[Challenge] Repeal Protection of Biomedical Research

[Tinfect]

Rule Broken: Honest Mistake

Appalled that this absurdly broad restriction prohibits (or at least would prohibit, should prior legislation be repealed) member states from, among other things:
securing legal protection from harmful medical experimentation to the historically vulnerable class of persons who, while not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research" may indeed regain such capacity, such as individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states,

This clause, due to the mandates of Resolution 29, Resolution 299, (which collectively provide a definition of legal guardianship and competence, and allow for determinations regarding medical procedures to be made by legal guardians,) and Resolution 355, (which extends the protections granted to sapient species to any and all members of said species, regardless of any disability,) is an Honest Mistake violation, as it claims the resolution does something it is incapable of doing.

granting precautionary legal protection from potentially harmful medical experimentation to potentially sentient or sapient life that has not yet been definitively "proven" to be such, perhaps due to difficulties in communication,

This clause, due to the resolutions's allowance of restrictions for scientific interests, is an Honest Mistake Violation, as ensuring that a species is properly understood prior to engaging in invasive biomedical research with it, is an obvious requirement of ensuring the validity and legitimacy of any research.

mandating that biomedical researchers abide by reasonable financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules, and

This clause, due to the resolutions's allowance of restrictions for scientific interests, is an Honest Mistake Violation, as disclosing or eliminating any biases is a legitimate scientific interest in ensuring the legitimacy of any research. Further, such is entirely outside the scope of the Resolution, as regulations regarding the disclosure of financial interests or other biases are procedural regulations, rather than scientific standards.

providing adequate legal protection for the environment in the context of biomedical research, at least with respect to non-sapient plant, bacterial, and fungal life such as coral reefs and old-growth forests,

This clause, due to environmental regulations being entirely outside the scope of the resolution, as per the definition of 'Biomedical Research' within the resolution, is an Honest Mistake Violation.

Understanding that significant portions of the remainder of the target resolution are largely redundant in light of GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act" and GAR #219, "Biomedical Innovation Org", for the following reasons:
the target resolution requires the Biomedical Innovation Organization (BIO) to coordinate "international efforts at biomedical research", despite the fact that GAR #219 already requires the BIO to coordinate "research on treatments involving biomedical tissues conducted within WA member nations",

This clause, due to the fact that Biomedical Research encompasses a vast field of research, not at all limited to those utilizing Biomedical Tissues, such as the development of Pacemakers, Medical Prosthesis, or other such endeavors, is an Honest Mistake Violation.

the target resolution mandates the BIO with developing minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research and serving as an advisory body for biomedical ethics organizations and regulatory bodies, even though GAR #111 already establishes and regulates bodies required for upholding medical research ethics in member states,

This clause, due to the fact the IRBs established via Resolution 111 serve to determine whether a research effort can be considered Ethical, whereas BIO's expanded role within the Resolution is to establish a minimum standard of ethicality, is an Honest Mistake Violation.

the target resolution establishes an "internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States", even though GAR #219 already requires the BIO to include "research data for biomedical innovations as a part of the Database Of Clinical Treatments Under Study"

This clause, due to the fact that a Database for Biomedical Innovations, and a Database for Ongoing Biomedical Research, are literally two entirely different things, is an honest mistake violation.

[Auralia]

I thank the challenger for submitting this challenge prior to the proposal's submission. However, the fact remains that this challenge is without merit. The proposal does not violate the Honest Mistake rule.

Appalled that this absurdly broad restriction prohibits (or at least would prohibit, should prior legislation be repealed) member states from, among other things:
securing legal protection from harmful medical experimentation to the historically vulnerable class of persons who, while not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research" may indeed regain such capacity, such as individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states,

This clause, due to the mandates of Resolution 29, Resolution 299, (which collectively provide a definition of legal guardianship and competence, and allow for determinations regarding medical procedures to be made by legal guardians,) and Resolution 355, (which extends the protections granted to sapient species to any and all members of said species, regardless of any disability,) is an Honest Mistake violation, as it claims the resolution does something it is incapable of doing.

First of all, resolutions such as the ones listed only establish a minimum standard of requiring the consent of a legal guardian for medical procedures, for research purposes or otherwise. But there are cases where a legal guardian might inappropriately consent to medical experimentation on behalf of a person who is not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research". Although not medical experimentation, there are certainly examples in real life of persons being administered medical procedures such as involuntary euthanasia with the consent of a legal guardian; see Aktion T4 and the Groningen Protocol.

It is not clear whether existing resolutions provide adequate legal protection for such persons in these circumstances. For ethical reasons, member states may wish to prohibit certain kinds of experimentation on such persons notwithstanding the consent of a legal guardian, but GAR #420 would prohibit them from doing so under mandate 2.

Regardless, the fact remains that whatever legal protection is in fact provided by the listed resolutions for persons who are not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research" would disappear should those resolutions be repealed, and GAR #420 would certainly prevent such protection from being reinstated under mandate 2. The proposal notes this distinction clearly when it states that GAR #420 "prohibits (or at least would prohibit [adequate legal protection to persons who are not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research"], should prior legislation be repealed) [emphasis added]". Well-written blockers are carefully drafted such that they are independent of prior legislation and do not obstruct appropriate future legislation, but GAR #420 is not a well-written blocker.

granting precautionary legal protection from potentially harmful medical experimentation to potentially sentient or sapient life that has not yet been definitively "proven" to be such, perhaps due to difficulties in communication,

This clause, due to the resolutions's allowance of restrictions for scientific interests, is an Honest Mistake Violation, as ensuring that a species is properly understood prior to engaging in invasive biomedical research with it, is an obvious requirement of ensuring the validity and legitimacy of any research.

In the absence of ethical considerations, it is certainly possible to conduct useful medical research on something without first ascertaining whether it is sapient or sentient. Perhaps a member of a particular species produces a compound with interesting medicinal properties, but extracting this compound for research purposes requires killing it. The question of whether or not the compound should be researched is unaffected by the question of whether or not the species is sapient or sentient. In fact, an unscrupulous scientist might deliberately not seek the answer to the latter question in order to provide plausible deniability.

Now, this might impair the "validity and legitimacy" of such research insofar as such research is clearly unethical and most modern scientific communities consider ethical standards to be an important subset of scientific standards. But GAR #420 makes a clear separation between "scientific" and "ethical" standards and mandate 2 applies clear restrictions to the latter, such there can be no ethical standards for the benefit of potentially sentient or sapient life that has not yet been definitively "proven" to be such at the time of research. A "scientific" standard that is only "scientific" precisely because it is "ethical" is still subject to this restriction; the challenger cannot have their cake and eat it too.

mandating that biomedical researchers abide by reasonable financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules, and

This clause, due to the resolutions's allowance of restrictions for scientific interests, is an Honest Mistake Violation, as disclosing or eliminating any biases is a legitimate scientific interest in ensuring the legitimacy of any research. Further, such is entirely outside the scope of the Resolution, as regulations regarding the disclosure of financial interests or other biases are procedural regulations, rather than scientific standards.

Again, "scientific" standards that exist for "ethical" reasons are still ethical standards that are subject to the restrictions established for such standards by mandate 2 of GAR #420.

I'm afraid I simply don't understand the unsubstantiated distinction that the challenger is attempting to draw between "procedural regulations" and "scientific and ethical standards". Can scientific and ethical standards not regulate procedures...?

providing adequate legal protection for the environment in the context of biomedical research, at least with respect to non-sapient plant, bacterial, and fungal life such as coral reefs and old-growth forests,

This clause, due to environmental regulations being entirely outside the scope of the resolution, as per the definition of 'Biomedical Research' within the resolution, is an Honest Mistake Violation.

The challenger is attempting to create limitations on the scope of GAR #420 that simply do not exist. Any regulation that is primarily motivated by ethical considerations and that has the practical effect of impeding biomedical research must constitute an "biomedical research ethics standard" for the purposes of GAR #420 and is subject to the restrictions of mandate 2. This includes environmental regulations. A narrower interpretation that considered the restrictions to only apply to regulations that specifically targeted biomedical research as such would render the restrictions meaningless, since any regulation could be easily tailored to evade them. This is not an acceptable statutory construction.

An example of a prohibited environmental regulation would be a member state seeking to halt biomedical research necessitating large quantities of non-sapient plant, bacterial, and fungal life, such as coral reefs and old-growth forests, because the expected benefits of such research were considered to be outweighed by the ethical obligation to preserve such life.

Understanding that significant portions of the remainder of the target resolution are largely redundant in light of GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act" and GAR #219, "Biomedical Innovation Org", for the following reasons:
the target resolution requires the Biomedical Innovation Organization (BIO) to coordinate "international efforts at biomedical research", despite the fact that GAR #219 already requires the BIO to coordinate "research on treatments involving biomedical tissues conducted within WA member nations",

This clause, due to the fact that Biomedical Research encompasses a vast field of research, not at all limited to those utilizing Biomedical Tissues, such as the development of Pacemakers, Medical Prosthesis, or other such endeavors, is an Honest Mistake Violation.

Before discussing the remaining clauses of the proposal, it is first important to note that all that is necessary to avoid violating the Honest Mistake rule for these clauses is to show that the expansion of the mandate of the BIO is "largely redundant", not completely redundant.

In this instance, the challenger is using an unnecessarily narrow definition of "treatments involving biomedical tissues". First, GAR #219 does not provide a closed definition of biomedical tissues, so we are free to use an expansive definition. Second, all biomedical research relates to biological organisms, which consist of biomedical tissues; all biomedical research will therefore "involv[e] biomedical tissues" in some way. For example, a pacemaker is designed to ensure proper behaviour of the heart, while prosthetics are designed to interact with existing body parts. Therefore, the BIO already effectively has the mandate of coordinating "international efforts at biomedical research" and giving the BIO this mandate again is redundant.

the target resolution mandates the BIO with developing minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research and serving as an advisory body for biomedical ethics organizations and regulatory bodies, even though GAR #111 already establishes and regulates bodies required for upholding medical research ethics in member states,

This clause, due to the fact the IRBs established via Resolution 111 serve to determine whether a research effort can be considered Ethical, whereas BIO's expanded role within the Resolution is to establish a minimum standard of ethicality, is an Honest Mistake Violation.

The IRBs determine whether a particular research effort is ethical on the basis of ethical standards. Anticipating this, GAR #111 indeed establishes a "minimum standard of ethicality" for all medical research, including biomedical research:

REQUIRES that the IRBs reject any research that they reasonably believe may:
i. Cause participation that is not a result of an informed, impartial, and rational decision to provide consent except where the subject’s legal rights were removed by due process of law
ii. Cause preventable death, serious injury, or significant physical or psychological damage to a subject.

It can certainly be argued that the BIO's effort is redundant in light of the minimum standard enacted by GAR #111, especially since the BIO's standards are not in any way defined by GAR #420 and are entirely left up to the committee.

the target resolution establishes an "internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States", even though GAR #219 already requires the BIO to include "research data for biomedical innovations as a part of the Database Of Clinical Treatments Under Study"

This clause, due to the fact that a Database for Biomedical Innovations, and a Database for Ongoing Biomedical Research, are literally two entirely different things, is an honest mistake violation.

The challenger's definition of "biomedical innovation" is too narrow. GAR #219 does not define the term, so we are again free to use an expansive definition. An innovation is simply "something new or different introduced", and ongoing biomedical research is generally novel. As such, there is no reason why such research cannot be added to a database of biomedical innovations. This interpretation is supported by GAR #219 itself in that the research data is being added to a database of "treatments under study", which implies that research may be ongoing.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't see any merit in this challenge. Although maybe not the best interpretations, Auralia's proposal gives reasonable interpretations of the target resolution and its effects on member states. I don't find Tinfect's retroactive efforts to read implied exceptions into his resolution persuasive -- e.g., the resolution prohibits regulations based on ethics, not regulations based on environmental ethics.

[Tinfect]

First of all, resolutions such as the ones listed only establish a minimum standard of requiring the consent of a legal guardian for medical procedures, for research purposes or otherwise. But there are cases where a legal guardian might inappropriately consent to medical experimentation on behalf of a person who is not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research". Although not medical experimentation, there are certainly examples in real life of persons being administered medical procedures such as involuntary euthanasia with the consent of a legal guardian; see Aktion T4 and the Groningen Protocol.

It is not clear whether existing resolutions provide adequate legal protection for such persons in these circumstances. For ethical reasons, member states may wish to prohibit certain kinds of experimentation on such persons notwithstanding the consent of a legal guardian, but GAR #420 would prohibit them from doing so under mandate 2.

The issue of euthanasia is irrelevant to the resolution as it concerns only Biomedical Research, not euthanasia. Medical Procedures in general, and Euthanasia in particular, are governed by separate International and National laws, which this resolution makes no statement on.

In any case, it is entirely clear that existing legislation provides adequate protections. The standards for legal guardianship, and standing Legislation which provides Sapient legal status to members of a Sapient Species that may, for whatever reason, have the status thrown into question by disabilities or medical conditions. The clause in question is an Honest Mistake Violation as the Resolution is entirely incapable of preventing Member-States from protecting the rights of Comatose, Mentally-Ill, or otherwise disabled patients.

Well-written blockers are carefully drafted such that they are independent of prior legislation and do not obstruct appropriate future legislation, but GAR #420 is not a well-written blocker.

Well written repeals do not consist almost entirely of legal violations, but yours is not a well written repeal. See? I can randomly attack the quality of a proposal in a legality thread too!

In the absence of ethical considerations, it is certainly possible to conduct useful medical research on something without first ascertaining whether it is sapient or sentient. In fact, an unscrupulous scientist might deliberately not seek the answer to the latter question in order to provide plausible deniability. Now, this might impair the "validity and legitimacy" of such research insofar as such research is clearly unethical and most modern scientific communities consider ethical standards to be an important subset of scientific standards. But GAR #420 makes a clear separation between "scientific" and "ethical" standards and mandate 2 applies clear restrictions to the latter, such there can be no ethical standards for the benefit of potentially sentient or sapient life that has not yet been definitively "proven" to be such at the time of research. A "scientific" standard that is only "scientific" precisely because it is "ethical" is still subject to this restriction; the challenger cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Ethicality itself as a Scientific Standard is not threatened by the recognition of differences between Scientific and Ethical Standards. Disregard for Research Ethics renders Research illegitimate and impermissible, as well as raising dire concerns about the actual results of the research in question, as the researchers have already demonstrated that they are willing to disregard ethical standards, and thus their results, in addition to their methodology, fall into question.

The clause is an honest mistake violation.

Again, "scientific" standards that exist for "ethical" reasons are still ethical standards that are subject to the restrictions established for such standards by mandate 2 of GAR #420.

I'm afraid I simply don't understand the unsubstantiated distinction that the challenger is attempting to draw between "procedural regulations" and "scientific and ethical standards". Can scientific and ethical standards not regulate procedures...?

Scientific Standards that are informed by Ethical Standards remain Scientific Standards. As for procedural regulations...

Procedural
Adjective
Relating to an established or official way of doing something.

Legal Regulations regarding the disclosure or elimination of biases are procedural regulations, not scientific standards, which are informed by, but not determined by law, or ethical standards, which are determined both by law, and by legally-empowered review boards informed by the standards set by BIO.

The Clause is an Honest Mistake Violation.

providing adequate legal protection for the environment in the context of biomedical research, at least with respect to non-sapient plant, bacterial, and fungal life such as coral reefs and old-growth forests,

The challenger is attempting to create limitations on the scope of GAR #420 that simply do not exist. Any regulation that is primarily motivated by ethical considerations and that has the practical effect of impeding biomedical research must constitute an "biomedical research ethics standard" for the purposes of GAR #420 and is subject to the restrictions of mandate 2. This includes environmental regulations. A narrower interpretation that considered the restrictions to only apply to regulations that specifically targeted biomedical research as such would render the restrictions meaningless, since any regulation could be easily tailored to evade them. This is not an acceptable statutory construction.

An example of a prohibited environmental regulation would be a member state seeking to halt biomedical research necessitating large quantities of non-sapient plant, bacterial, and fungal life, such as coral reefs and old-growth forests, because the expected benefits of such research were considered to be outweighed by the ethical obligation to preserve such life.

This line of argumentation is highly disingenuous. Restrictions on damaging environments are defitionally not restrictions on Biomedical Research, they are restrictions on Environmental Damage, and are not affected by this legislation. In any case, as there exists standing legislation regarding environmental protection that this Legislation does not, and is incapable of bypassing,[GAR 409] [GAR 66] [GAR 95] [GAR 199] [GAR 291] [ect.] in addition to the fact that the Legislation contains absolutely no language regarding the weighing of raw scientific value vs. legal or ethical obligations, this clause is an Honest Mistake Violation.

Before discussing the remaining clauses of the proposal, it is first important to note that all that is necessary to avoid violating the Honest Mistake rule for these clauses is to show that the expansion of the mandate of the BIO is "largely redundant", not completely redundant.

In this instance, the challenger is using an unnecessarily narrow definition of "treatments involving biomedical tissues". First, GAR #219 does not provide a closed definition of biomedical tissues, so we are free to use an expansive definition. Second, all biomedical research relates to biological organisms, which consist of biomedical tissues; all biomedical research will therefore "involv[e] biomedical tissues" in some way. For example, a pacemaker is designed to ensure proper behaviour of the heart, while prosthetics are designed to interact with existing body parts. Therefore, the BIO already effectively has the mandate of coordinating "international efforts at biomedical research" and giving the BIO this mandate again is redundant.

This interpretation of Resolution 219 is purposely absurd and quite frankly not worth serious consideration. It is patently absurd to define any and all organic materials as 'Biomedical Tissues' under Resolution 219. Such is a blatant and intentionally disingenuous misrepresentation of Resolution 219. The clause is an honest mistake violation.

The IRBs determine whether a particular research effort is ethical on the basis of ethical standards. Anticipating this, GAR #111 indeed establishes a "minimum standard of ethicality" for all medical research, including biomedical research:

REQUIRES that the IRBs reject any research that they reasonably believe may:
i. Cause participation that is not a result of an informed, impartial, and rational decision to provide consent except where the subject’s legal rights were removed by due process of law
ii. Cause preventable death, serious injury, or significant physical or psychological damage to a subject.

It can certainly be argued that the BIO's effort is redundant in light of the minimum standard enacted by GAR #111, especially since the BIO's standards are not in any way defined by GAR #420 and are entirely left up to the committee.

It can be argued that these are procedural regulations on the IRB itself, rather than standards for ethicality to be utilized by the IRB.

The challenger's definition of "biomedical innovation" is too narrow. GAR #219 does not define the term, so we are again free to use an expansive definition. An innovation is simply "something new or different introduced", and ongoing biomedical research is generally novel. As such, there is no reason why such research cannot be added to a database of biomedical innovations. This interpretation is supported by GAR #219 itself in that the research data is being added to a database of "treatments under study", which implies that research may be ongoing.

Simply because terms lack specific definition within the Text, does not give one an unequivocal right to redefine them in any way they wish. The word 'International' is not defined within Resolution 219, but it would be patently absurd to claim that it therefore can be interpreted as referring solely to interactions between Iron atoms. It is likewise patently absurd to claim that Biomedical Innovations include any and all Biomedical Research. The clause is an Honest Mistake Violation.

[Auralia]

The issue of euthanasia is irrelevant to the resolution as it concerns only Biomedical Research, not euthanasia. Medical Procedures in general, and Euthanasia in particular, are governed by separate International and National laws, which this resolution makes no statement on.

The point of the provided examples has nothing to do with euthanasia specifically. The point was to establish that guardians can arguably consent to harmful medical procedures on behalf of someone else under current WA law, that states may rightly wish to prohibit such conduct even with that consent, and that GAR #420 prohibits states from doing so. Euthanasia is not generally part of biomedical research, but other medical procedures certainly might be.

In any case, it is entirely clear that existing legislation provides adequate protections. The standards for legal guardianship, and standing Legislation which provides Sapient legal status to members of a Sapient Species that may, for whatever reason, have the status thrown into question by disabilities or medical conditions. The clause in question is an Honest Mistake Violation as the Resolution is entirely incapable of preventing Member-States from protecting the rights of Comatose, Mentally-Ill, or otherwise disabled patients.

It is not, in fact, clear that the existing protections are adequate, and I've explained why. The challenger has not addressed my arguments in that regard; they have simply denied their conclusion. They have also not addressed the argument that GAR #420 blocks the reinstatement of these protections should they be repealed.

Well written repeals do not consist almost entirely of legal violations, but yours is not a well written repeal. See? I can randomly attack the quality of a proposal in a legality thread too!

Again, the challenger is not addressing the underlying argument. As I said, blockers should be written carefully such that they do not prohibit past legislation were it to be submitted today, but GAR #420 would indeed block existing WA law on medical ethics.

Ethicality itself as a Scientific Standard is not threatened by the recognition of differences between Scientific and Ethical Standards. Disregard for Research Ethics renders Research illegitimate and impermissible, as well as raising dire concerns about the actual results of the research in question, as the researchers have already demonstrated that they are willing to disregard ethical standards, and thus their results, in addition to their methodology, fall into question.

There is no necessary connection between the quality and usefulness of scientific research and the use of ethical means to procure it. It is not difficult to find examples where unethical experimentation produced valuable results. This fact is, I think, implicitly confirmed by GAR #420 insofar as it distinguishes between ethical and scientific standards in the first place; this would have been unnecessary if ethics standards are necessarily a subset of scientific standards, as the challenger appears to be arguing.

This is ultimately irrelevant, though. Even if one accepts that there is a legitimate scientific basis for ethical standards, the fact remains that a standard that is both "ethical" and "scientific" does not cease to be a "ethics standard" for the purposes of mandate 2 of GAR #420, and therefore remains subject to its restrictions. The provision simply says "ethics standard"; it does not say that the standard must be exclusively motivated by ethical considerations.

Scientific Standards that are informed by Ethical Standards remain Scientific Standards. As for procedural regulations...

Procedural
Adjective
Relating to an established or official way of doing something.

Legal Regulations regarding the disclosure or elimination of biases are procedural regulations, not scientific standards, which are informed by, but not determined by law, or ethical standards, which are determined both by law, and by legally-empowered review boards informed by the standards set by BIO.

I don't understand any of this. It seems obvious to me that whether a standard has the force of law has no bearing on whether it is motivated by scientific or ethical considerations.

It also seems obvious to me that whether a particular standard falls into the amorphous category of "procedural regulation" is also irrelevant to whether it is also a scientific or ethical standard. A standard does not cease to be motivated by scientific or ethical considerations merely because it "relat[es] to an established or official way of doing something".

This line of argumentation is highly disingenuous. Restrictions on damaging environments are defitionally not restrictions on Biomedical Research, they are restrictions on Environmental Damage, and are not affected by this legislation. In any case, as there exists standing legislation regarding environmental protection that this Legislation does not, and is incapable of bypassing,[GAR 409] [GAR 66] [GAR 95] [GAR 199] [GAR 291] [ect.] in addition to the fact that the Legislation contains absolutely no language regarding the weighing of raw scientific value vs. legal or ethical obligations, this clause is an Honest Mistake Violation.

The challenger here is simply asserting that restrictions with the practical effect of impeding biomedical research are somehow not restrictions on biomedical research so long as they are nominally directed at something else. I have already explained why this is not a tenable interpretation.

Regarding existing GA environmental regulation, I am sure many would agree that such regulation is far from adequate and that member states often go beyond the WA norm. GAR #420 would indeed affect such regulations. Moreover, the argument regarding the inability to reinstate existing protections should prior resolutions be repealed also applies.

This interpretation of Resolution 219 is purposely absurd and quite frankly not worth serious consideration. It is patently absurd to define any and all organic materials as 'Biomedical Tissues' under Resolution 219. Such is a blatant and intentionally disingenuous misrepresentation of Resolution 219. The clause is an honest mistake violation.

I would not define biomedical tissue as "any and all organic material". In light of GAR #219's open-ended definition, I would roughly define tissue as "any of the distinct types of material of which animals or plants are made, consisting of specialized cells and their products", and biomedical tissue as any tissue relevant to biomedical research. This is consistent with GAR #219's definition, which encompasses not just organs but also blood and blood products.

I have already explained why this definition encompasses virtually all biomedical research, why the challenger's prior examples of biomedical research that are apparently inconsistent with this definition are in fact consistent with this definition, and why therefore the expansion of the BIO's mandate is redundant.

It can be argued that these are procedural regulations on the IRB itself, rather than standards for ethicality to be utilized by the IRB.

It is obvious that the obligations placed on IRBs in GAR #111 are indeed ethical standards, in that they are rules governing medical research that are motivated by ethical considerations. It can be argued that the BIO's additional ethical standards are therefore redundant.

There is no coherent basis for the distinction the challenger is attempting to draw between ethical standards and "procedural regulations", nor the claim that they are somehow exclusive categories. I think it is becoming apparent that the entire category of "procedural regulations"-- a term used nowhere in GAR #420 -- is a fiction created to paper over the unfortunate implications of GAR #420's poorly written second mandate by allowing the challenger to exempt favoured regulation from the mandate.

Simply because terms lack specific definition within the Text, does not give one an unequivocal right to redefine them in any way they wish. The word 'International' is not defined within Resolution 219, but it would be patently absurd to claim that it therefore can be interpreted as referring solely to interactions between Iron atoms. It is likewise patently absurd to claim that Biomedical Innovations include any and all Biomedical Research. The clause is an Honest Mistake Violation.

I see nothing unreasonable about describing novel biomedical research as innovative or including it in a database of biomedical innovations. Biomedical research that cannot be characterized as novel or otherwise innovative probably isn't worth cataloguing in an international database anyway. To the extent that such cataloguing is appropriate, therefore, GAR #420 is largely redundant.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Ethicality itself as a Scientific Standard is not threatened by the recognition of differences between Scientific and Ethical Standards. Disregard for Research Ethics renders Research illegitimate and impermissible, as well as raising dire concerns about the actual results of the research in question, as the researchers have already demonstrated that they are willing to disregard ethical standards, and thus their results, in addition to their methodology, fall into question.

Where in the target resolution is "Research Ethics" defined as a scientific standard rather than a purely ethical standard? How are member nations supposed to parse which ethical standards are actually scientific standards versus which are merely "ethical"? In the absence of guidance, I would have to assume that the target means exactly what it says:

any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research...

[Tinfect]

Ethicality itself as a Scientific Standard is not threatened by the recognition of differences between Scientific and Ethical Standards. Disregard for Research Ethics renders Research illegitimate and impermissible, as well as raising dire concerns about the actual results of the research in question, as the researchers have already demonstrated that they are willing to disregard ethical standards, and thus their results, in addition to their methodology, fall into question.

Where in the target resolution is "Research Ethics" defined as a scientific standard rather than a purely ethical standard? How are member nations supposed to parse which ethical standards are actually scientific standards versus which are merely "ethical"? In the absence of guidance, I would have to assume that the target means exactly what it says:

[snip]

I am not arguing anything of the sort. The point being that Scientific Standards may be informed by ethical standards, not that Ethical Standards are Scientific Standards. The breach of Ethical Standards in research casts doubt on the legitimacy of research outcomes and methodology.

I'll get to Auralia's nonsense later.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't see any merit in this challenge. Although maybe not the best interpretations, Auralia's proposal gives reasonable interpretations of the target resolution and its effects on member states. I don't find Tinfect's retroactive efforts to read implied exceptions into his resolution persuasive -- e.g., the resolution prohibits regulations based on ethics, not regulations based on environmental ethics.

Tinfect's latest post hasn't changed my opinion, which I expressed earlier. Now, he just gives a second example:

The resolution prohibits regulations based on ethics, not regulations based on research ethics.

[Bears Armed]

I agree with Christian Democrats and Sierra Lyricalia on this challenge.

[Separatist Peoples]

I find myself in agreement with Tinfect, honestly, who has phrased the argument better than I probably could. I know Banana had said something about an Honest Mistake issue with the second and third clauses that at the time I agreed with, but that was done privately, so I'll have to go back and check it out.

[Bears Armed]

I find myself in agreement with Tinfect, honestly, who has phrased the argument better than I probably could.

To me (and, it seems, to Auralia, Christian Democrats, Sierra Lyricalia, and various other players who have commented in the relevant drafting threads), Tinfect's arguments rely too much on the assumption that everybody else will interpret certain terms within their resolution in the same way that Tinfect does... whereas that interpretation is not as uncontestely the only reasonable one as they assert...

[Separatist Peoples]

I find myself in agreement with Tinfect, honestly, who has phrased the argument better than I probably could.

To me (and, it seems, to Auralia, Christian Democrats, Sierra Lyricalia, and various other players who have commented in the relevant drafting threads), Tinfect's arguments rely too much on the assumption that everybody else will interpret certain terms within their resolution in the same way that Tinfect does... whereas that interpretation is not as uncontestely the only reasonable one as they assert...

A fair assessment, but I don't know why people would deliberately interpret clauses in a way detrimental to them, so it seems a reasonable assumption to make to me.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Where in the target resolution is "Research Ethics" defined as a scientific standard rather than a purely ethical standard? How are member nations supposed to parse which ethical standards are actually scientific standards versus which are merely "ethical"? In the absence of guidance, I would have to assume that the target means exactly what it says:

[snip]

I am not arguing anything of the sort. The point being that Scientific Standards may be informed by ethical standards, not that Ethical Standards are Scientific Standards. The breach of Ethical Standards in research casts doubt on the legitimacy of research outcomes and methodology.

Then is your argument instead that the target resolution is toothless in this area because existing ethical standards may be slotted into a nation's scientific standards by a simple legislative handwave? Because I don't see a possible middle ground there (nor, technically, any evidence for that possibility in the text. But that's what you appear to be saying...).

[Clean Land]

The only thing here that is a honest mistake is the interpretation of Tinfect. I already have proven that all regulations are affected by the resolution(https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=433429&p=33236435#p33236435), I think.

[Separatist Peoples]

The only thing here that is a honest mistake is the interpretation of Tinfect. I already have proven that all regulations are affected by the resolution(https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=433429&p=33236435#p33236435).

Your word is NOT authoritative on the matter. You would do well to recall that in Challenge threads.

[Clean Land]

The only thing here that is a honest mistake is the interpretation of Tinfect. I already have proven that all regulations are affected by the resolution(https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=433429&p=33236435#p33236435).

Your word is NOT authoritative on the matter. You would do well to recall that in Challenge threads.

Ok, let's see if I can tell you why you should accept my word.
Here is the problem for you:
Tinfect says that the resolution does not apply to every restriction.
I say that it does.
Here is the argument, Part 1:

Mandates:

1. That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,

No restrictions on biomedical research beyond those...

This should be crystal clear:No restrictions may be placed on biomedical research; except these mentioned later in the sentence.
Which means that any restrictions that do not relate to ethical and scientific standards are forbidden.

That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, and,

This is clear enough: ethic standards must meet this restriction or they cannot be applied.

Which leaves scientific standards.
Now, nations are bound to act reasonably, and a reasonable nation knows that the term "scientific standards" has its limits. Standards that do not relate to science in itself aren't scientific standards.
Restrictions on biomedical research that are neither grounded in scientific or ethical standards, however, are forbidden.
Do you agree with me so far?

[Araraukar]

Your word is NOT authoritative on the matter. You would do well to recall that in Challenge threads.

Ok, let's see if I can tell you why you should accept my word.

That's besides the point SP was trying to make. You don't get to declare something legal or not legal, because you don't have that authority. You can present evidence for or against, same as anyone, but only the GenSec or the Mods (the latter on OSRS violations) can declare something legal or not legal.

[Clean Land]

Ok, let's see if I can tell you why you should accept my word.

That's besides the point SP was trying to make. You don't get to declare something legal or not legal, because you don't have that authority. You can present evidence for or against, same as anyone, but only the GenSec or the Mods (the latter on OSRS violations) can declare something legal or not legal.

I understood that.
"should" is not "must".

[Araraukar]

I understood that.
"should" is not "must".

No, but your original statement here was pretty definitive/declarative:

The only thing here that is a honest mistake is the interpretation of Tinfect. I already have proven that all regulations are affected by the resolution.

If you put an "I think" somewhere in there, it wouldn't sound like you were handing down a ruling.

[Auralia]

Can GenSec provide a rough idea of when a ruling can be expected for this challenge?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can GenSec provide a rough idea of when a ruling can be expected for this challenge?

I guess things move more slowly when Sep isn't involved.

[Bears Armed]

To me (and, it seems, to Auralia, Christian Democrats, Sierra Lyricalia, and various other players who have commented in the relevant drafting threads), Tinfect's arguments rely too much on the assumption that everybody else will interpret certain terms within their resolution in the same way that Tinfect does... whereas that interpretation is not as uncontestely the only reasonable one as they assert...

A fair assessment, but I don't know why people would deliberately interpret clauses in a way detrimental to them, so it seems a reasonable assumption to make to me.

A nation's government might choose to interpret the wording in a way that wasn't harmful to that government but was harmful to some of its nation's other people...

[Christian Democrats]

Can GenSec provide a rough idea of when a ruling can be expected for this challenge?

Given that the proposal has not been submitted yet, I was not aware that we were being asked for a formal opinion.

[Araraukar]

Can GenSec provide a rough idea of when a ruling can be expected for this challenge?

Given that the proposal has not been submitted yet, I was not aware that we were being asked for a formal opinion.

I know you were away for a long time, so it might have escaped your notice that the other GenSec peeps have been practically begging for people to not wait until a proposal is submitted to make a challenge, and for people whose proposals are challenged, to not submit (with a pretty please on top) until the challenge is resolved.

Also, this is an official challenge thread, how can you not know you're being asked for a formal opinion?

I'm quite sure that if Auralia submitted his proposal now, to hasten the processing of this challenge, one or more of your colleagues would growl at him for not waiting for a ruling.

[Auralia]

Can GenSec provide a rough idea of when a ruling can be expected for this challenge?

Given that the proposal has not been submitted yet, I was not aware that we were being asked for a formal opinion.

As Araraukar said, it was my understanding that I shouldn't submit a proposal that is subject to a legality challenge until the challenge is resolved.