[Passed] Convention on Animal Testing

[Kenmoria]

"The problem with your first concern is that I can't find a way to exclude only small animals and such, exclusions based on a vertebrae also don't work. As to your second concern that has been fixed."

OOC
Restrict this to animals that are 'sentient': A reasonable interpretation of that term would cover Vertebrates and Cephalopods (which are the groups specifically protected under RL UK law...),, and maybe some others, but would probably exclude "fruit flies, plankton and worms".

Now, what about sentient plants or fungi?

Maybe make it about 'Sentient Life-forms', rather than 'Animals'?

(OOC: ‘Convention on Sentient Life-form Testing’ isn’t the catchiest title. I think this proposal works fine as just covering animals, since plants and fungi are completely separate beings. That said, I agree with your other points.)

[Marxist Germany]

"The problem with your first concern is that I can't find a way to exclude only small animals and such, exclusions based on a vertebrae also don't work. As to your second concern that has been fixed."

OOC
Restrict this to animals that are 'sentient': A reasonable interpretation of that term would cover Vertebrates and Cephalopods (which are the groups specifically protected under RL UK law...),, and maybe some others, but would probably exclude "fruit flies, plankton and worms".

Now, what about sentient plants or fungi?

Maybe make it about 'Sentient Life-forms', rather than 'Animals'?

OOC: That means we've already got it covered

Defines...
...A "test animal" as a sentient but not sapient animal...

[Linux and the X]

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption

Would this mean that an animal with an expected remaining lifespan under a year would not qualify for adoption?

[Marxist Germany]

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption

Would this mean that an animal with an expected remaining lifespan under a year would not qualify for adoption?

OOC: Yes, as it would be impractical.

[Linux and the X]

Would this mean that an animal with an expected remaining lifespan under a year would not qualify for adoption?

OOC: Yes, as it would be impractical.

The WA should not be dictating to experimenters that their rehoming plans for animal subjects are impractical.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Yes, as it would be impractical.

The WA should not be dictating to experimenters that their rehoming plans for animal subjects are impractical.

OOC: Exception =/= mandate

[Linux and the X]

The WA should not be dictating to experimenters that their rehoming plans for animal subjects are impractical.

OOC: Exception =/= mandate

I would suggest adding clarifying language, then.

[Araraukar]

OOC: 5.b. seems to be missing something before the word "or".

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Forgive us, Ambassador, but we would like to bring a point that may need addressing. It seems to us that there my be a potential contradiction with GA 425, Protection[sic] of of Biomedical Research. Specifically the mandates:

That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,

and

That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, [...]

It seems to us the thrust of this resolution is the enactment of ethics standards and regulation that seek to minimize harm to life, and the resolution explicitly declares that it applies to "sentient but not sapient" life, which would place such ethics guidelines flatly in conflict with the the aforementioned GA 425.

OOC: Explicitly, it seems Tinfects rushed monstrosity more or less prohibits us from establishing ANY ethics standards in regards to basically anything that is not human or equivalent thereto under WA law.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Resolution: "All future guidelines must be for establishing ethical standards."

Proposal: "Establishes guidelines for ethical standards."

I don't really see the problem. Unless I misunderstood your point about it.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Resolution: "All future guidelines must be for establishing ethical standards."

Proposal: "Establishes guidelines for ethical standards."

I don't really see the problem. Unless I misunderstood your point about it.

The problem is the second part which limits those standards to solely those designed to protect provably sentient AND sapient life. The animals covered by this resolution are, by the resolution's definition not sapient. Therefore there can be no ethical standards set for their treatment.

Again:

Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research

I suppose the resolution could limit itself to research that is not bio-medical, but that seems rather...well, not useful?

[Linux and the X]

OOC: Resolution: "All future guidelines must be for establishing ethical standards."

Proposal: "Establishes guidelines for ethical standards."

I don't really see the problem. Unless I misunderstood your point about it.

The problem is the second part which limits those standards to solely those designed to protect provably sentient AND sapient life.

The conjunction used in res. 425 is 'or', not 'and'.

[Araraukar]

I suppose the resolution could limit itself to research that is not bio-medical, but that seems rather...well, not useful?

OOC: The other point being covered with Linux's post, but non-biomedical animal testing includes most cosmetics (and similar non-medication chemical) testing as well as behavioural testing, so I wouldn't say even such a restriction made the proposal useless.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

The problem is the second part which limits those standards to solely those designed to protect provably sentient AND sapient life.

The conjunction used in res. 425 is 'or', not 'and'.

Thank you. I, in fact, misread the conjunction. In that instance, carry on.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: 5.b. seems to be missing something before the word "or".

OOC: Added a comma

OOC: Exception =/= mandate

I would suggest adding clarifying language, then.

Done.

[Araraukar]

OOC: 5.b. seems to be missing something before the word "or".

OOC: Added a comma

OOC: There's an additional issue that I didn't feel like typing out on mobile device:

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption, and is generally healthy and of good disposition; after a reasonable effort has been made to look for one; if the animal is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;

That seems out of place. I think there was something about putting them down that got moved or removed, and that was left behind.

Additionally, the whole adoption (or release) thing doesn't seem to account for animals that are carriers of deadly diseases while not suffering from them themselves. For example we know that in RL bats are carriers of all kinds of deadly viruses like rabies and ebola, and marmots are the reservoir animal for Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague). Such animals should be destroyed after testing is done, rather than adopted out, because of the danger they have as natural carriers despite the animal's own health or disposition. 5.a. has the exception for posting a danger to the environment (even though that's very vague), so why doesn't 5.b. have anything?

[Kenmoria]

“With 5b, it would make more sense to just have ‘into; or’ rather than ‘into, or;’ as the former is both the convention and far simpler.”

[Marxist Germany]

"Any more feedback? I will start to look into submission in the following weeks."

[Araraukar]

OOC: 5b still has the unconnected sentence embryo in the middle and lacks any mention of the animal being a danger to its environment for reasons other than its disposition, such as being a carrier of a deadly disease.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: 5b still has the unconnected sentence embryo in the middle and lacks any mention of the animal being a danger to its environment for reasons other than its disposition, such as being a carrier of a deadly disease.

OOC: Fixed the disease part, not sure what youre talking about when you mention unconnected sentences?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: 5b still has the unconnected sentence embryo in the middle and lacks any mention of the animal being a danger to its environment for reasons other than its disposition, such as being a carrier of a deadly disease.

OOC: Fixed the disease part, not sure what youre talking about when you mention unconnected sentences?

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption, and is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition; after a reasonable effort has been made to look for one; if the animal is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;

The bolded portion is what I believe is being referred to. Within the clause it makes no sense, and is grammatically incomplete.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Fixed the disease part, not sure what youre talking about when you mention unconnected sentences?

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption, and is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition; after a reasonable effort has been made to look for one; if the animal is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;

The bolded portion is what I believe is being referred to. Within the clause it makes no sense, and is grammatically incomplete.

OOC: Its supposed to go

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan...after a reasonable effort has been made to look for one.

Not sure how to make it flow better.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Require the organisation to look for this new owner. Then if it finds an acceptable one, transfer the property. Statute style is your friend.

[Maowi]

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption, and is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition; after a reasonable effort has been made to look for one; if the animal is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;

I would replace the first semicolon with a colon and put either an and or an or, depending on the intended meaning, after '...look for one:'

[Araraukar]

OOC: Its supposed to go

The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan...after a reasonable effort has been made to look for one.

Not sure how to make it flow better.

OOC: I think the problem stems from the main clause 5: "Requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiment". Right now the ONLY choices available, are release into wild or adoption. You can't put the animal down. It's not an option AT ALL. As such the "after reasonable effort has been made to look for one" doesn't make any sense, because there's no choice given for what happens if the reasonable effort fails to find someone suitable, and the animal can't be released in the wild.

Presuming you didn't intend to remove the humane euthanisation choice, 5.b. could be restructured as "If the animal is unable to survive without help or is of a species commonly kept as a pet or livestock; is healthy and has a good disposition; does not pose a danger to its environment; and is expected to live for over a year after its adoption, the animal can be given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan;". Then you can add 5.c. with "if neither of the above options works after reasonable efforts to find a suitable caregiver have been made, the animal may be humanely euthanized".

5.b. could, for clarity's sake, also be restructured as:

if the animal is

1. unable to survive without help
2. healthy and of good disposition
3. not dangerous to its environment (alternatively "not dangerous to its caretakers" but that's more restrictive)
4. of a species commonly kept as a pet or livestock, and
5. expected to live for over a year after its adoption,

the animal can be given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan;

Then adding the same 5.c. will remove the insanity of having to choose from the two options.