[CHALLENGE] Protection of Biomedical Research

[Stoskavanya]

Original Proposal

Protection of Biomedical Research

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Research

---

Recognizing the vast potential of biomedical research to improve and save the lives of the citizens of Member-States,

Applauding the great strides already made in the field by Member-States,

Seeking to greatly expand these efforts through the expansion and facilitation of International collaboration in the field,

And condemning the placement of unjust and illegitimate restrictions on life-saving biomedical research,

The World Assembly hereby;

Defines Biomedical Research as the fields of research investigating the causes of disease, disease prevention, treatment, and the mitigation or elimination of medical conditions including, but not limited to: Cancer, Paraplegia, and Motor Neuron Diseases,

Expands the mandate of the Biomedical Innovation Organization of the World Health Authority to include:

1. Coordination of international efforts at biomedical research,
2. Development of a set of minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research, to be met by Member-States,
3. Service as an advisory body for biomedical ethics organizations and biomedical ethics regulatory bodies within Member-States,
4. Maintenance of an internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States, excepting information regarding research efforts which are protected by Member-States as a matter of security,

Mandates:

1. That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,
2. That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, and,

Clarifies that the above provisions are subject to extant legislation,

And reminds Member-States that any and all determinations of sapience or sentience are subject to extant World Assembly legislation and scientific procedure.

Thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=433306

Rules Broken:
On Duplication - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

Firstly, The proposal’s expanded committee duties duplicate almost entirely the duties of World Assembly Resolutions Committee #219 Biomedical Innovation Org

“219's committee”

1. Coordinating research on treatments involving biomedical tissues conducted within WA member nations, including the sharing of findings and breakthroughs on an international level.

“Proposal's committee”

2. Coordination of international efforts at biomedical research,

“219's committee”

2. Including research data for biomedical innovations as a part of the Database Of Clinical Treatments Under Study.

“Proposal's committee”

4. Maintenance of an internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States, excepting information regarding research efforts which are protected by Member-States as a matter of security,

Second,
The committee of the proposal was tasked with

"Development of a set of minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research, to be met by Member-States,"

However, a World Assembly policy of ensuring acceptable standards for all research already exist in the WA in #111 Medical Research Ethics Act, which establishes a mandatory Institutional Review Board within all member nations, tasked with

"FURTHER REQUIRES that any entity within a WA nation that performs medical research on any individuals must have this research verified as ethical by the IRB to which their nation subscribes."

Meaning that any biomedical research already follows acceptable ethical standards in the World Assembly's canon, and is thus the proposal's set of ethics it forces states to meet is a duplication of concept.



Off Topic and Meta Rant:

The blanket mandate makes it so that no more World Assembly resolutions can be drafted on the subject of bio-ethics, which I find to be unbefitting in a game about making legislation. If this were passed early in the history of the GA, shining pieces of resolutions such as Mouse's series on Biomedical Rights, #111 Medical Research Ethics Act, and #82 Universal Clinical Trials Act would of not been able to pass due to the blocker, replaced with a lame committee doing all the legislating speculatively.

[Tinfect]

On Duplication - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

OOC:
I highly recommend you read the bolded portion.

Firstly, The proposal’s expanded committee duties duplicate almost entirely the duties of World Assembly Resolutions Committee #219 Biomedical Innovation Org
“219's committee”

1. Coordinating research on treatments involving biomedical tissues conducted within WA member nations, including the sharing of findings and breakthroughs on an international level.

“Proposal's committee”

2. Coordination of international efforts at biomedical research,

Resolution 219 handles only Biomedical Research utilizing Biomedical Tissues, my proposal expands it to Biomedical Research in general.

2. Including research data for biomedical innovations as a part of the Database Of Clinical Treatments Under Study.

“Proposal's committee”

4. Maintenance of an internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States, accepting information regarding research efforts which are protected by Member-States as a matter of security,

My proposal handles currently ongoing research, Resolution 219 only handles specific innovations. Also, you replaced 'excepting' in this snippet with 'accepting', the two words have very different meanings.

Second,
The committee of the proposal was tasked with

"Development of a set of minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research, to be met by Member-States,"

However, a World Assembly policy of ensuring acceptable standards for all research already exist in the WA in #111 Medical Research Ethics Act, which establishes a mandatory Institutional Review Board within all member nations, tasked with

"FURTHER REQUIRES that any entity within a WA nation that performs medical research on any individuals must have this research verified as ethical by the IRB to which their nation subscribes."

Meaning that any biomedical research already follows acceptable ethical standards in the World Assembly's canon, and is thus the proposal's set of ethics it forces states to meet is a duplication of concept.

That is an entirely different thing than my proposal. Protection of Biomedical Research develops and enforces a minimum set of ethical and scientific standards and regulations, that resolution requires that Member-States submit medical research on sapient test-subjects to a reviewing body to determine whether their methodology can be considered ethical in general.

Off Topic and Meta Rant:
The blanket mandate makes it so that no more World Assembly resolutions can be drafted on the subject of bio-ethics, which I find to be unbefitting in a game about making legislation. If this were passed early in the history of the GA, shining pieces of resolutions such as Mouse's series on Biomedical Rights, #111 Medical Research Ethics Act, and #82 Universal Clinical Trials Act would of not been able to pass due to the blocker, replaced with a lame committee doing all the legislating speculatively.

This is far from the only example of Legislation like this.

[Stoskavanya]

Resolution 219 handles only Biomedical Research utilizing Biomedical Tissues, my proposal expands it to Biomedical Research in general.

Examples of biomedical research that doesn't use biomedical tissue are much less than examines that do. You name two different things which are really very similar, and your picking at straws. Regardless, the bio tissue from that resolution would be entirely included in your proposal, still being duplicitous.

My proposal handles currently ongoing research, Resolution 219 only handles specific innovations. Also, you replaced 'excepting' in this snippet with 'accepting', the two words have very different meanings.

Are you kidding me? You really think "Innovation" versus "On going data" warrants enough difference? Isn't it implied that "Innovations" would provide that data, and that on going data would show "Innovations"? Regardless, the 'innovations' would be entirely included in your database, still being duplicitous.

That is an entirely different thing than my proposal. Protection of Biomedical Research develops and enforces a minimum set of ethical and scientific standards and regulations, that resolution requires that Member-States submit medical research on sapient test-subjects to a reviewing body to determine whether their methodology can be considered ethical in general.

You said two different things that amount to the same thing; even if the process for determining it is different on those two proposals, both result in whatever research made to be determined to be ethical for the purpose of this World Assembly, standards set beforehand or not.

This is far from the only example of Legislation like this.

Possibly, but it's the only legislation that utterly stifles what would otherwise be an ongoing active topic of debate.

I understand that your provisions were nuanced and not 100% overlapping, but I think serious duplication occurs for it to warrant review. Your resolution doesn't elaborate with specific policy in broad legislation, it trumps broad legislation over existing specific policy. My challenge stands and would ask for it to at least be formally reviewed.

[Tinfect]

Examples of biomedical research that doesn't use biomedical tissue are much less than examines that do. You name two different things which are really very similar, and your picking at straws. Regardless, the bio tissue from that resolution would be entirely included in your proposal, still being duplicitous.

OOC:
Great! So what you're saying is, it doesn't break the Duplication rule!

On Duplication - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

Are you kidding me? You really think "Innovation" versus "On going data" warrants enough difference?

Yes, because they are literally not the same thing.

Isn't it implied that "Innovations" would provide that data, and that on going data would show "Innovations"?

No, it really doesn't.

Regardless, the 'innovations' would be entirely included in your database, still being duplicitous.

Hey, guess what? That doesn't break the Duplication rule!

On Duplication - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

You said two different things that amount to the same thing; even if the process for determining it is different on those two proposals, both result in whatever research made to be determined to be ethical for the purpose of this World Assembly, standards set beforehand or not.

So what you're saying is, that they do different things, to determine a similar point.
That doesn't break the rule.

On Duplication - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

Possibly, but it's the only legislation that utterly stifles what would otherwise be an ongoing active topic of debate.

Passing anything closes debate on a subject.

I understand that your provisions were nuanced and not 100% overlapping, but I think serious duplication occurs for it to warrant review.

No, it is very literally not doing the same thing, it is specifically allowed for in both the text of the rule, and precedent going back as far as at least since I've been here. It has literally never been different since I've been here.

Your resolution doesn't elaborate with specific policy in broad legislation, it trumps broad legislation over existing specific policy. My challenge stands and would ask for it to at least be formally reviewed.

Your point is nonsense, and you're just wasting GenSec's time.

[Stoskavanya]

We could go back and forth with quote tree battles, but I would rather have a impartial third party look over my points. My challenge stands.

[Junnland]

As the use of tissues is the main method in which data is collected in biomedical research, and there already exists legislature covering the use of biomedical tissues, the proposal feels redundant. Tissues are also where the crux of ethical dilemmas lies and so what other ethical problems would arise in biomedical research?

I do not want to dismiss this resolution yet, if these questions can be answered. What biomedical research might there be that does not include the use of tissues and would thus benefit from this proposal? And what ethical dilemmas could arise that might warrant a resolution to protect the research?

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not really seeing a Duplication violation here.