doctors of a virus?

I'm not convinced that plants and viruses can be considered individuals. Certainly not those under the perview of farmers.

As designed Florel, though rare, are genetically manipulated before birth, we can't support clause G.

The parent can give consent under g. I'd say pre-birth can be considered a minor.

[Pollepao]

The Ambassador of Hirota has made a good point. We do not see how a plant can be defined an individual in that context. However, to clear up this matter we have edited clause G to better clarifying that issue.

The Ambasador from Hirota has also answered Floreria's concern. A fetus can certainly be considered a minor. However if Floreria is still concerned, we can modify the clause to specifically say ‘minor or unborn fetus’?

[Novus Niciae]

Article G is problematic since one of our emergency repopulation measures is the mass cloning of Genetically Engineered Mutants with engineered DNA which leads to them having no parents to give consent to their creation.

[Pollepao]

We see your problem, and had not considered genetically engineered clones before. But it is certainly a problem.

Wouldn't, technically, the state be their ward if they have no parents or guardians? If so, then the state is their legal guardian, which is covered by Clause G. If not, we will have to consider adding a clause regarding clones, or adding a sub-cluase to Clause G.

[The Emerald Legion]

That is natural procreation. However, we do see your point and we will modify the definition to better define it as artificial modification.

We take offense that the naturalists are explicitely permitted to ignore the law. Either they must abide by the law as we do, or we will be forced to vote against this proposal.

[Pollepao]

That is natural procreation. However, we do see your point and we will modify the definition to better define it as artificial modification.

We take offense that the naturalists are explicitely permitted to ignore the law. Either they must abide by the law as we do, or we will be forced to vote against this proposal.

We do not see why naturalists should be forced to ask permission of the parent of their plant, in order to propagate it? There is a very big difference between turning a sentient being into, for example, an anthro dog and developing a new variety of rose.

Unless it’s a sentient plant race, which is then a different case and already covered by the current definition of Clause G.

[The Emerald Legion]

We take offense that the naturalists are explicitely permitted to ignore the law. Either they must abide by the law as we do, or we will be forced to vote against this proposal.

We do not see why naturalists should be forced to ask permission of the parent of their plant, in order to propagate it? There is a very big difference between turning a sentient being into, for example, an anthro dog and developing a new variety of rose.

Unless it’s a sentient plant race, which is then a different case and already covered by the current definition of Clause G.

We believe there are ways you could write the proposal so as to include them in the law, as well as disregard those cases where it would be ridiculous.

For example, requiring it be a sapient creature to be protected.

Or disregarding production as a form of genetic engineering. There is a world of difference between making a homunculus and engineering a new species.

[Pollepao]

Pollepao would like to point out that all other clauses, besides Clause G, apply to anything that someone genetically engineers. It is only Clause G that requires the entity be sentient/sapient to be covered by the clause.

[The Emerald Legion]

Pollepao would like to point out that all other clauses, besides Clause G, apply to anything that someone genetically engineers. It is only Clause G that requires the entity be sentient/sapient to be covered by the clause.

In rereading your proposal I see no need to include the word artificial.

[Pollepao]

We have modified clause A to describe what was meant in better words, and we will consider removing the word artificial depending on the views of the World Assembly delegates.

[Paper Flowers]

We have some concerns with clause H. Certainly no individual should be put in danger unknowingly from a procedure, however there are some circumstances where the benefit of it would outweigh the risks involved. As long as informed consent is obtained why should these procedures be ruled out of bounds for those who could greatly benefit from them?

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Pollepao]

We see your point. That was a bad use of words on our part.

Would the following changes be good, Ambassador Saunders?

H) Further declares that no individual may undergo genetic engineering if the procedure has been proven to result in death for more than one out of every ten patients, and;

[Paper Flowers]

We see your point. That was a bad use of words on our part.

Would the following changes be good, Ambassador Saunders?

H) Further declares that no individual may undergo genetic engineering if the procedure has been proven to result in death for more than one out of every ten patients, and;

I'm afraid it wouldn't perhaps it would help if I elaborate on the sort of situation I am thinking of:

A child is born with a medical condition, this condition will almost certainly cause the child to die before it reaches its 3rd birthday. There is a genetic procedure that could be done, but also has a (picking a number out the air) 50% chance of fatality.

Under your proposal, we would be forced to not allow the procedure, and to let the child die. What we would prefer is some level of informed consent and/or relative risk language, perhaps something like:

H) Further declares that no individual may be genetically engineered if the procedure would endanger their life, unless the risk of the procedure is less than the risk of denying treatment;

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Pollepao]

Pollepao commends your proposed change, and we will implement it immediately.

[Merfurian]

"Well you see, when a boy and a girl like each other very much, they sometimes rub their tummies together and the result is that the stork delivers a little baby to mummy nine months later. That baby has 50% of the DNA of mummy and 50% of the DNA of daddy. It's true for bees and plants as well! Except there aren't any storks involved."

OOC: Knoot, can I sig that?! That just made me laugh "...the stork delivers a little baby to mummy..." LOL! That's the best dumbed-down explanation of procreation I've ever read!