[Defeated; Redrafting] The Cloning Conventions

[La Navasse]

---

The Cloning Conventions
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics | Proposed by: La Navasse

---

The General Assembly,

Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single naturally born individual, the originator;

Defines organ cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;

Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;

Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel;

Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not have any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;

Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not suffering from locked-in syndrome or any related disability;

Reserves for all sapient clones the right to know the origin of their genetic material at their national legal age of consent;

Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;

Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;

Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;

Assigns the World Assembly Scientific Programme the duties of overlooking cloning for biomedical research and use to ensure their accordance with this resolution and the promotion of the sharing of cloning technology.

---

The Cloning Conventions
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics | Proposed by: La Navasse

---

The General Assembly;

Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single naturally born individual, the orginator;

Defines organ cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;

Excludes any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;

Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological post-doctorates, or veterinary post-doctorates in collaboration with medical & biological post-doctorates;

Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not have any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;

Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not in locked-in syndrome;

Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;

Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;

Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;

Assigns the World Assembly Science Programme the duties of enforcing this resolution.[/box]

---

The Cloning Conventions
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics | Proposed by: La Navasse

---

The General Assembly;

Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a naturally born individual, the orginator;

Defines organ cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;

Excludes any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;

Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological experts, or veterinary experts in collaboration with medical & biological experts;

Restricts the cloning of sentient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sentient originators that do not have any sentience and have been proven to not be conscious, feeling organisms in locked-in syndrome, for medical experimentation or for last-resort head transplants;

Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for medical experimentation, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with 99.99% confidence, that the clone is not in locked-in syndrome;

Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;

Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;

Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;

Assigns the World Assembly Science Programme the duties of enforcing this resolution.

Should “sentient organisms”, “unconscious, unfeeling”, and “locked-in syndrome” be defined? I don’t want to be too nitpicky, but these are serious terms, and we don’t want a live, internally screaming person having undergone horrific medical experimentation only because he/she was in locked-in syndrome.

[Kenmoria]

"By sentient we believe you mean sapient as a sheep is a sentient creature but sapience is limited only to fully conscious animals with the ability to reason such as humans."

[Tinfect]

Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a naturally born individual, the orginator;

"This definition may include such procedures as artificial insemination, or other such procedures where the process is not strictly 'natural'. I would recommend that it be altered to avoid such deliberate misinterpretations." Starts Feren, cleaning a dusting of soot from his Civil Oversight badge.

Excludes any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;

"Why, Ambassador? If we must go out of our way to define cloned individuals as apart from 'naturally' produced individuals, what is the point in excluding simple bacteria?"

Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

"Such is already guaranteed for Sapient species, by Resolution Three-Thirty-Five. The Imperium has no objections, however, to its reiteration here. It was merely deemed appropriate to inform you."

Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological experts, or veterinary experts in collaboration with medical & biological experts;

"I would recommend that this clause be altered to refer to appropriately-qualified medical and biological sciences personnel, rather than the nebulous 'expert'."

Restricts the cloning of sentient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

"Merely sentient entities are incapable of consent, Ambassador. I believe the word you are looking for is 'Sapient'."

Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sentient originators that do not have any sentience and have been proven to not be conscious, feeling organisms in locked-in syndrome, for medical experimentation or for last-resort head transplants;

"This clause is... poorly constructed, and again, I believe you intend to use the word 'Sapient' rather than 'Sentient'. In any case, I would amend this clause to allow for biomedical experimentation, and medical treatment in general, rather than for the specific case of a 'head transplant', which, I must admit, I have never heard of."

Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sentient originators for medical experimentation, and of any cloning of any sentient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with 99.99% confidence, that the clone is not in locked-in syndrome;

"Such a thing would only be possible after the fact, and would effectively prohibit the cloning of Sapient, as it is presumed you intend to affect, entities entirely. The Imperium also recommends the removal of the, quite frankly, silly requirement of 'ninety-nine-point-nine-nine percent confidence'."

Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sentient;

"This term should, again, be replaced with 'Sapient'. Otherwise you merely legalize the cloning of Bacteria and Plants.

In any case, the Imperium sees merit in this legislation, should the aforementioned alterations be made. We will, however, withhold a formal declaration of support at this time."

Should “sentient organisms”, “unconscious, unfeeling”, and “locked-in syndrome” be defined? I don’t want to be too nitpicky, but these are serious terms, and we don’t want a live, internally screaming person having undergone horrific medical experimentation only because he/she was in locked-in syndrome.

OOC:
No, they do not need to be defined. Though, again, you will want to replace all instances of 'Sentient' with 'Sapient'.

[La Navasse]

"This definition may include such procedures as artificial insemination, or other such procedures where the process is not strictly 'natural'. I would recommend that it be altered to avoid such deliberate misinterpretations." Starts Feren, cleaning a dusting of soot from his Civil Oversight badge.

However, only genetically identical, or altered, organisms, whose genetic material originates from one originator, are counted. Assisted reproductive technologies require two organisms, and creating a sperm from an originator's egg cell and creating a new organism or creating an egg from an originator's sperm cell and creating a new organism, both of which are the same gender as the originator, would simply be cloning.

"Why, Ambassador? If we must go out of our way to define cloned individuals as apart from 'naturally' produced individuals, what is the point in excluding simple bacteria?"

There are some very unique reproducing organisms out there that reproduce asexually, and the exclusion of them, especially intelligent ones, from a previous cloning resolution caused the resolution's repeal. All reproductive methods must be accounted for.

"I would recommend that this clause be altered to refer to appropriately-qualified medical and biological sciences personnel, rather than the nebulous 'expert'."

I will likely correct it to "biomedical post-doctorates" and "veterinary post-doctorates".

"Merely sentient entities are incapable of consent, Ambassador. I believe the word you are looking for is 'Sapient'."

Altered appropriately.

"This clause is... poorly constructed, and again, I believe you intend to use the word 'Sapient' rather than 'Sentient'. In any case, I would amend this clause to allow for biomedical experimentation, and medical treatment in general, rather than for the specific case of a 'head transplant', which, I must admit, I have never heard of."

Sentient has been replaced, and biomedical experimentation and use has been substituted in place of the two rather specific instances.

"Such a thing would only be possible after the fact, and would effectively prohibit the cloning of Sapient, as it is presumed you intend to affect, entities entirely. The Imperium also recommends the removal of the, quite frankly, silly requirement of 'ninety-nine-point-nine-nine percent confidence'."

Actually, it can be tested whether an organism is in locked-in syndrome or is actually (in essence) brain-dead by the measurement of their brain waves. The percentage of confidence, in my opinion, should only be revised to "a high degree of confidence". Additionally, if the nations do not have the technology to confirm that locked-in organisms are present within their cloning experiments, even when cloning technology is actively encouraged to be shared later in this proposal, they should not clone in the first place.

"This term should, again, be replaced with 'Sapient'. Otherwise you merely legalize the cloning of Bacteria and Plants.

Altered appropriately.

[Tinfect]

However, only genetically identical, or altered, organisms, whose genetic material originates from one originator, are counted. Assisted reproductive technologies require two organisms, and creating a sperm from an originator's egg cell and creating a new organism or creating an egg from an originator's sperm cell and creating a new organism, both of which are the same gender as the originator, would simply be cloning.

"The Imperium would recommend that the point of a single 'originator' be stated within the Draft."

Actually, it can be tested whether an organism is in locked-in syndrome or is actually (in essence) brain-dead by the measurement of their brain waves. The percentage of confidence, in my opinion, should only be revised to "a high degree of confidence".

"Such is what was intended."

[The Islands of Versilia]

The Versilian ambassador stands. “We will, under no circumstances, support this resolution. Versilia is proud of its clone-based military and the great importance of sapient clones in our goals. We will stand opposed to any restrictions regarding our cloning programmes,” the ambassador states before seating herself.

[Araraukar]

Versilia is proud of its clone-based military and the great importance of sapient clones in our goals.

"Each of whom has the full rights of any non-clone citizen you may have, as long as your nation remains in the WA," Johan pointed out, scribbling notes on the margins of the draft copy.

[La Navasse]

However, only genetically identical, or altered, organisms, whose genetic material originates from one originator, are counted. Assisted reproductive technologies require two organisms, and creating a sperm from an originator's egg cell and creating a new organism or creating an egg from an originator's sperm cell and creating a new organism, both of which are the same gender as the originator, would simply be cloning.

"The Imperium would recommend that the point of a single 'originator' be stated within the Draft."

Does "a originator" not already emphasize only a single originator?

[Tinfect]

Does "a originator" not already emphasize only a single originator?

"Certain Delegations have been known to argue positions that are categorically unsupported by any reasonable reading of the text; the Imperium makes this suggestion purely to avert the hassle."

[La Navasse]

I would also like to comment that I'm considering submitting my proposal by the end of this week, by then having a full week for public review. If no other errors or concerns present themselves, I will go forward with submission on Friday.

As of now, I do not consider the current resolution-at-vote, Protections on Biomedical Research, to conflict with my proposal, as though the Categories are the same, the Area of Effects are different, and thus the two resolutions legislate in different areas, as strictly laid out by the World Assembly.

Does "a originator" not already emphasize only a single originator?

"Certain Delegations have been known to argue positions that are categorically unsupported by any reasonable reading of the text; the Imperium makes this suggestion purely to avert the hassle."

I shall edit the current Second Draft then - I find no need for the creation of a third draft due the change of one word.

[Stoskavanya]

Stoskavanya supports the idea of cloning, especially to help medical patients and infertile parents whom desire a genetically similar child. However, we believe there should be more protections in place, such as is listed below.

1. The process of cloning as of now runs a serious risk of causing major congenital malformations. Our delegation suggests to prohibit the practice of cloning sapient persons if there is a highly known or unknown risk of serious birth defects.
2. While we appreciate the consent of the originator, we request that the clones themselves have some right to to be informed of the origins of his genetic code.
3. We have serious concerns about the implication of the commercialization of cloning on society. We recommend some sort of restriction on the commercial sale of embryos, cells or any other method of selling genetic material from which one makes clones.

It would also be wise to consider, although we recognize this to be controversial, some sort of mechanism to limit the amount of sapient beings that can cloned from a single genetic source.

We must not only consider the physical health of a clone, but its psychological health and autonomy.

Thank you for considering our concerns and best of luck with your proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological post-doctorates, or veterinary post-doctorates in collaboration with medical & biological post-doctorates;

I believe you've misunderstood what a post-doc is.

[Essu Beti]

Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological post-doctorates, or veterinary post-doctorates in collaboration with medical & biological post-doctorates;

I believe you've misunderstood what a post-doc is.

It also assumes that every nation uses the same education system, when some might now even use the doctorate system.

[La Navasse]

Stoskavanya supports the idea of cloning, especially to help medical patients and infertile parents whom desire a genetically similar child. However, we believe there should be more protections in place, such as is listed below.

1. The process of cloning as of now runs a serious risk of causing major congenital malformations. Our delegation suggests to prohibit the practice of cloning sapient persons if there is a highly known or unknown risk of serious birth defects.
2. While we appreciate the consent of the originator, we request that the clones themselves have some right to to be informed of the origins of his genetic code.
3. We have serious concerns about the implication of the commercialization of cloning on society. We recommend some sort of restriction on the commercial sale of embryos, cells or any other method of selling genetic material from which one makes clones.

It would also be wise to consider, although we recognize this to be controversial, some sort of mechanism to limit the amount of sapient beings that can cloned from a single genetic source.

We must not only consider the physical health of a clone, but its psychological health and autonomy.

Thank you for considering our concerns and best of luck with your proposal.

1. I will likely create responsibilities for the WASP (World Assembly Scientific Programme) regarding this, and all clones have already been given the rights of their species, regardless their disabilities, in the current draft.
2. Agreed. I will add this.
3. The commercial sale of clones will be completely dependent on whether an originator wants to clone him or herself. If the originator wishes to clone his/her genetic material for commercial purposes, that would be according to the laws of the nation he or she is in.

I believe you've misunderstood what a post-doc is.

It also assumes that every nation uses the same education system, when some might now even use the doctorate system.

In Discord, Tinfect suggested that I use the "Qualified Personnel". I will most likely replace the phrase with "Qualified Biomedical Personnel, or Qualified Veterinary Personnel with Qualified Biomedical Personnel. (A Ph.D in Veterinary Science may not fully know the mechanisms of cloning, unlike biomedical Ph.Ds, but they could help in animal cloning.)

[Kenmoria]

"You italicise the terms you are defining in the first defining clause but not in the second. Either remove the italicisation or add it to all words being defined."

[Araraukar]

I would also like to comment that I'm considering submitting my proposal by the end of this week

OOC: Why? You've received no support, and comments only from a couple of people so far.

by then having a full week for public review

Which means jack shit, considering some people here have actual lives, which make them not have time to spend on helping you perfect the proposal. Yet. I myself likely won't have time for this until next week, due to this week turning out busier than I expected (planning my father's 65th b'day and baking the nommables for it). Many resolutions remained at drafting stage for weeks or even months.

As of now, I do not consider the current resolution-at-vote, Protections on Biomedical Research, to conflict with my proposal

Whether you consider it to be so, doesn't mean it couldn't be considered so by others.

[Tinfect]

Whether you consider it to be so, doesn't mean it couldn't be considered so by others.

OOC:
For the record, he has it on relatively good authority that Protection of Biomedical Research doesn't clash with this draft.

[La Navasse]

"You italicise the terms you are defining in the first defining clause but not in the second. Either remove the italicisation or add it to all words being defined."

"Organ cloning" is now italicized in the second defining clause.

I would also like to comment that I'm considering submitting my proposal by the end of this week

OOC: Why? You've received no support, and comments only from a couple of people so far.

I'm considering. I may submit later, but this Saturday would be the earliest I may consider submitting this proposal.

by then having a full week for public review

Which means jack shit, considering some people here have actual lives, which make them not have time to spend on helping you perfect the proposal. Yet. I myself likely won't have time for this until next week, due to this week turning out busier than I expected (planning my father's 65th b'day and baking the nommables for it). Many resolutions remained at drafting stage for weeks or even months.

Protections on Biomedical Research, I believe, only underwent ~3 days of drafting before submission. Yes, different authors do turn out different quality resolutions, but I have confidence that this resolution could be successful, with both its detail and topic. If you have any general thoughts, that would be helpful.

[Liagolas]

Protections on Biomedical Research, I believe, only underwent ~3 days of drafting before submission. Yes, different authors do turn out different quality resolutions, but I have confidence that this resolution could be successful, with both its detail and topic. If you have any general thoughts, that would be helpful.

OOC: In fairness, Protections of Biomedical Research is not necessarily typical, and it also has an Insta-Repeal lined up, so... maybe not the best role model, given its continued presence on the WA legislative record remains contested. Other resolutions by very experienced authors such as Ozone Layer Protection by Bears Armed and the Administrative Compliance Act from Separatist Peoples have been in the works for months and years.

[Araraukar]

Biomedical Research, I believe, only underwent ~3 days of drafting before submission.

OOC: It's far from typical, and it was written by someone who has already passed resolutions in the past.

(Tinfect, you're showing bad example to the newbies! )

[Tinfect]

OOC: It's far from typical, and it was written by someone who has already passed resolutions in the past.

OOC:
They were just repeals...

Tinfect, you're showing bad example to the newbies! )

They rush to submission anyway, they don't need me for this!

[Araraukar]

OOC: They were just repeals...

OOC: Sshh, don't tell the newbies that...

[Dirty Americans]

I have one one question. You use but do not define "locked-in syndrome." I am somewhat at a loss to understand what the general concern is that it should specifically be mentioned in a resolution. Typically this is a condition that occurs later in species life. But a clone isn't an existing person; it's a new person based off of the genetic material of another person.

Now let us assume that such a clone did (for reasons again that are well beyond me as most normal life forms do not develop this syndrome commonly) have this syndrome. Such a clone would have always had this syndrome indeed would have not known a point in its life when it did not have this condition. It would be perfectly normal for that clone to be in the condition it is in and unlike a creature that was used to normal external outputs to be deprived of them it would not know that because it never had it. I'm not sure about why it is so important in the first place.

[La Navasse]

I have one one question. You use but do not define "locked-in syndrome." I am somewhat at a loss to understand what the general concern is that it should specifically be mentioned in a resolution. Typically this is a condition that occurs later in species life. But a clone isn't an existing person; it's a new person based off of the genetic material of another person.

Now let us assume that such a clone did (for reasons again that are well beyond me as most normal life forms do not develop this syndrome commonly) have this syndrome. Such a clone would have always had this syndrome indeed would have not known a point in its life when it did not have this condition. It would be perfectly normal for that clone to be in the condition it is in and unlike a creature that was used to normal external outputs to be deprived of them it would not know that because it never had it. I'm not sure about why it is so important in the first place.

Locked-in syndrome victims who were clones would be able to demonstrate sapience and consciousness, by eye movement (as the eyes are unusually unaffected) in communication apparatuses, similar to Stephen Hawking (tracking the movement of the eye rather than a cheek muscle). Complete Locked-In Syndrome, a variant, has the paralysis of the eyes as well. However, technology has demonstrated that both disabilities do not prevent, in all practicality, the communication of these people: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar ... io.1002593

OOC: They were just repeals...

OOC: Sshh, don't tell the newbies that...

I've written often before in the SC. This may be my first legitimate GA proposal, but it doesn't mean I don't have WA experience.

[Araraukar]

I've written often before in the SC. This may be my first legitimate GA proposal, but it doesn't mean I don't have WA experience.

OOC: In this context, yes it does. SC is about as far removed from GA as you can be and still stay on the site. Just because they're both lumped under the WA banner doesn't mean experience on one side was experience on the other.