Burninati0n wrote:Not only is this largely better scientific method, but it's more ethical as well.
OOC:
I mean, that's bullshit, but it also risks human lives ahead of animal lives. There is a reason we do animal testing, you know.
Advertisement
by Tinfect » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:10 am
Burninati0n wrote:Not only is this largely better scientific method, but it's more ethical as well.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Burninati0n » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:21 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I mean, that's bullshit, but it also risks human lives ahead of animal lives. There is a reason we do animal testing, you know.
FDA supports the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing as well as adherence to the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability when animals are used for testing the safety of cosmetic products. We will continue to be a strong advocate of methodologies for the refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal tests with alternative methodologies that do not employ the use of animals.
Burninati0n wrote: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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:22 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:29 pm
by Burninati0n » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:43 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Cosmetics aren't the only thing that have to do with animal testing. We do a lot of animal testing in pharmaceuticals. In fact, currently in all the jurisdictions I am familiar with, all drugs are tested on animals before they are moved on for human trials. A few summers ago, I interned in the legal department for a pharmaceutical company. We had a ton of contracts with significant numbers of laboratories which would test chemotherapy drugs and NSAIDs on rats, beagles, etc. I think there were once hamsters.
However it is, you don't get to human testing before considerable animal testing. In the real world, the US FDA requires in vivo animal testing before those drugs can even be considered to later be administered to humans. In the UK 'by law, all new medicines must first be tested on animals, in order to ensure patient safety. Only when these tests have been shown to be successful will clinical trials will be conducted on humans' (Source).
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
Kenmoria wrote:"We simply cannot support a measure that would support animal rights over sapient ones. In particular clause 2b is problematic."
by Araraukar » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:44 am
Burninati0n wrote:Actually, no. Some products are tested on animals to ensure safety of ingredients, but for the most part, in terms of cosmetics, you're talking about things like minor risk of allergic reaction. Human lives aren't at stake, merely human discomfort.
Humans can be compensated
animals cannot understand what is happening to them.
In addition, when companies keep animals for the purpose of testing cosmetics, these animals are often kept in conditions that are quite inhumane.
And anyway, if you're looking for RL examples of this kind of policy
Do you:
A) Disagree that this is proper policy [in which case, why? Why should animals suffer needlessly?], or
B) Disagree that this is what the text of the proposal actually recommends [in which case, what should it say?]?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:48 am
by Burninati0n » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:43 am
Araraukar wrote:I'm not. I'm thinking in general terms of what's reasonable and logical in the NS setting.
Araraukar wrote:I disagree that the WA should at all be trying to legislate on animal testing.
Araraukar wrote:Also, you seem to be under the strange impression that "animal testing" = "needless animal suffering".
Burninati0n wrote: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.
Araraukar wrote:Test animals are not cheap to keep, they are not easy to keep, not if you want your test results to be reliable, and if there were easy, safe, cheaper methods, you bet your ass those would/are already in use.
Araraukar wrote:But many things, especially when talking about untested chemical compounds, you simply can't justify using people to find out their toxicity and safety. "I'm only encouraging that" does not let you off this hook either.
Burninati0n wrote:c. Encouraging research that can reasonably be conducted with sapient species as subjects instead of sentient species be conducted in this manner instead, especially in cases of cosmetics testing where the risks are relatively low and it is probable that willing volunteers could be found.
by Burninati0n » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:11 am
by Kenmoria » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:31 am
by Burninati0n » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:42 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: This exceeds the character limit, which is currently 5000, by over 300 characters.)
by Burninati0n » Thu May 03, 2018 4:55 am
by Kenmoria » Thu May 03, 2018 8:31 am
by Tekmedias » Fri May 04, 2018 7:11 pm
The [Institutional Review Board (IRB)] must be independent ... it must not have a ... stake in the completion of the research.
The IRB must be composed of ... experts in the field ... who also do not have a financial or other stake in the completion of the research.
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.
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.
BELIEVING 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.
MANDATES that the IRBs be free from political pressure in their review of research.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri May 04, 2018 7:55 pm
by Tekmedias » Fri May 04, 2018 8:11 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You need to write more succinctly.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri May 04, 2018 9:03 pm
by Burninati0n » Fri May 04, 2018 9:13 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You need to write more succinctly.
Tekmedias wrote:How would this affect situations requiring an IRB, say for example, the testing of a vaccine in a pandemic scenario? Every sentient researcher would be potentially at risk and thus no one would be suitably distanced from the outcome of a study into a cure or vaccine.
Tekmedias wrote:What about scenarios in which being "removed from the research" is not practical without the death or injury to the research subject? Furthermore, who bears the liability for injuries to a research subject who chooses to be removed from a study? Is it the research subject, the researchers, or even the IRB itself who is to be punished? Do the researchers deserve liability even if removal is done despite their objections because of the authority given to research subjects via this proposed resolution? What liabilities or punishments does the responsible party have?
Tekmedias wrote:Would passing this resolution or even accepting the proposal potentially violate the freedom of currently formed IRBs to not face political pressure ? Would the political pressure of having the General Assembly pass a new resolution which comes into immediate effect without grandfathering older IRBs require an explicit ammendment of the previous act in any way?
by Araraukar » Sat May 05, 2018 1:07 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Tekmedias » Sat May 05, 2018 6:13 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Not you. The proposal author. My apologies, since that was unclear.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic
Advertisement