[DRAFT] Restrictions on Animal Testing

[Ezechard]

Restrictions on Animal Testing

Category: Health - Bioethics

The World Assembly,

NOTING the absence of a resolution to ensure the rights of animals used for scientific research,
ACKNOWLEDGING that GAR#477, Convention on Animal Testing, was repealed,
RECOGNIZING the fact that animals suffer from intense pain when treated incorrectly during research,
UNDERSTANDING that animal research is also an important aspect of science, and therefore should not be completely outlawed,

hereby:

1. Defines:

1. an animal as a non-sapient but still sentient creature,
2. a research animal as an animal on which experimental products or tests are used,
3. a testing facility as a location in which experiments on research animals are conducted,
4. unethical research as research in a testing facility during which unnecessary harm and/or stress is inflicted to the research animal, whether physically or mentally, intentionally or unintentionally,
5. ethical research as research in a testing facility during which no unnecessary harm or stress is inflicted to the research animal,

2. Outlaws unethical research and the inhumane killing of research animals under any conditions,

3. Re-establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), tasked with reporting unethical research to the local authorities,

4. Requires a member of the WABB to be present at every testing facility, to oversee animal research and ensure animals are treated correctly,

5. Mandates member nations to proportionally punish research facilities violating this resolution,

6. Mandates that after research:

1. The research animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, is healthy, is capable of surviving in the wild and not an invasive species,
2. The research animal is given to a person or organization capable of taking care of the animal, if it doesn't fit the requirements for being released into the wild, and is in good condition,
3. The research animal is humanely euthanized if it cannot be released or adopted,

7. Encourages testing facilities to use other methods of testing that do not require a testing animal.


Second draft:

The World Assembly,

NOTING the absence of a resolution to ensure the rights of animals used for scientific research,
ACKNOWLEDGING that GAR#477, known as the Convention of Animal Testing, was repealed,
RECOGNIZING the fact that animals animals suffer from intense pain when treated incorrectly during research,
UNDERSTANDING that animal research is also an important aspect of science, and therefore should not be completely outlawed,

hereby:

1. Defines:

1. an animal as a non-sapient but still sentient creature,
2. a research animal as an animal on which experimental products or tests are used,
3. a testing facility as a location in which experiments on research animals are conducted,
4. unethical research as research in a testing facility during which unnecessary harm and/or stress is inflicted to the research animal, whether physically or mentally, intentionally or unintentionally,
5. ethical research as research in a testing facility during which no unnecessary harm or stress is inflicted to the research animal,

2. Re-establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), to fulfill the following tasks:

1. Ensuring ethical research,
2. Reporting unethical research to the local authorities,
3. Enforcing clauses 4, 5 and 6

3. Requiring a member of the WABB to be present at every testing facility, to oversee animal research and ensure animals are treated correctly,

4. Outlaws unethical research and the inhumane killing of research animals under any conditions,

5. Urges member nations to proportionally punish research facilities violating this resolution,

6. Mandates that after research:

1. The research animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, is healthy, is capable of surviving in the wild and not an invasive species,
2. The research animal is given to a person capable of taking care of the animal, if it doesn't fit the requirements for being released into the wild, and is in good condition,
3. The research animal is humanely euthanized if it cannot be released or adopted,

7. Encourages testing facilities to use other methods of testing that do not require a testing animal.

First draft:

The World Assembly,

NOTING the absence of a resolution to ensure the rights of animals used for scientific research,
ACKNOWLEDGING that GAR#477, known as the Convention of Animal Testing, was repealed,
RECOGNIZING the fact that animals animals suffer from intense pain when treated incorrectly during research,
UNDERSTANDING that animal research is also an important aspect of science, and therefore should not be completely outlawed,

hereby:

1. Defines:

1. an animal as a non-sapient and sentient creature capable of feeling pain,
2. a research animal as an animal on which experimental products or tests are used,
3. a testing facility as a location in which experiments on research animals are conducted,
4. unethical research as research in a testing facility during which harm is inflicted to the research animal, whether physically or mentally, intentionally or unintentionally,
5. ethical research as research in a testing facility during which as little harm and stress as possible is inflicted to the research animal,

2. Re-establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), to fulfill the following tasks:

1. Ensuring ethical research,
2. Reporting unethical research to the local authorities,
3. Enforcing clauses 4, 5 and 6

3. Requiring a member of the WABB to be present at every testing facility, to oversee animal research and ensure animals are treated correctly,

4. Outlaws unethical research and the inhumane killing of research animals under any conditions,

5. Urges member nations to proportionally punish research facilities violating this resolution,

6. Mandates that after research:

1. The research animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, is healthy, is capable of surviving in the wild and not an invasive species,
2. The research animal is given to a person capable of taking care of the animal, if it doesn't fit the requirements for being released into the wild, and is in good condition,
3. The research animal is humanely euthanized if it cannot be released or adopted,

7. Encourages testing facilities to use other methods of testing that do not require a testing animal.

[The New Sicilian State]

snip

Maybe consider dropping the 'can feel pain' part in your first clause... All it takes is a single madman to claim that animals feel no pain to completely undo your hard work."

In addition, I may be wrong, but I believe you may wish to clarify what is deemed 'unethical'. There seems to be a little too much room to flex about.

[Ezechard]

snip

Maybe consider dropping the 'can feel pain' part in your first clause... All it takes is a single madman to claim that animals feel no pain to completely undo your hard work."

In addition, I may be wrong, but I believe you may wish to clarify what is deemed 'unethical'. There seems to be a little too much room to flex about.

'Hello, and thank you for your concerns. While dropping the 'capable of feeling pain' part of clause 1a sounds like a great idea, clause 1d defines 'unethical research' as research during which harm is inflicted to the research animal. I hope this answers your question!'

[Araraukar]

OOC: ...okay, I'll bite. Show me a non-sentient animal that can feel pain. Not just react to painful stimuli, but with the actual ability to feel pain. Because the way it's generally understood by RL science, sentience is necessary for the feeling of pain. Even bacteria react to painful stimuli (environmental conditions that are unsuitable for the type of bacterium that they are), but they don't feel the pain.

[Wind Flower]

We at wind flower do not condone testing on animals of any sort. Animals walk the earth with us so why should we walk against them? We are one and we are in this together. Justice for the animals. Justice for all.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

This has my full support.

Edit: Actually, probably some qualifier is needed before "harm" in 1d, because animal testing can always be potentially harmful to an animal, as this draft tacitly acknowledges in a later clause ("as little harm as possible"). "Unnecessary harm" is what I would suggest, but feel free to add something more appropriate.

OOC: ...okay, I'll bite. Show me a non-sentient animal that can feel pain. Not just react to painful stimuli, but with the actual ability to feel pain. Because the way it's generally understood by RL science, sentience is necessary for the feeling of pain. Even bacteria react to painful stimuli (environmental conditions that are unsuitable for the type of bacterium that they are), but they don't feel the pain.

OOC: I think you mean non-sapient? Sentience is the ability to sense, this includes feeling of pain. Cite the study that shows non-sapients can't feel pain, I'm interested in your sources.
And as for your question, I'm not a biologist but it appears to me that if an animal would have a similar nerve system to a human, and have similar reactions in it as human does after being exposed to pain - then that would definitely be an animal that can sense pain. But even this definition wouldn't contain all animals that can feel pain imo.

The idea that only humans can have sensation is rather strange one to me.

[Ezechard]

OOC: ...okay, I'll bite. Show me a non-sentient animal that can feel pain. Not just react to painful stimuli, but with the actual ability to feel pain. Because the way it's generally understood by RL science, sentience is necessary for the feeling of pain. Even bacteria react to painful stimuli (environmental conditions that are unsuitable for the type of bacterium that they are), but they don't feel the pain.

OOC: To qualify as an 'animal' for this resolution, it should be sentient but not sapient. So I don't really understand why you're bringing this up.

Edit: Actually, probably some qualifier is needed before "harm" in 1d, because animal testing can always be potentially harmful to an animal, as this draft tacitly acknowledges in a later clause ("as little harm as possible"). "Unnecessary harm" is what I would suggest, but feel free to add something more appropriate.

OOC: Thanks for the feedback! I'll update the draft as soon as possible.

[Separatist Peoples]

We at wind flower do not condone testing on animals of any sort. Animals walk the earth with us so why should we walk against them? We are one and we are in this together. Justice for the animals. Justice for all.

"Say that to an angry grey bear or a bull razortooth who thinks your barn is its territory. Animals aren't on our side. Let's not pretend they are."

[Ezechard]

OOC: The second draft is now up:

'as little harm as possible' -> 'no unnecessary harm and/or stress'
'non-sapient and sentient' -> 'non-sapient but still sentient'
'can feel pain' part in clause 1a has been removed.

Please let me know what y'all think!

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think you mean non-sapient? Sentience is the ability to sense, this includes feeling of pain. Cite the study that shows non-sapients can't feel pain, I'm interested in your sources.

OOC: That was exactly my point. The proposal used non-sentient (or "non-sapient and sentient", which reads as "non-sapient and non-sentient"). My request for the proof of non-sentient animals that can feel pain was meant to illustrate the point of sentience being needed for the feeling of pain.

EDIT: But that was fixed and I'll re-read the new draft after I've had some sleep.

[Res Publica Nova Roma]

Tribune Titus rummages through some old papers, clutching at an unlit cigar as he precariously reads each detail. He gives a sigh and stands, brushing some dust of his suit as he begins to speak.

"This is a noble endeavor to push for rights of animals, however we must not forget about the progress animal research has made to cure the various illnesses and ailments that creatures across the world have suffered. But abuse in a research facility is not something which should be supported, even if it leads to a breakthrough in the progress of Cognitive, or "Sapient", beings.

On behalf of the Senate of Novs Roma, I give my full support to this draft and will continue to support it if it reaches a vote."

[Purple Rats]

The research animal is given to a person capable of taking care of the animal, if it doesn't fit the requirements for being released into the wild, and is in good condition,

I suggest a little change: "is given to a person or organisation capable of..." therefor these animals can go under care of non profit animal rescue organisations, like for example sanctuaries, so not just one person has to be registered as caretaker of that/these animals.

[Ezechard]

The research animal is given to a person capable of taking care of the animal, if it doesn't fit the requirements for being released into the wild, and is in good condition,

I suggest a little change: "is given to a person or organisation capable of..." therefor these animals can go under care of non profit animal rescue organisations, like for example sanctuaries, so not just one person has to be registered as caretaker of that/these animals.

OOC: Good idea, I'll change that! Any other suggestions?

[Maowi]

OOC: This is looking good! Some thoughts I had:

ACKNOWLEDGING that GAR#477, known as the Convention of Animal Testing, was repealed,

Get rid of "known as the" and change "of" to "on".

RECOGNIZING the fact that animals animals suffer from intense pain when treated incorrectly during research,

You have an accidental repetition of "animals" there.

2. Re-establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), to fulfill the following tasks:

1. Ensuring ethical research,
2. Reporting unethical research to the local authorities,
3. Enforcing clauses 4, 5 and 6

Parts a and c of that are, in my view, unnecessary; a is too vague to be of any use, and the WACC (see this resolution) is the committee in charge of checking that WA resolutions are obeyed. I think what you have there in part b is completely adequate for what you need to do.

3. Requiring a member of the WABB to be present at every testing facility, to oversee animal research and ensure animals are treated correctly,

Change requiring to requires.

4. Outlaws unethical research and the inhumane killing of research animals under any conditions,

It doesn't hugely matter, but it seemed a little odd that this clause was so far down - I think it would make sense as the first clause after the definitions, to give everything else context.

5. Urges member nations to proportionally punish research facilities violating this resolution,

I think you can change this from urges to mandates, or something similarly strong. If your gonna have something be illegal, you want people to be punished accordingly for doing it.

In the interests of having as complete a resolution on this topic as possible, you can use the wording from clause 6 from my draft on this topic if you wish (and obviously adapt it to fit with the definitions you have in there already).

[God-King Rorschach]

From a medical standpoint. Animals do feel pain. They can feel pain as much as any other living creature that has a nervous system capable of transmitting electric pulses.
From a legal standpoint, it is illegal in many medical facilities now to inflict pain upon animals, this includes various drug tests not excluding here the cosmetic industry.

The scientific community has reached the point where we can extract a single cell and manipulate or reproduce that cell to the point that we can tell if a certain cosmetic or drug is de-regulating the homeostasis of the cell. All and all this is not a painful or stressful experience either for the animal or the medical stuff unit that will be conducting these tests and experiments.

I believe in the dignity of all living sentient things, therefore I support this bill.

[Greater Ale Permars]

I oppose this bill, animals are not humans and therefore do not have them same rights.

[Ezechard]

-snip-

OOC: Thanks a lot for the extensive feedback! I'll change it as soon as possible.

-snip-

IC: 'Alternatives to animal testing, such as the one you pointed out, is exactly what we encourage through this resolution. Animal testing is in most cases cruel and should ultimately by replacing by more ethical means of research, although I acknowledge that not every country has the scientific advancement to abandon animal testing.'

[Ezechard]

OOC: Okay, the third draft is up! Once again, thanks for the feedback! Keep them suggestions coming!

[God-King Rorschach]

OOC: Okay, the third draft is up! Once again, thanks for the feedback! Keep them suggestions coming!

From your expertise on this matter, I take it that you might be majoring in sciences or are a student of Veterinary Medicine, or simply have done your research.
In my eyes, from a both a medical perspective, scientific, ethical and economical perspective, even small nations can avoid invasive experiments, often by sending samples in a nation who can do extensive research and get a result back.

Instead of being sufficient, nations should be encouraged to combine their medical knowledge and expertise.

[Araraukar]

RECOGNIZING the fact that animals suffer from intense pain when treated incorrectly during research,

OOC: Not all pain is intense pain. An animal can experience stress without feeling pain. And incorrect treatment can be something as simple as forgetting the lights on in the room where the rat cages are (rats are nocturnal). The animals would be somewhat stressed but not in intense pain.

UNDERSTANDING that animal research is also an important aspect of science, and therefore should not be completely outlawed,

Even more important for product development. Think research for new medications, not cosmetics.

an animal as a non-sapient but still sentient creature,

"Sentient but not sapient" is shorter and more to the point.

a research animal as an animal on which experimental products or tests are used,

Do you intend to aim this entire proposal only on product and testing methods development animal tests? Because while those are quite a large part of animal testing, they're not the whole of it. The "or tests" suggests that you're talking about "experimental tests".

unethical research as research in a testing facility during which unnecessary harm and/or stress is inflicted to the research animal, whether physically or mentally, intentionally or unintentionally,

A testing facility is not a duration. Also, why "research"? You have even named your proposal to include "animal testing". Use the words from the title or rename the title.

ethical research as research in a testing facility during which no unnecessary harm or stress is inflicted to the research animal,

This latter definition could simply be "as animal testing which is not unethical research" or something similar. It would then also work as a kind of bureaucratic humour.

2. Outlaws unethical research and the inhumane killing of research animals under any conditions,

Okay, so where does the "inhumane killing" suddenly come from? This is a binding mandate so it should use only strictly defined terminology. As we can see in RL, "humane killing" of animals is a very wide and stretchy-bordered term, depending on who you ask.

3. Re-establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), tasked with reporting unethical research to the local authorities,

4. Requires a member of the WABB to be present at every testing facility, to oversee animal research and ensure animals are treated correctly,

Seriously unnecessary overreach - this would require tens of thousands of WA officials to be hired. The WA's money comes from the member nations. Wouldn't it make more sense to require the research facility workers to report instances of bad treatment of research animals to their superiors, and if the problem wasn't corrected, then to the committee, which could then poke around the lab more closely. Basically, give the nations some ability for self-correcting problems as they pop up, rather than instantly slamming the people (who are not unerring, because people make mistakes) with the full unyieding weight of the WA.

5. Mandates member nations to proportionally punish research facilities violating this resolution,

...what does proportionally mean here?

6. Mandates that after research:

1. The research animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, is healthy, is capable of surviving in the wild and not an invasive species,
2. The research animal is given to a person or organization capable of taking care of the animal, if it doesn't fit the requirements for being released into the wild, and is in good condition,
3. The research animal is humanely euthanized if it cannot be released or adopted,

These are almost word for word copied from the previous resolution. Do you have the author's permission for doing so?

7. Encourages testing facilities to use other methods of testing that do not require a testing animal.

Should have the modifier "if possible", because it's not possible to test systemic responses on cell cultures, or vertebrate behaviour on insects.

[Rotenbergen]

The cost of implementing the provisions outlined in this proposal will exponentially increase the cost of doing business for labs and research firms. This will ultimately run many of them out of business, raise prices on numerous consumer goods, and create unnecessary delays in the advancement of scientific technology that can benefit all of humanity.

[Ezechard]

The cost of implementing the provisions outlined in this proposal will exponentially increase the cost of doing business for labs and research firms. This will ultimately run many of them out of business, raise prices on numerous consumer goods, and create unnecessary delays in the advancement of scientific technology that can benefit all of humanity.

OOC: I'm already going to change clause 4, but what else would exponentially increase the cost of labs and research firms?