[draft] On Animal Experimentation

by **Caracasus** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:55 am

OOC: VERY rough draft - very work in progress at the moment. Wanted to get some ideas down and some general feedback on the area/feasability before proceeding.
OOC: Okay, put some more flesh on the bones

Category: Health
Subcategory: Bioethics

Recognising the vital role that animal experimentation plays in scientific advancement.

Acknowledging the growing international scope of research and development, with research pertaining to one particular scientific endevour often undertaken in more than one nation.

Noting the desire of most individuals and nations to not cause unnecessary suffering.

Further noting the importance of controlling as many variables as possible within any scientific experiment.

Defining for the purposes of this resolution; animals as any non-sapient, sentient organic life form and experiment as any test or research carried out by a group or individual with the express purpose of furthering scientific knowledge and understanding.

Creates the World Assembly Research Ethics Committee, hereafter referred to as WAREC.

Mandates that

1. Animals kept for the purposes of experimentation are given adequate space, stimulation and nutrition for their species.

2. Animals kept for the purposes of experimentation are kept in conditions that are both clean and hygienic.

3. Nations keep, and are able to deliver on request to the WAREC, records on movement, health and experiments for each animal kept for the purposes of experimentation.

4. Animals used in research, where for whatever reason they must be killed, are killed in as humane a way as possible.

Notes that clauses 1, 2 and 4 may be overridden should it be necessary to do so by the nature of the experiment.

Co-author: Ferret Civilization

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:47 am

"I'm really not sure why this is necessary?"

by **Caracasus** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:24 am

We felt ambassador, that given the international scope and presence of biological research companies, some consensus on the treatment and standards of welfare of laboratory animals may be called for. We feel there is both an ethical and practical scope for this, both in ensuring that a reasonable standard of care is provided to laboratory animals, and in ensuring that conditions of testing are kept as standard as possible, regardless of the country that the tests are being undertaken in.

by **Ferret Civilization** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

"Well, after seeing these things on animals, there are surprising little resolutions out there protecting non-sapient animals. While there is a surprising a lot on protecting patients and medical research using sapient beings. Reading over previous resolutions like Animal Cruelty Prevention, Animal Protection Act, Protecting Migratory Animals, and Prohibiting Animal Abuse. Seems like this would be a hard thing to keep if it would get through."

by **John Turner** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:05 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm really not sure why this is necessary?"

by **Caracasus** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:26 pm

John Turner wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm really not sure why this is necessary?"

OOC: Really? For the badge I've already got? What, do you get two of them now? A fucking trophy Cabernet? Honestly, I occasionally see people propose out-there stuff (as I did relatively recently) and it sometimes gives me an idea that there might be an area that kind of needs legislation. Other times I might read something in the news, or come across some sort of issue in many other contexts. Weirdly enough, this is what happened here.

by **Ferret Civilization** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:07 pm

"Hrm, well continuing to look over the previous resolutions and their repeals, it seems like anything that involves morals would make it hard to get through. And there is the issue of religious purposes, along with what classifies as animal mistreatment, has to be worded just right for everyone to accept. Anything with hygiene and sanitation should take the role of the whole facility and it's employees, while it doesn't directly affect animals the reaffirmation of employee safety could be reinforced here with the benefit of helping animals out. Nutrition would also seem like a hard thing to push through, since that is an economic expense for what the purpose of the animal is. The purpose of an animal being protected should also probably be clarified, as you mentioned, which would have to be strictly medical if hygiene and sanitation is to be included. This all is probably too much or doesn't help, just trying to get better at this."

by **Cuddle Bear** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:22 pm

i do not see how this is necessary

by **Herby** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:26 pm

Why just medicines? What about cosmetics? Or chemical exposure testing? Or jet engine testing? Or tire testing? Eh, forget I mentioned that last one.....

by **Ferret Civilization** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:33 pm

Herby wrote:Why just medicines? What about cosmetics? Or chemical exposure testing? Or jet engine testing? Or tire testing? Eh, forget I mentioned that last one.....

"Because medicine is the one thing that can affect sapient being enough to make them care if the stuff being tested on animals will eventually go to them. Plus as seen with what the thing over about cosmetics and the other now void moral reasoning. It just shows the general view of how things are. And medicine might be the easiest of this hard list to try and get through. Those other reasons might be helpful if they are put under medical reasons, but those would probably be best as stand alone things like with all the resolutions out there protecting sapient patients and other sapient beings in healthcare."

by **Caracasus** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:48 pm

We are currently focusing on Bioethics here ambassadors. Should other nations wish to suggest legislation surrounding cosmetic testing, that would be up to them.

We are considering mandating a standard of welfare that would provide space, nutrition and other necessities for an animal to not be considered under unnecessary stress or neglect. As to how to word and get this working.... well. This is, we feel, possible. We are merely gauging initial reception here before spending hours carefully wording a proposal that may not be possible.

by **Herby** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:51 pm

Caracasus wrote:We are currently focusing on Bioethics here ambassadors. Should other nations wish to suggest legislation surrounding cosmetic testing, that would be up to them.

You totally missed my point. Why is medicine so special? Why is an across-the-board proposal out of the question? If you're concerned about the "space, nutrition and other necessities" of test animals, why limit it to medicinal testing and not all forms of testing?

by **Caracasus** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:04 pm

Herby wrote:
Caracasus wrote:We are currently focusing on Bioethics here ambassadors. Should other nations wish to suggest legislation surrounding cosmetic testing, that would be up to them.

You totally missed my point. Why is medicine so special? Why is an across-the-board proposal out of the question? If you're concerned about the "space, nutrition and other necessities" of test animals, why limit it to medicinal testing and not all forms of testing?

Because of the category system ambassador. This would fall under "Health" - subcategory "Bioethics". We are unsure as to what the examples you suggested would fall under.

by **Ferret Civilization** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:13 pm

"Wouldn't those just fall under the same thing? It would just broaden the draft and make it harder to get through. And if you're looking for the reaction, the past seems to speak well on the matter, and two others here have already said they don't see the point. This would be hard to get through, and it would have to be worded carefully. If you think it can be done, well, I'll be supportive of the effort."

by **Caracasus** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:15 pm

Indeed ambassador. We will continue at present with fleshing out some of the details and justification. Watch this space.

by **Aranoff** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:36 pm

Jennifer reads a lobbyist email regarding their concern with onerous regulations being drafted in the General Assembly, and then lays her phone face down on her desk.

"Ambassadors, is this really necessary? Isn't this an issue for the free market? If consumers are worried about the animal testing, then they should buy products from labs that provide alternate methods of testing. Besides, non-sapient experimentation is an important aspect of understanding complex biological functions and limiting the impact to sapient being everywhere.

"Further, industries have a need to ensure non-sapient experiment subjects are not driven to extinction, and ensure that the population of research animals are kept in abundant supply to support their needs. We feel there is no need for this body to provide yet ANOTHER burdensome regulation on businesses, especially one that will eventually have loopholes that businesses can opt out of."

by **Herby** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:51 pm

Caracasus wrote:
Herby wrote:You totally missed my point. Why is medicine so special? Why is an across-the-board proposal out of the question? If you're concerned about the "space, nutrition and other necessities" of test animals, why limit it to medicinal testing and not all forms of testing?

Because of the category system ambassador. This would fall under "Health" - subcategory "Bioethics". We are unsure as to what the examples you suggested would fall under.

They'd all go under bioethics.

Look, here's what I'm getting at. You're basically putting restrictions on how animals can be treated during medical experimentation, while not putting similar restrictions on how animals can be treated for other, less... how do I put this... "noble" causes, I suppose, like cosmetics, or mechanical engineering, or defense research, or space exploration. It makes no sense to restrict the use of animals in medicine, yet allow them to be mistreated in cosmetology or other sciences.

If you're going to legislate on the treatment of animals during experimentation, do it, don't cherry-pick.

by **Nilla Wayfarers** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:44 pm

Caracasus wrote:Category: Health
Subcategory: Bioethics

Preamble - Acknowledge that animal experimentation is necessary to developing medicines etc...

Not actually necessary. Our support wanes.

Acknowledge the now often-international scope of bio research companies and organisations

Acknowledging. Grammar is important, ambassador.

Noting the general desire to limit suffering

Noting the importance of ensuring that variables within experiments are controlled.

Areas to define

Animals used in testing

Tests themselves

Areas to mandate

Hygiene and sanitation

Animal welfare

Nutrition

Minimizing unnecessary suffering

Protecting scientific institutions from assault? Maybe....

...Why haven't you defined any of these, ambassador? Until you do, I have to refuse support.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:58 pm

For Nilla:

Caracasus wrote:OOC: VERY rough draft - very work in progress at the moment. Wanted to get some ideas down and some general feedback on the area/feasability before proceeding.

by **Caracasus** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:34 pm

Well ambassadors, we have put more flesh on the bones of this. We are at present attempting to decide whether or not to pull any responsibilities under the umbrella of WASP, create a new committee or go with neither of those options, hence the lack of link between the creation of the committee.

Our thanks to Herby for pointing out that there was no need to restrict this to medical research - and to Ferret for helping to define some of these clauses a little more clearly.

We would also like to state that this is not some proposal to outlaw or ban testing on animals, rather it lays down guidelines for testing on animals aimed at both ensuring unnecessary suffering is kept to a minimum and that living quarters and conditions for said animals are kept more or less standard within any WA nation.

by **Whovian Tardisia** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:13 pm

Caracasus wrote:Notes that clauses 1, 2 and 4 may be overridden should it be necessary to do so by the nature of the experiment.

Two things I noticed with this particular clause:
1. It references the the other clauses by number, yet the clauses aren't numbered.
2. There may be an Optional Clauses illegality here. Not quite sure, but it may be a good idea to check just in case.

We appreciate what you are attempting to do, and once any other concerns are allayed, we will support this proposal.

by **Intellect and the Arts** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:15 pm

I was recently re-reading my involvement in several such similar ventures the last few times I was here. I was all rared up for a jolly good few rounds of definition debates, exemptions juggling, and general tussles with PETA-impersonators. Instead, I have found the astonishingly first reasonable proposal regarding animal treatment I've ever seen in the WA. Well done, truly. Just fix up that numbering issue, and you've earned veritable bragging rights in that arena.

Now, you still have to make the case as to why this is an appropriate issue for the WA's jurisdiction, but if you can do that, you'll have my vote if it reaches the floor.

EDIT NOTE: Phone does not seem to like these forums. Keeps inventing nonsense words and the like. Quite irritating, but they've been removed.

by **The Palentinate** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:27 pm

"These are sensible standards that I feel protect both animals and do not impede on scientific advancement."

by **Tinfect** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:56 pm

"Ambassador, might there be made an exemption for the final clause, in the event of Military Research? I do not think that 'used as target practice for experimental particle weapons' counts as a method of humane killing, granted, it is unlikely that the subject would not be killed instantly."

by **Caracasus** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:56 am

Well ambassadors, the numbering issue is fixed. You will also note that the clauses relating to welfare have been made so that should an experiment require, say, blasting an ion cannon at point blank range, the clause regarding painless death can be overlooked.

Planned changes - clarify wording on when clauses can be overlooked - "In the instances where the nature of the experiment requires that clauses 1, 2 or 4 cannot be met, they do not have to be followed."

Boost importance and re-word the requirement to keep accurate records on test animals - we feel that this is just good science here.

Tie the committee into clause three, or remove the committee altogether.

Thoughts, good ambassadors?

[draft] On Animal Experimentation

[draft] On Animal Experimentation

Who is online