NATION

PASSWORD

[POST-RESET] Human Genetic Integrity Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Red Cantabria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jun 29, 2026
New York Times Democracy

[POST-RESET] Human Genetic Integrity Act

Postby Red Cantabria » Sun Aug 02, 2026 8:21 pm

This is my first time drafting a proposal, so feel free to give feedbacks!
DRAFT #2:
Red Cantabria wrote:
Human Genetic Integrity Act


The General Assembly,

NOTING the rapid progress of genetic engineering and biotechnology,

EVALUATING the potential benefits to disease treatment, the quality of life, and scientific research,

ACKNOWLEDGING the serious ethical, medical, legal, and societal considerations relating to heritable genetic modification in sapient beings,

CONCERNED that unrestricted genetic modification may have irreversible effects, exploit vulnerable beings, or result in misuse of sapient and non-sapient beings.

DETERMINED to adopt minimum international standards governing genetic modification in a manner that promotes safe, ethical scientific research.

The World Assembly hereby:

1. DEFINES "genetic modification" as the deliberate insertion, deletion, substitution, or regulation of genetic material or functional genes within an organism through artificial means; genetic modification includes heritable and non-heritable techniques.

2. DEFINES "sapient beings" as an organism identified by a Member State or the World Assembly as possessing self-awareness, higher reasoning, and legal personhood.

3. PROHIBITS heritable modification of the embryos, germ cells or equivalent of sapient beings unless all of the following criteria are met:

a. It is licensed under national legislation.

b. An independent scientific and ethical review finds it to be sufficiently safe and effective,

c. Its stated purpose is to correct a serious hereditary disease, increase adaptability to the environment, or secure long-term survival (or a similar lawfully justified purpose).

d. Authorization is given by lawfully recognized decision makers in the best interests of the prospective individual.

4. PROHIBITS non-medical enhancements in sapient beings, where:

a. It is done without informed consent from the individual concerned, or (if that is impossible) without lawful approval and third-party supervision,

b. It has not been given independent scientific and ethical review,

c. It carries disproportionate risk to the prospective individual and/or subsequent generations.

d. Its primary intention is to confer unfair, unequal or coercive advantages to certain individuals.

5. AFFIRMS the sovereignty of individual Members States to grant permission for voluntary medical enhancements or heritable modification, provided these approvals conform to international ethical and medical standards.

6. EXEMPTS non-heritable genetic therapy from the provisions of sections 3 and 4 above, provided these therapies are used to diagnose, prevent or treat a disease or injury according to accepted medical and scientific principles, and ethical standards.

7. AFFIRMS that in certain circumstances, national law may permit voluntary genetic modification for survival, adaptation, or other legitimate goals when based on sound scientific reasoning and appropriate ethical and medical review.

8. PROHIBITS gene modification performed solely for the elimination of naturally occurring neurodiversity, variability of cognition, or other similar inherited traits where those traits do not represent pathology. Above proviso shall not be interpreted as hindering the treatment of disease, disorder or medical condition even where those conditions are associated with the above mentioned traits.

9. REQUIRES that any investigation involving the genetic modification of material from sapient beings to have obtained prior authorization from an independent national bioethics body.

10. ADOPTS a policy requiring consent where appropriate, honesty, respect for the humane treatment of individuals being genetically modified, and adequate protections during any genetic modification procedures.

11. PROHIBITS the sale or commerce of genetically modified sapient embryonic material, gametes and/or heritable genetic material for reproductive purposes.

12. DEMANDS appropriate welfare standards and ethical guidelines be adopted for the genetic modification of non-sapient animals.

13. HEREBY ESTABLISHES the World Genetic Ethics Oversight Commission (WGEOC). The WGEOC shall:

a. Oversee application of this resolution.

b. Assess, against widely accepted international ethical criteria, the capabilities of national bioethics authorities.

c. Investigate claims that organisms have been knowingly misclassified as non-sapient to circumvent this resolution.

d. Publish recommendations not to be binding and guidelines for best practice.

14. URGES Member States to co-operate in sharing information related to emerging technologies, ethical guidelines, scientific and technical developments, and risks and issues associated with the use of these technologies.

15. CALLS UPON Member States to adopt appropriate criminal, civil and/or administrative sanctions for violations committed knowingly under the terms of regulations implementing this resolution.

16. AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent conventional selective breeding or genetic research conducted in conformity with its guidelines.

17. HEREBY DECLARES that this resolution sets out the minimum standards to avoid the misuse of genetic modification while permitting reasonable and beneficial research into this technology benefiting all sapient beings.

Authors: Red Cantabria, co Former Citizens of the Nimbus System
Last edited by Red Cantabria on Tue Aug 04, 2026 3:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
"When in doubt, ask the god of the Red"
- Red Cantabria's Prime Minister, Will Maximus the III

User avatar
Jiangbei
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 1370
Founded: Dec 31, 2022
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jiangbei » Sun Aug 02, 2026 9:09 pm

You can use your existing forum post instead of making a new one.
happy Petrov day!

User avatar
The Crusader Kings
Diplomat
 
Posts: 526
Founded: Nov 21, 2025
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Crusader Kings » Sun Aug 02, 2026 10:20 pm

I'm pretty sure this is AI. 89%, 91%, 90%, 97%(AI checkers can be unreliable, but they aren't too bad).

"HEREBY DECLARES this resolution establishes minimum international standards..." I would prefer a "HEREBY DECLARES that this resolution" but that's just me

Clauses 3 and 4 are massive run-ons. Could easily be their own 4 clauses.

Hell, every clause in this damn thing is run on. Can you use at least 1 period in each clause? Everything is VERY run-on.

By restricting the definition exclusively to heritable traits, all somatic gene editing (modifying an living adult's existing body cells without altering gametes), gene drives, RNA interference, epigenetic editing, synthetic biological augmentations, etc. are completely unregulated by this resolution.

"Organism's genetic material" restricts this to organic biological life. Synthetic lifeforms, cybernetic interfaces, or artificial life built without traditional genetic material bypass this rule entirely. I'm no bio geek, so IDK how it would work on non-living cells, but from what High School taught me, it might be a problem for this resolution.

Clause 3 allows exceptions if modifications are "voluntary." An embryo or unborn line of offspring cannot give consent. If parents or the state can consent "on behalf" of an embryo, then any embryonic modification forced by guardians is legally "voluntary."

Modifying traits is only banned if intended "solely to eliminate naturally occurring neurodiversity.,." So what if my government is trying to eliminate a strain of cancer that happened BC of Neurodiversity in a cancer patient? Does that mean we can't stop a strain of disease that might wipe out our nation?

I'm not going to list everything that is wrong with this. If you manage to fix those things WITHOUT using AI, then I might be convinced to vote for this(if it even makes it to the floor, that is).
Last edited by The Crusader Kings on Sun Aug 02, 2026 10:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Crusader Kings My NS stats/Policies DO NOT represent my IRL views
The truth must be held by the sword. There is no place for heretics. God wills it. We chill for the most part.
God helps us, for we are not without error, but without grave sin. God wills our victory and glory, and let it be. Praise the Lord.
Glory to TCK.


User avatar
Red Cantabria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jun 29, 2026
New York Times Democracy

Postby Red Cantabria » Tue Aug 04, 2026 3:18 am

The Crusader Kings wrote:I'm pretty sure this is AI. 89%, 91%, 90%, 97%(AI checkers can be unreliable, but they aren't too bad).

"HEREBY DECLARES this resolution establishes minimum international standards..." I would prefer a "HEREBY DECLARES that this resolution" but that's just me

Clauses 3 and 4 are massive run-ons. Could easily be their own 4 clauses.

Hell, every clause in this damn thing is run on. Can you use at least 1 period in each clause? Everything is VERY run-on.

By restricting the definition exclusively to heritable traits, all somatic gene editing (modifying an living adult's existing body cells without altering gametes), gene drives, RNA interference, epigenetic editing, synthetic biological augmentations, etc. are completely unregulated by this resolution.

"Organism's genetic material" restricts this to organic biological life. Synthetic lifeforms, cybernetic interfaces, or artificial life built without traditional genetic material bypass this rule entirely. I'm no bio geek, so IDK how it would work on non-living cells, but from what High School taught me, it might be a problem for this resolution.

Clause 3 allows exceptions if modifications are "voluntary." An embryo or unborn line of offspring cannot give consent. If parents or the state can consent "on behalf" of an embryo, then any embryonic modification forced by guardians is legally "voluntary."

Modifying traits is only banned if intended "solely to eliminate naturally occurring neurodiversity.,." So what if my government is trying to eliminate a strain of cancer that happened BC of Neurodiversity in a cancer patient? Does that mean we can't stop a strain of disease that might wipe out our nation?

I'm not going to list everything that is wrong with this. If you manage to fix those things WITHOUT using AI, then I might be convinced to vote for this(if it even makes it to the floor, that is).



Thank you for your feedback!
"When in doubt, ask the god of the Red"
- Red Cantabria's Prime Minister, Will Maximus the III

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Aug 04, 2026 4:10 am

You have submitted this proposal five times now and each time it has come nowhere near making quorum. What makes you think a sixth time will be any different?
Former Delegate of The West Pacific. Former Guardian (under many Delegates) of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs and former Security Council Advisor.

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..

User avatar
Grenartia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 47608
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Grenartia » Tue Aug 04, 2026 4:15 am

In addition to what everyone else has pointed out so far, I'd like to highlight that there's a certain irony in this proposal going out of its way to be inclusive of non-humans (which I think is a strength), yet the title is "Human Genetic Integrity Act".
Reject tradition, embrace modernity. People who call themselves based NEVER are.
She or they pronouns, please. Unrepentant transbian. Girlfriend of Jolthig. Steely-eyed missile woman.
Lib-left. Antifascist, antitankie, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist (including the imperialism of non-western countries). Christian (Unitarian Universalist). Background in physics.
Basic flag design by me, enhancements by Kuromistan.

User avatar
Red Cantabria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jun 29, 2026
New York Times Democracy

Postby Red Cantabria » Tue Aug 04, 2026 8:29 pm

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:You have submitted this proposal five times now and each time it has come nowhere near making quorum. What makes you think a sixth time will be any different?

That's a great question. I don't know.
Grenartia wrote:In addition to what everyone else has pointed out so far, I'd like to highlight that there's a certain irony in this proposal going out of its way to be inclusive of non-humans (which I think is a strength), yet the title is "Human Genetic Integrity Act".

Oops. Thanks for your feedback!
"When in doubt, ask the god of the Red"
- Red Cantabria's Prime Minister, Will Maximus the III

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Wed Aug 05, 2026 10:21 am

Red Cantabria wrote:
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:You have submitted this proposal five times now and each time it has come nowhere near making quorum. What makes you think a sixth time will be any different?

That's a great question. I don't know.

Then why continue? You obviously have no idea how to promote your proposal to quorum so it’s never going to get to vote.

Writing a (legal) proposal is only half the battle. Doesn’t matter how many times you rewrite this draft unless you have a plan to get Delegates onside it’s pointless.
Former Delegate of The West Pacific. Former Guardian (under many Delegates) of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs and former Security Council Advisor.

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..

User avatar
Red Cantabria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jun 29, 2026
New York Times Democracy

Postby Red Cantabria » Thu Aug 06, 2026 6:20 am

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:
Red Cantabria wrote:That's a great question. I don't know.

Then why continue? You obviously have no idea how to promote your proposal to quorum so it’s never going to get to vote.

Writing a (legal) proposal is only half the battle. Doesn’t matter how many times you rewrite this draft unless you have a plan to get Delegates onside it’s pointless.

I think I do have one
"When in doubt, ask the god of the Red"
- Red Cantabria's Prime Minister, Will Maximus the III


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tallenn

Advertisement

Remove ads