NationStates

I have received permission from United Americanas to reproduce some of the clause in his previous draft for use here.

Convention on Animal Testing
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics

---

The World Assembly,

Concerned by the lack of legislation regarding the treatment of testing animals,

Recognising that animals deserve to be properly treated during and after testing,

Noting that mistreatment of animal test subjects may lead to severe distress for the animal and inaccurate research results, and

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of animal test subjects,


Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. A "research facility" as any facility, private or public, which engages in animal testing for any scientific purpose, including consumer safety and weapons testing;
   2. A "test animal" as a sentient but not sapient animal in the custody of any research facility for scientific purposes;
   3. "Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;
2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
   1. Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law;
   2. Reporting instances of noncompliance with the ethical requirements mandated in this resolution to the local authorities for penalisation;
3. Dictates that member states must reasonably and proportionally penalise research labs upon receiving a report about unethical testing from the WABB;
   
   
4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:
   1. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;
   2. Carry out solely ethical testing, as defined in section 1c;
5. Requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiments:
   1. The animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, has a good chance of being returned to its natural habitat successfully, and if it poses no risk to the environment it is being released into, such as carrying diseases; or;
   2. The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if:
      1. it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption,
      2. it is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition, and,
      3. it is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;
   3. If the animal is unable to be adopted or released into the wild then it may be humanely euthanised;
6. Clarifies that an animal can still be adopted even if it is unable to live for over a year, and;
   
   
7. Prohibits the intentional killing of a test animal in a cruel manner, in addition to forbidding the killing of a former test animal before the viability of its adoption or release into the wild has been examined, and it has been found unsuitable for both.

Co-authored by United States of Americanas

A proposal that I would say, is required after precedent resolutions before this has been repealed. It is a shame indeed that no other nation has took up efforts to at least establish some basic welfare on animal experimentation in lab conditions. However, we raise the following concerns to the German delegation on the following notes:

Clause 2: To establish another international governmental organization is really puzzling for me once more. Member nations often have to allocate a certain portion of their national budgets to fund these types of bureaucratic offices designed for a single task or so. Is it possible if we can refer this to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), as established by GAR #111: Medical Research Ethics Act, since ethical animal testing is often done to promote mostly medical purposes (while still under scientific purposes) and that I see no need to establish a World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB) to oversee such tasks when it can be done by another existing international organization?

Clause 2(b): May I clarify on this clause, that the penalties of non-compliance with the ethical requirements be left up to the local authorities only, not including the economical sanctions brought about by non-compliance from GAR #440: Administrative Compliance Act? What if animal experimentation is not illegal to the member nation? And given that there are no GA resolutions to animal welfare and that this resolution only mandates the reporting of non-compliance to ethical requirements only, is this resolution able to enforce penalties to violators while not infringing upon the individual state's rights? I understand that this stretches the reasonable nation theory a bit, but there are animals that I believe member nations would simply allow their own national populations to poach them where necessary, in order to curb its population. How would you exactly address that, since national laws apply to both hunting and laboratory environments?

Clause 4(a): This is a dangerous clause to be placed here. Animals can be brought from exotic places around the world for experimentation, and this clause - while it guarantees that it can be returned to its natural habitat successfully - does not consider the plausibility of the disruption of the ecosystem through re-introducing experimentally-tested animals back into the wild. It may bring about drastic consequences to the environment itself, and this clause also does not guarantee whether the experimentally-tested animal is able to hunt for food, reproduce and be able not to offset the natural ecosystem in which it is released into.

Clause 4(b): In conjunction with clause 4(a), this measure can only be taken if the animal is unable to survive without help or is of a species commonly kept as a pet or livestock. It does not consider disruptive species as mentioned above - those that can survive and can disrupt ecosystems - and does not consider the long-term applicability of releasing animals to the wild - only to be in captivity if it cannot survive by itself, but how about the plausibility of reproduction? Furthermore, this clause and to a larger degree, this resolution, fails to consider endangered species, even though GAR #403: Trade Of Endangered Organisms bans the trade of endangered organisms, but not locally captured endangered species. The repealed resolution, GAR #66: Endangered Species Protection, would have settled that question - but it was painstakingly repealed with no replacement, which is ridiculous given how member nations are out there to simply to attach world resolutions to their names.

Other than that, I would be leaning towards a for in support of this resolution. While the concerns that I have addressed above are grave, I believe my suggestions above can simply be added on as my own personal legislation if this current draft votes to pass in the General Assembly.

"Ambassador, I thank you for the feedback and hope that your concerns have been properly addressed in the updated draft.

As to your first concern, there is no international organisation responsible for ethics, the IRB is a national board created by member states, I believe that it is much better to create an international committee to manage such tasks as the gnomes staffing them are infallible and incorruptible.

Your second concern I believe is caused by a misunderstanding, the committee only reports instances of noncompliance with the proposed resolution, to ensure member states are informed and are able to penalise the facilities accordingly.

Your other concerns seem reasonable but I have to correct you on your last point, the author of the repeal of GA#66 also authored a replacement."

“For clause 3b, you need to actually use the term you define. I suggest ‘Carry out solely ethical testing, as defined in section 1c’, though you didn’t really need to mention where you define the term.”

Marxist Germany wrote:"Ambassador, I thank you for the feedback and hope that your concerns have been properly addressed in the updated draft.

As to your first concern, there is no international organisation responsible for ethics, the IRB is a national board created by member states, I believe that it is much better to create an international committee to manage such tasks as the gnomes staffing them are infallible and incorruptible.

Your second concern I believe is caused by a misunderstanding, the committee only reports instances of noncompliance with the proposed resolution, to ensure member states are informed and are able to penalise the facilities accordingly.

Your other concerns seem reasonable but I have to correct you on your last point, the author of the repeal of GA#66 also authored a replacement."

"Thank you for your time, ambassador. We hope that this resolution will succeed in the World Assembly given the clear need for more legislation towards animal welfare.

In response to your statements:

Statement 1: Understandable. While I remain opposed to creating any further international bureaucratic offices within the WA given that there will be a huge list of departments once the WA does its final auditing, I suppose we will need to compromise in some way for more important matters.

Statement 2: I see. However, is it up to the member states to determine what punishments are imposed to non-compliant research faculties? I cannot guarantee that every member nation in the WA have penalties imposed for animal cruelty within their legislation.

Statement 3: I stand corrected on GAR #66's repeal. It seems that the wording of the new title has missed my assistant's eyes for a second. I apologize if this created any confusion at all. However, we still remain concerned over predatory species which can devastate natural ecosystems if left solely by themselves. We hope that this matter can be resolved since GAR #465 does not exactly cover these types of species.

Again, we hope that the following amendments can be made as we continue to support this resolution, ambassador."

"I hope the recent changes made have satisfied your concerns, ambassador."

I’m no English teacher so you might be right but clause 2b says “to the local authorities for penalising”

When I look at it, it looks oddly out of place. I think the word penalization would fit better there.

Other than that it looks good to me and I will support it if it comes up for vote.

United States of Americanas wrote:I’m no English teacher so you might be right but clause 2b says “to the local authorities for penalising”

When I look at it, it looks oddly out of place. I think the word penalization would fit better there.

Other than that it looks good to me and I will support it if it comes up for vote.

OOC: Yes, that slipped up, I'll replace it with your suggestion. Thank you.

“Clause 3 simply says ‘a report’, which would include reports of a lab engaging in perfectly allowed behaviour. Although the proposal doesn’t give this ability to the WABB to do this, I think it would still be better if it said ‘a report of unethical testing’ or something similar, instead.”

Marxist Germany wrote:"I hope the recent changes made have satisfied your concerns, ambassador."

"An excellent proposal as always, ambassador. You have my thanks and the fullest support of this delegation. I hope to see this pass in the General Assembly."

The floating squid-like ambassador in his encounter suit raises a thoughtful tentacle.
"Tome-Keeper Baraka II wishes to ask how we will continue to study biological life without live test subjects. There may be pain yes, but what is the cost of pain compared to the accumulation of knowledge. We have already stopped abducting the sapient species for such... activities."
Second Sposteen Ambassador to the WA, Vra'al

Sposteen wrote:The floating squid-like ambassador in his encounter suit raises a thoughtful tentacle.
"Tome-Keeper Baraka II wishes to ask how we will continue to study biological life without live test subjects. There may be pain yes, but what is the cost of pain compared to the accumulation of knowledge. We have already stopped abducting the sapient species for such... activities."
Second Sposteen Ambassador to the WA, Vra'al

Klaus stares at the ambassador for a while, confused by his form, until he says the following, " So basically, uhh, ambassador? Yeah, basically as long as the pain is not great and isn't done with malicious intent, it should be fine."

Marxist Germany wrote:Klaus stares at the ambassador for a while, confused by his form, until he says the following, " So basically, uhh, ambassador? Yeah, basically as long as the pain is not great and isn't done with malicious intent, it should be fine."

"So I can add your name on the shortlist of people to experiment on when the tests would be too painful for the non-sapient animals, then?"

OOC: You can't study pain and thus pain responses and thus remedies for the pain without, you know, actually causing pain. To an extent that can be done with human (in RL) volunteers, but you'll run into trouble if you need to crack the skull open to insert some electrodes to see if you can stop the pain from being actually felt, that way. Not to even mention giving an animal an incurable disease so you can research the cures. Some of those diseases Are Not Nice. There are things where test animals can't be ethically replaced with sapient beings, and to pretend otherwise means just hampering the field of medical sciences.

Marxist Germany wrote:Klaus stares at the ambassador for a while, confused by his form, until he says the following, " So basically, uhh, ambassador? Yeah, basically as long as the pain is not great and isn't done with malicious intent, it should be fine."

'If this is your intention, I advise you to revise your definition of "ethical testing":

"Ethical testing" as testing an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;

'As currently phrased, you are certainly referring to "malicious intent", but not to the greatness of the pain - "severe distress or harm" is nested within the "malicious intent" and so both criteria must be true for your legislation to affect it. As the Araraukian ambassador points out so eloquently, there are considerations to be made about the decision to take the two separately and ban them both, but I felt obliged to point out the discrepancy between your intention and your wording.

'In any case, I recommend changing the definition thus ...' hands over note

"Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;

'... to allow for uses of the term in other forms, as you do further down the proposal, and to reflect the use in this case of "testing" as a noun. I also believe you could improve clarity by reversing the order in which you present the definitions for "test animal" and "research facility", and then replace the term "scientific facility" in your definition of the former with the latter.'

Maowi wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:Klaus stares at the ambassador for a while, confused by his form, until he says the following, " So basically, uhh, ambassador? Yeah, basically as long as the pain is not great and isn't done with malicious intent, it should be fine."

'If this is your intention, I advise you to revise your definition of "ethical testing":

"Ethical testing" as testing an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;

'As currently phrased, you are certainly referring to "malicious intent", but not to the greatness of the pain - "severe distress or harm" is nested within the "malicious intent" and so both criteria must be true for your legislation to affect it. As the Araraukian ambassador points out so eloquently, there are considerations to be made about the decision to take the two separately and ban them both, but I felt obliged to point out the discrepancy between your intention and your wording.

'In any case, I recommend changing the definition thus ...' hands over note

"Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;

'... to allow for uses of the term in other forms, as you do further down the proposal, and to reflect the use in this case of "testing" as a noun. I also believe you could improve clarity by reversing the order in which you present the definitions for "test animal" and "research facility", and then replace the term "scientific facility" in your definition of the former with the latter.'

"Oh thank you ambassador, I actually intended on both criteria being met to constitute unethical testing, I shall adjust the definitions accordingly."

Marxist Germany wrote:"Oh thank you ambassador, I actually intended on both criteria being met to constitute unethical testing, I shall adjust the definitions accordingly."

'I see. In that case, your response to the Sposteen ambassador was a little misleading, and the Araraukarian ambassador's concern therefore unfounded.'

2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
a. Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically

Maybe so you could add, at the end of that clause, the words 'and in accordance with all relevant WA laws'? This would expand the committee's scope to also cover, for example, ensuring that the testing does not adversely affect any endangered species..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

Bears Armed wrote:

2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
a. Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically

Maybe so you could add, at the end of that clause, the words 'and in accordance with all relevant WA laws'? This would expand the committee's scope to also cover, for example, ensuring that the testing does not adversely affect any endangered species..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

"Of course ambassador, I shall edit the draft accordingly."

Marxist Germany wrote:Klaus stares at the ambassador for a while, confused by his form, until he says the following, " So basically, uhh, ambassador? Yeah, basically as long as the pain is not great and isn't done with malicious intent, it should be fine."

Water audibly sloshed within the floating encounter suit.
"But what if we inflict moderate pain with no malice? How does one measure pain? Is it a matter of state interpretation?"

Ambassador Vra'al

Sposteen wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:Klaus stares at the ambassador for a while, confused by his form, until he says the following, " So basically, uhh, ambassador? Yeah, basically as long as the pain is not great and isn't done with malicious intent, it should be fine."

Water audibly sloshed within the floating encounter suit.
"But what if we inflict moderate pain with no malice? How does one measure pain? Is it a matter of state interpretation?"

Ambassador Vra'al

'I'm sorry; if I may interject, ambassador ... Given Ambassador Klaus' response to my earlier point ...

Marxist Germany wrote:"Oh thank you ambassador, I actually intended on both criteria being met to constitute unethical testing, I shall adjust the definitions accordingly."

'... it appears that he is seeking to ban only testing which both a) inflicts pain and b) is malicious - and this intention is, I believe, reflected in the current text of the proposal.'

The encounter suits translation orb turns a bright red as loud whispering emanates from the corners of the room. The hall starts to vibrate. The translation orb turns green.
"We support this proposal."

Vra'al, 2nd Sposteen Ambassador to the WA

OOC: Bump

“Clauses 5a and 5b seem to apply to fruit flies, plankton and worms, all of which could have been bred and raised in the laboratory itself. Also, you haven’t clarified whether both the actions in 5a and 5b need to take place, or you are giving member nations the choice of which to enact.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Clauses 5a and 5b seem to apply to fruit flies, plankton and worms, all of which could have been bred and raised in the laboratory itself. Also, you haven’t clarified whether both the actions in 5a and 5b need to take place, or you are giving member nations the choice of which to enact.”

"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."

Marxist Germany wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Clauses 5a and 5b seem to apply to fruit flies, plankton and worms, all of which could have been bred and raised in the laboratory itself. Also, you haven’t clarified whether both the actions in 5a and 5b need to take place, or you are giving member nations the choice of which to enact.”

"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'?