[SUBMITTED] Repeal: "Ethical Treatment Of Animals In...

[Llorens]

Repeal: "Ethical Treatment Of Animals In Research"

Category: Repeal / Resolution: GAR#489 / Author: Llorens

Draft replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=486781

The World Assembly,

Noting the well-placed intentions of GAR#489 "Ethical Treatment Of Animals In Research" to reduce the harm inflicted on animals used for scientific experimentation and product development;

Concerned that clause 2(b) of the resolution is extremely lenient with the terms by which animal experimentation may be carried out, exempting any experimentation that harms animals physically or psychologically for vague reasons such as "material benefit to its sapient owner";

Anxious that animal research institutes are able to kill animal species at risk of extinction if they cannot be safely returned to the habitat in which they were captured and no other person or body has the means by which to provide for its necessities;

Worried that the erroneous language of section 8(a) of the resolution may allow for animals to be unsuitably released back into the habitat in which they were captured, where they may be at risk of practices such as poaching, so long as they have the potential ability to survive independently in the long-term;

Concluding that, as a result of its aforementioned inadequacies, the resolution should not be upheld as international law;

Confident that replacement legislation will be authored to address and build upon this important issue of international concern;

Hereby repeals GAR#489 "Ethical Treatment Of Animals In Research".

[Llorens]

Nothing against the author of the original resolution here, but I do think there are several issues that need to be remedied. I have already heard of some discussion of people drafting a replacement, so hopefully that will soon follow!

Also, this is my (kinda) first time writing a resolution, so apologies if I'm ignorant of any particular conventions about the process. I say "kinda" because I wrote a resolution many years back about the internet which I got to queue by manually telegramming every Delegate in existence before the resolution was promptly deleted for rule violations, which turned me away from the WA forums for a long time.

Anyway, enough with my dramatic backstory, let me know what you think of the repeal resolution I've drafted!

[Makdon]

I was just thinking of drafting up a repeal, so you can be sure to have my support as long as you polish this up. You've addressed a lot of good points here, but I think your description of the problem with the definition of animals is, in my opinion, wrong. I'm not worried about it not addressing animals without a nervous system? They can't feel pain or any other such stimuli, and have no emotions, so why should it matter if they're experimented on? I think the problem with the definition is that it excludes some non-human primates, such as great apes, because they're sapient. The definition sentient non-sapient fails, but not for the reason you've outlined here. I'm also unsure why reporting accurately is something research institutes shouldn't have to do. Overall, the language of this proposal could certainly use some refining, and if I weren't lazy I'd give you some tips on that. Also, I don't think the HOPING clause is necessary. Oh, and it's standard to have a replacement for a legislation ready when you agree with the spirit of the legislation, but it has a few technical problems, like here. That way, there's little chance that the resolution, which at least does some good at protecting animals, will be repealed and then never replaced. Without a replacement, you'll be unlikely to garner much support

[Llorens]

I was just thinking of drafting up a repeal, so you can be sure to have my support as long as you polish this up. You've addressed a lot of good points here, but I think your description of the problem with the definition of animals is, in my opinion, wrong. I'm not worried about it not addressing animals without a nervous system? They can't feel pain or any other such stimuli, and have no emotions, so why should it matter if they're experimented on? I think the problem with the definition is that it excludes some non-human primates, such as great apes, because they're sapient. The definition sentient non-sapient fails, but not for the reason you've outlined here. I'm also unsure why reporting accurately is something research institutes shouldn't have to do. Overall, the language of this proposal could certainly use some refining, and if I weren't lazy I'd give you some tips on that. Also, I don't think the HOPING clause is necessary. Oh, and it's standard to have a replacement for a legislation ready when you agree with the spirit of the legislation, but it has a few technical problems, like here. That way, there's little chance that the resolution, which at least does some good at protecting animals, will be repealed and then never replaced. Without a replacement, you'll be unlikely to garner much support

I think on your point of the definition, that is valid, but it doesn't excuse the definition still being objectively wrong. I also don't think those non-sentient animals should be included, but the appropriate language should be used to account for this, rather than a broad term of "animal". How should I adjust it to reflect this?

On accurately reporting, I think it is a good idea in principle, but it fails in certain situations. An addition of "within reason" rather than just mandating that institutes accurately report on all experimentation would be probably be more appropriate.

The 'hoping' clause seems to be pretty standard in a lot of repeals from what I researched.

I would author a replacement, but being relatively new to this space I figured I wouldn't overextend myself! I'd be happy to support someone who else is willing to write a new one, but I don't think I could manage keeping on top of two threads anyway.

[Maowi]

OOC: If you do carry this through, I'll probably draft a replacement with some tweaks from the original ...

Of course I disagree with many of your points here but I won't bog this thread down with what's already been fairly extensively argued in the target's own thread instead I'll just point out a couple of inaccuracies here:

DISSATISFIED with the factually inaccurate definition of the term 'animal' in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which neglects the fact that there are animals that lack a nervous system and inaccurately implies that a nervous system is equivalent to the presence of pain receptors;

I don't think it's accurate to say it entirely neglects animals without nervous systems; any animals with "equivalent systems" for feeling pain are included - you could modify your language here.

DISTURBED by the requirement that animal research institutes accurately report on all animal experimentation carried out given the high difficulty in accounting for certain types of animals, such as insects, of which there may be thousands in any one experiment;

I'm not sure insects fall under the definition of "animal" given in the resolution, so you may want to choose a different example.

ANXIOUS that animal research institutes may be able to kill animal species at risk of extinction if they cannot be safely returned to the habitat in which they were captured and no other person or body has the means by which to provide for its necessities;

(Okay, this one isn't an inaccuracy but I'd like to address it anyway) The resolution expressly forbids experimentation on endangered animals except to aid conservation efforts, and to be quite honest I'm not seeing a potential situation where a research institute would go to the effort of researching conservation of that species and then kill the animal.

[Digitotuo]

Hello Maowi,

I don't think it's accurate to say it entirely neglects animals without nervous systems; any animals with "equivalent systems" for feeling pain are included - you could modify your language here.

Many 'lower' animals, such as sponges, lack nerves and cannot feel pain. Also, what pain-sensing mechanism do you know of that does not use nerves? As far as I know, not all animals have nervous tissue, but all animals that can sense pain do have nerves (and some sort of brain-like structure).

I'm not sure insects fall under the definition of "animal" given in the resolution, so you may want to choose a different example.

Insects, such as houseflies, can feel pain (see doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00272-1) and so would come under the definition. They are among the most common experimental subjects, and requiring paperwork on each fly is rather silly.

[Llorens]

In reflection of the comments made, I've made the following changes to the resolution:

1. Replaced "DISSATISFIED with the factually inaccurate definition of the term 'animal' in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which neglects the fact that there are animals that lack a nervous system and inaccurately implies that a nervous system is equivalent to the presence of pain receptors;" with "DISSATISFIED with the definition of the term 'animal' in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which neglects the increasing literature that supports the notion of sapience extending to other non-human animals, such as dolphins, apes, and crows;".

2. Removed "DISTURBED by the requirement that animal research institutes accurately report on all animal experimentation carried out given the high difficulty in accounting for certain types of animals, such as insects, of which there may be thousands in any one experiment;".

ANXIOUS that animal research institutes may be able to kill animal species at risk of extinction if they cannot be safely returned to the habitat in which they were captured and no other person or body has the means by which to provide for its necessities;

(Okay, this one isn't an inaccuracy but I'd like to address it anyway) The resolution expressly forbids experimentation on endangered animals except to aid conservation efforts, and to be quite honest I'm not seeing a potential situation where a research institute would go to the effort of researching conservation of that species and then kill the animal.

While I appreciate the logic of your point, I still think it is a potential loophole. The resolution would be made better in this section by explicitly noting that species at risk of extinction cannot be euthanised under any circumstances.

[Maowi]

Hello Maowi,

I don't think it's accurate to say it entirely neglects animals without nervous systems; any animals with "equivalent systems" for feeling pain are included - you could modify your language here.

Many 'lower' animals, such as sponges, lack nerves and cannot feel pain. Also, what pain-sensing mechanism do you know of that does not use nerves? As far as I know, not all animals have nervous tissue, but all animals that can sense pain do have nerves (and some sort of brain-like structure).

OOC: Hi! Thanks for the comments. On this first point I can't say I'm quite sure what you're arguing here. If they cannot feel pain, I don't think it's worth protecting them with international legislation. The "equivalent system for feeling pain" thing was mainly intended to catch any weird creatures WA RPers may have dreamt up.

I'm not sure insects fall under the definition of "animal" given in the resolution, so you may want to choose a different example.

Insects, such as houseflies, can feel pain (see doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00272-1) and so would come under the definition. They are among the most common experimental subjects, and requiring paperwork on each fly is rather silly.

The sentience of insects is far from well-established as a scientific claim, and as such many member states/research institutes may argue that they do not fall under the resolution. It's also not particularly difficult to anaesthetise insects in case they do feel pain - increasing CO2 concentration in the air does it, for example. It would also be a pretty ridiculous interpretation of the target to say it requires documentation on each individuals fly, if they've being used in large numbers - a comprehensive report on the procedures used does not require a fly-by-fly analysis :P

--- whoops, ninja'd ---

DISSATISFIED with the definition of the term 'animal' in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which neglects the increasing literature that supports the notion of sapience extending to other non-human animals, such as dolphins, apes, and crows;

I'd recommend removing "human" there and maybe replace it with ... I'm not sure ... person? There are many member nations with different species having personhood aside from humans.

To address that point - I think it's worth noting that there are many WA resolutions addressing the rights of sapient creatures that would probably mean testing on them can't happen without their consent in the first place.

[Llorens]

DISSATISFIED with the definition of the term 'animal' in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which neglects the increasing literature that supports the notion of sapience extending to other non-human animals, such as dolphins, apes, and crows;

I'd recommend removing "human" there and maybe replace it with ... I'm not sure ... person? There are many member nations with different species having personhood aside from humans.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the use of the word "human" is more than acceptable as an assumption in General Assembly resolutions. The very description of Civil Rights resolutions says, "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights." If there is a precedent of sorts on how to go about this, that might be more informative.

To address that point - I think it's worth noting that there are many WA resolutions addressing the rights of sapient creatures that would probably mean testing on them can't happen without their consent in the first place.

Are there? And even if there are, would it even make any sense to exclude those animals from a resolution about the ethical treatment of animals in research?

[Honeydewistania]

"I support."

[Ardiveds]

To address that point - I think it's worth noting that there are many WA resolutions addressing the rights of sapient creatures that would probably mean testing on them can't happen without their consent in the first place.

Are there? And even if there are, would it even make any sense to exclude those animals from a resolution about the ethical treatment of animals in research?

OOC: Afaik, a sapient without personhood can't legally be tested on anyway since neither can they be tested on without consent nor can they legally consent.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Use of "human" should be fine as long as you don't contradict GAR #355 (Rights of Sapient Species) i.e. writing for humans doesn't necessarily contradict that resolution.

- 1/6 GenSec

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Use of "human" should be fine as long as you don't contradict GAR #355 (Rights of Sapient Species) i.e. writing for humans doesn't necessarily contradict that resolution.

- 1/6 GenSec

(OOC: Writing for humans might be legal, but it is also incredibly silly given the range of species within the World Assembly. Permitting forced experimentation on non-human sapient beings would be a grave oversight.)

[Slackertown]

100% support. This resolution just isn't good.

[Maowi]

OOC:

I'd recommend removing "human" there and maybe replace it with ... I'm not sure ... person? There are many member nations with different species having personhood aside from humans.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the use of the word "human" is more than acceptable as an assumption in General Assembly resolutions. The very description of Civil Rights resolutions says, "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights." If there is a precedent of sorts on how to go about this, that might be more informative.

Oh, well I don't think there's any legality problem with using "human" - it was just a suggestion for better consistency with the IC world of the WA.

To address that point - I think it's worth noting that there are many WA resolutions addressing the rights of sapient creatures that would probably mean testing on them can't happen without their consent in the first place.

Are there? And even if there are, would it even make any sense to exclude those animals from a resolution about the ethical treatment of animals in research?

Rights of Sapient Species ensures that all sapients have the same internationally-granted rights as humans or any other sapient species. Medical Research Ethics Act prevents medical experimentation involving any person who has not rationally given their informed consent to the procedure. Many of the target's provisions would not make sense when applied to sapients, and I don't really see a way to distinguish between "sapients like apes and dolphins" and "sapients like humans" in the context of the WA.

[Llorens]

OOC:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the use of the word "human" is more than acceptable as an assumption in General Assembly resolutions. The very description of Civil Rights resolutions says, "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights." If there is a precedent of sorts on how to go about this, that might be more informative.

Oh, well I don't think there's any legality problem with using "human" - it was just a suggestion for better consistency with the IC world of the WA.

Sure, this seems like a fair point. I've updated it to "non-person".

Are there? And even if there are, would it even make any sense to exclude those animals from a resolution about the ethical treatment of animals in research?

Rights of Sapient Species ensures that all sapients have the same internationally-granted rights as humans or any other sapient species. Medical Research Ethics Act prevents medical experimentation involving any person who has not rationally given their informed consent to the procedure. Many of the target's provisions would not make sense when applied to sapients, and I don't really see a way to distinguish between "sapients like apes and dolphins" and "sapients like humans" in the context of the WA.

I can't agree that a resolution on the ethical treatment of animals should exclude certain types of animals. If the intention of the resolution is to only refer to non-sapient animals, then the resolution should probably be named 'Ethical Treatment of Non-Sapient Animals in Research' instead.

That being said, if the overwhelming opinion is that this is an invalid point to make, I'm happy to drop it from the repeal. I believe the other points are still more than valid on their own to justify a repeal.

[Digitotuo]

Many 'lower' animals, such as sponges, lack nerves and cannot feel pain. Also, what pain-sensing mechanism do you know of that does not use nerves? As far as I know, not all animals have nervous tissue, but all animals that can sense pain do have nerves (and some sort of brain-like structure).

OOC: Hi! Thanks for the comments. On this first point I can't say I'm quite sure what you're arguing here. If they cannot feel pain, I don't think it's worth protecting them with international legislation. The "equivalent system for feeling pain" thing was mainly intended to catch any weird creatures WA RPers may have dreamt up.

Insects, such as houseflies, can feel pain (see doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00272-1) and so would come under the definition. They are among the most common experimental subjects, and requiring paperwork on each fly is rather silly.

The sentience of insects is far from well-established as a scientific claim, and as such many member states/research institutes may argue that they do not fall under the resolution. It's also not particularly difficult to anaesthetise insects in case they do feel pain - increasing CO2 concentration in the air does it, for example. It would also be a pretty ridiculous interpretation of the target to say it requires documentation on each individuals fly, if they've being used in large numbers - a comprehensive report on the procedures used does not require a fly-by-fly analysis

--- whoops, ninja'd ---

Regarding the first point, my problem is that the word 'animal' is defined in a manner that is factually incorrect, apparently implying that 'lower' animals that lack pain receptors / nerves are not animals and may be experimented upon without any restriction. I accept your point about equivalent system for feeling pain being a catch-all for RP inventions.

Regarding the second point, while I do not believe a 'fly-by-fly account' is the intention of the resolution, Clause 4, as it is written, requires "accurate and comprehensive reports on all animal experimentation". Since there is no clause exempting experiments on insects, reports seem to be required for them too. The real-life practise is usually to have strict safety and documentation rules on mammals (and sometimes reptiles) whereas fish and insect research have significantly less regulations.

Finally, are member-nations allowed to decide which species are sentient and which are not? Wouldn't this be abused?

[Heavens Reach]

We can not support a repeal until a draft stronger than the existing resolution is already written and ready to enter the pipeline. We are stating our intent to abstain.

[Maowi]

OOC:

Regarding the second point, while I do not believe a 'fly-by-fly account' is the intention of the resolution, Clause 4, as it is written, requires "accurate and comprehensive reports on all animal experimentation". Since there is no clause exempting experiments on insects, reports seem to be required for them too. The real-life practise is usually to have strict safety and documentation rules on mammals (and sometimes reptiles) whereas fish and insect research have significantly less regulations.

Yes, you are certainly correct in that some form of documentation on the procedures used when testing insects is required by the target - but a comprehensive report on any testing is generally just good practice in research. "Comprehensive and accurate" also is not that high a bar and almost certainly would not require much/any additional work on top of what a proper research institute should be doing anyway as a matter of thorough scientific practice.

Finally, are member-nations allowed to decide which species are sentient and which are not? Wouldn't this be abused?

To some extent member nations are given licence to decide this, but given the requirement for good-faith compliance any determinations of the sentience of a species has to be grounded in science and can't just be an arbitrary decision by a member nation to suit its own purposes.

[Digitotuo]

OOC:

Yes, you are certainly correct in that some form of documentation on the procedures used when testing insects is required by the target - but a comprehensive report on any testing is generally just good practice in research. "Comprehensive and accurate" also is not that high a bar and almost certainly would not require much/any additional work on top of what a proper research institute should be doing anyway as a matter of thorough scientific practice.

While this is true for research on mammals, research on invertebrates and fishes is usually not so tightly regulated. There is a reason for this. For every experiment on mice in a research institution, there will be 100 on flies / fish. Why? Because when you want to test something new (e.g. 'What happens if you give food/medicine/poison X to an animal?') you first take a million flies, or a thousand fish, and try out all possibilities and combinations (dosage, age, gender, route of administration etc.). When you get something that works, you (or usually, someone else), confirm it in mice (or rarely, monkeys), with all the proper documentation. This is cheaper and faster than directly experimenting on mice (and you will probably agree that killing a thousand fishes is a lesser evil than killing a thousand, or even a hundred, mammals).
Now ideally, all those failed experiments you first did on flies should be documented and published, so that other people don't repeat the same mistakes. But budgets being what they are, no one will have the manpower to document all this, and few journals will publish it anyway. This is why I am worried that requiring documentation is problematic.
Also, thanks for explaining that nations have discretion in deciding which animals are sentient. Sentience is hard to measure, and while many 'lower' animals such as social insects and some fishes have displayed problem-solving skills, I can understand that each nation / institute might end up taking its own position on the sentience of a species.

[Ardiveds]

...

While this is true for research on mammals, research on invertebrates and fishes is usually not so tightly regulated. There is a reason for this. For every experiment on mice in a research institution, there will be 100 on flies / fish. Why? Because when you want to test something new (e.g. 'What happens if you give food/medicine/poison X to an animal?') you first take a million flies, or a thousand fish, and try out all possibilities and combinations (dosage, age, gender, route of administration etc.). When you get something that works, you (or usually, someone else), confirm it in mice (or rarely, monkeys), with all the proper documentation. This is cheaper and faster than directly experimenting on mice (and you will probably agree that killing a thousand fishes is a lesser evil than killing a thousand, or even a hundred, mammals).
Now ideally, all those failed experiments you first did on flies should be documented and published, so that other people don't repeat the same mistakes. But budgets being what they are, no one will have the manpower to document all this, and few journals will publish it anyway. This is why I am worried that requiring documentation is problematic.
Also, thanks for explaining that nations have discretion in deciding which animals are sentient. Sentience is hard to measure, and while many 'lower' animals such as social insects and some fishes have displayed problem-solving skills, I can understand that each nation / institute might end up taking its own position on the sentience of a species.

OOC: I feel like sentience shouldn't be such a hard thing to determine. I mean what organisms can and cannot percieve their environment is a relatively easy thing to judge.

[Kenmoria]

While this is true for research on mammals, research on invertebrates and fishes is usually not so tightly regulated. There is a reason for this. For every experiment on mice in a research institution, there will be 100 on flies / fish. Why? Because when you want to test something new (e.g. 'What happens if you give food/medicine/poison X to an animal?') you first take a million flies, or a thousand fish, and try out all possibilities and combinations (dosage, age, gender, route of administration etc.). When you get something that works, you (or usually, someone else), confirm it in mice (or rarely, monkeys), with all the proper documentation. This is cheaper and faster than directly experimenting on mice (and you will probably agree that killing a thousand fishes is a lesser evil than killing a thousand, or even a hundred, mammals).
Now ideally, all those failed experiments you first did on flies should be documented and published, so that other people don't repeat the same mistakes. But budgets being what they are, no one will have the manpower to document all this, and few journals will publish it anyway. This is why I am worried that requiring documentation is problematic.
Also, thanks for explaining that nations have discretion in deciding which animals are sentient. Sentience is hard to measure, and while many 'lower' animals such as social insects and some fishes have displayed problem-solving skills, I can understand that each nation / institute might end up taking its own position on the sentience of a species.

OOC: I feel like sentience shouldn't be such a hard thing to determine. I mean what organisms can and cannot percieve their environment is a relatively easy thing to judge.

(OOC: Sentience is incredibly hard to accurately define because intelligence is a continuum rather than a series of fixed categories. There’s no firm line between non-sentient and sentient, nor between sentient and sapient. Therefore, a GA resolution attempting to accurately define ‘sentience’ would be doomed to fail. Leaving it in member states’ hands is far easier.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just dropping in a fun bit about the whole sentient/sapient/neither thingy... Basically, a mind that can think (whether it's sentient or sapient), is a black box to others of the same species (or other observers, like humans), in that information goes in, and decisions are made, but HOW the decisions are arrived at, cannot be fully explained. That doesn't mean the decisions made couldn't be predicted, just that we don't know exactly how they were arrived at.

What makes this really interesting is that there are, in actual RL, algorithms (the person creating them, whose lecture I listened, calls them that, because calling them artificial intelligences makes them sound more intelligent than the very complicated flowcharts they are - his words) that are such "black boxes" even to their programmers. Which kind of means that the algorithms can be considered to have (a very narrow version of) sentience of sorts.

[Llorens]

OOC: Just dropping in a fun bit about the whole sentient/sapient/neither thingy... Basically, a mind that can think (whether it's sentient or sapient), is a black box to others of the same species (or other observers, like humans), in that information goes in, and decisions are made, but HOW the decisions are arrived at, cannot be fully explained. That doesn't mean the decisions made couldn't be predicted, just that we don't know exactly how they were arrived at.

What makes this really interesting is that there are, in actual RL, algorithms (the person creating them, whose lecture I listened, calls them that, because calling them artificial intelligences makes them sound more intelligent than the very complicated flowcharts they are - his words) that are such "black boxes" even to their programmers. Which kind of means that the algorithms can be considered to have (a very narrow version of) sentience of sorts.

That's actually pretty interesting!

Back to the resolution, though, the whole debate over the insect matter is moot because that clause is no longer in the resolution (as of 5 days ago). If anyone has any more constructive and relevant feedback on the resolution, I'd appreciate it so we can get this chugging along to be submitted!

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: Just dropping in a fun bit about the whole sentient/sapient/neither thingy... Basically, a mind that can think (whether it's sentient or sapient), is a black box to others of the same species (or other observers, like humans), in that information goes in, and decisions are made, but HOW the decisions are arrived at, cannot be fully explained. That doesn't mean the decisions made couldn't be predicted, just that we don't know exactly how they were arrived at.

What makes this really interesting is that there are, in actual RL, algorithms (the person creating them, whose lecture I listened, calls them that, because calling them artificial intelligences makes them sound more intelligent than the very complicated flowcharts they are - his words) that are such "black boxes" even to their programmers. Which kind of means that the algorithms can be considered to have (a very narrow version of) sentience of sorts.

That's actually pretty interesting!

Back to the resolution, though, the whole debate over the insect matter is moot because that clause is no longer in the resolution (as of 5 days ago). If anyone has any more constructive and relevant feedback on the resolution, I'd appreciate it so we can get this chugging along to be submitted!

Our recommendation is that you have a replacement proposal ready to go. Your grievances with the original legislation largely center around concerns about its strength and effectiveness at accomplishing its goals. Repealing it removes the protections (ones that did not preexist) altogether -- a weaker alternative to just leaving it in place so that it can at least do some good. Therefore, we recommend that you draft the stronger, more effective legislation that you envision replacing it, get that through the draft process, line it up, and then push through your appeal.