[Passed] Convention on Animal Testing

[McMasterdonia]

The North Pacific's Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has issued a recommendation of AGAINST for this proposal.

If I could sum up the debate amongst our World Assembly nations it would be with this quote from PotatoFarmers. "The idea behind the proposal is what we want, but this is not the proposal we need".

[Kenmoria]

(OOC:

1b. A "test animal" as a sentient but not sapient animal in the custody of any research facility for scientific purposes

Assumes citizens are sapiens and excludes sapient animals such as orangutans that have legitimate testing purposes.

Orangutans are not sapient, and citizens have to be in order to form a society of any nature.

1c. "Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;

Does not define severe.

Proposals do not need to define common words or phrases. Member nations should be perfectly aware of what ‘severe’ means.

2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:

2a. Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law;

Adds bureaucracy.

This is a valid point of feedback, dependant on how ‘overseeing’ is interpreted.

3. Dictates that member states must reasonably and proportionally penalise research labs upon receiving a report about unethical testing from the WABB;

Does not define reasonable.

‘Reasonable’ is a common word, so the proposal doesn’t have a need to do so.

4a. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

More bureaucracy.

This is valid, and one of the largest flaws in the current proposal, as has been highlighted by the TNP’s vote recommendation.

5a. The animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, has a good chance of being returned to its natural habitat successfully, and if it poses no risk to the environment it is being released into, such as carrying diseases; or;

Re-introducing experimented animals into the wild could have consequences.

The clause states ‘if it poses no risks to the environment is is being released into’, so this shouldn’t be a cause for concern.

7. Prohibits the intentional killing of a test animal in a cruel manner, in addition to forbidding the killing of a former test animal before the viability of its adoption or release into the wild has been examined, and it has been found unsuitable for both.

Forbids intentionally killing animals which severely limits research into the toxicology of substances.

It says ‘in a cruel manner’, which to me implies not causing unnecessary suffering. If killing is the only way to accomplish the goal, then doing so as painlessly as possible is not cruel.

This is fatally flawed. It does too much in one are and too little in another area.

I disagree.)

[Araraukar]

(OOC: Orangutans are not sapient, and citizens have to be in order to form a society of any nature.)

OOC: By every measure possible to invent in RL so far, great apes, dolphins, elephants and corvids are sapient. Other bits you said, agreed with.

EDIT: You might think "wait, even tool use? by dolphins?" - look it up, it's actually damn genius.

[Outboundstagnate]

(OOC:

Assumes citizens are sapiens and excludes sapient animals such as orangutans that have legitimate testing purposes.

Orangutans are not sapient, and citizens have to be in order to form a society of any nature.

"having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sapient]
I retract my point on the assumption of citizens as sapient.

Does not define severe.

Proposals do not need to define common words or phrases. Member nations should be perfectly aware of what ‘severe’ means.

Severe varies based upon a nations view on how bad animal "cruelty" is. My nation does not care for animals and consequently, any punishment at all might be seen as severe.

Does not define reasonable.

‘Reasonable’ is a common word, so the proposal doesn’t have a need to do so.

Reasonable, once again, varies from nation to nation making it such a broad term.

Re-introducing experimented animals into the wild could have consequences.

The clause states ‘if it poses no risks to the environment is is being released into’, so this shouldn’t be a cause for concern.

I should have clarified. I meant unintended consequences, from genetic modification and other testing, that will only manifest in the long term.

Forbids intentionally killing animals which severely limits research into the toxicology of substances.

It says ‘in a cruel manner’, which to me implies not causing unnecessary suffering. If killing is the only way to accomplish the goal, then doing so as painlessly as possible is not cruel.

It has to be disqualified from both the possibility of adoption and re-introduction into the wild. Toxicology testing has always been cruel but it is a necessary evil. This clause breaks it.

This is fatally flawed. It does too much in one are and too little in another area.

I disagree.)

I hope to change your opinion.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Been really busy irl, will respond soon

[Kenmoria]

(OOC:

(OOC:
Orangutans are not sapient, and citizens have to be in order to form a society of any nature.

"having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sapient]
I retract my point on the assumption of citizens as sapient.

I acknowledge that orangutans are sapient, but that should surely be an argument as to why it is necessary to protect them.

Proposals do not need to define common words or phrases. Member nations should be perfectly aware of what ‘severe’ means.

Severe varies based upon a nations view on how bad animal "cruelty" is. My nation does not care for animals and consequently, any punishment at all might be seen as severe.

Without setting minimum and maximum punishments, it is almost impossible to come up with a good definition of ‘severe’ as, ultimately, it is subjective. Restricted ranges of punishments wouldn’t work due to the same punishment being of a different harshness in different nations. A fine of 1000 local currency would be nothing in an inflated currency and too much in a deflated one.

‘Reasonable’ is a common word, so the proposal doesn’t have a need to do so.

Reasonable, once again, varies from nation to nation making it such a broad term.

You are correct that it is a broad term, but there is no better way. Since reasonability is subjective there isn’t a way to define it such that nations don’t have room to misinterpret the phrasing. Attempting to do so inevitably ends with either a definition full of loopholes or an inflexible one.

The clause states ‘if it poses no risks to the environment is is being released into’, so this shouldn’t be a cause for concern.

I should have clarified. I meant unintended consequences, from genetic modification and other testing, that will only manifest in the long term.

Presumably, long-term risks are still risks, so would be caught under the clause. Besides, prohibiting unintended consequences would be of little use, since they are unintended. I suppose it might be considered better for nations not to release animals into the wild for fear of inadvertent effects, but there are still other options for nations to pursue.

It says ‘in a cruel manner’, which to me implies not causing unnecessary suffering. If killing is the only way to accomplish the goal, then doing so as painlessly as possible is not cruel.

It has to be disqualified from both the possibility of adoption and re-introduction into the wild. Toxicology testing has always been cruel but it is a necessary evil. This clause breaks it.

In my opinion, if an evil is necessary then it is not cruel. The evil has to be wilfully so, not due to a lack of other options. Although a nation could interpret it as you have done so, that would be self-defeating for the nation in question.

I disagree.)

I hope to change your opinion.

You’ve certainly given me some food for thought.)

[Neo Vedan]

Dang, I've never seen a proposal this close in the vote before. Its 50/50 right now

[Araraukar]

Dang, I've never seen a proposal this close in the vote before. Its 50/50 right now

OOC: There have been other similarly close ones, but you're right that this one's really close right now:

For 6,867 ---- 6,861 Against

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC:
Orangutans are not sapient, and citizens have to be in order to form a society of any nature.

"having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sapient]
I retract my point on the assumption of citizens as sapient.

OOC: Sapient is as close as we can get to "human" whilst accommodating alternative rps.

Proposals do not need to define common words or phrases. Member nations should be perfectly aware of what ‘severe’ means.

Severe varies based upon a nations view on how bad animal "cruelty" is. My nation does not care for animals and consequently, any punishment at all might be seen as severe.

‘Reasonable’ is a common word, so the proposal doesn’t have a need to do so.

Reasonable, once again, varies from nation to nation making it such a broad term.

And what exactly do you otherwise suggest using?

The clause states ‘if it poses no risks to the environment is is being released into’, so this shouldn’t be a cause for concern.

I should have clarified. I meant unintended consequences, from genetic modification and other testing, that will only manifest in the long term.

These are still risks

Forbids intentionally killing animals which severely limits research into the toxicology of substances.

It says ‘in a cruel manner’, which to me implies not causing unnecessary suffering. If killing is the only way to accomplish the goal, then doing so as painlessly as possible is not cruel.

It has to be disqualified from both the possibility of adoption and re-introduction into the wild. Toxicology testing has always been cruel but it is a necessary evil. This clause breaks it.[/quote]
What kenmoria said is true.

[Outboundstagnate]

(OOC:

"having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sapient]
I retract my point on the assumption of citizens as sapient.

I acknowledge that orangutans are sapient, but that should surely be an argument as to why it is necessary to protect them.

My point exactly, it does not cover them.

Severe varies based upon a nations view on how bad animal "cruelty" is. My nation does not care for animals and consequently, any punishment at all might be seen as severe.

Without setting minimum and maximum punishments, it is almost impossible to come up with a good definition of ‘severe’ as, ultimately, it is subjective. Restricted ranges of punishments wouldn’t work due to the same punishment being of a different harshness in different nations. A fine of 1000 local currency would be nothing in an inflated currency and too much in a deflated one.

Percentages are universal and are a solid means of defining punishments. They could be fined 10% of their annual funding and so on.

Reasonable, once again, varies from nation to nation making it such a broad term.

You are correct that it is a broad term, but there is no better way. Since reasonability is subjective there isn’t a way to define it such that nations don’t have room to misinterpret the phrasing. Attempting to do so inevitably ends with either a definition full of loopholes or an inflexible one.

Percentages are good and will work everywhere. The example above works here as well.

I should have clarified. I meant unintended consequences, from genetic modification and other testing, that will only manifest in the long term.

Presumably, long-term risks are still risks, so would be caught under the clause. Besides, prohibiting unintended consequences would be of little use, since they are unintended. I suppose it might be considered better for nations not to release animals into the wild for fear of inadvertent effects, but there are still other options for nations to pursue.

The risk is that it will be released by not being able to definitively determine if it will pose a risk. Tested animals, in my opinion, must always be put down for the safety of the environment. Adoption would be impossible in most cases and most will resort to the euthanisation clause.

It has to be disqualified from both the possibility of adoption and re-introduction into the wild. Toxicology testing has always been cruel but it is a necessary evil. This clause breaks it.

In my opinion, if an evil is necessary then it is not cruel. The evil has to be wilfully so, not due to a lack of other options. Although a nation could interpret it as you have done so, that would be self-defeating for the nation in question.

The testing for toxicology will always cause severe distress in animals. This will be visibly cruel and will not be excluded from the clause. Video testing of nicotine on rabbits and rats are available on the internet for you to watch if you disagree that it is cruel. These are the videos, please watch only if you can stomach it. [https://www.youtube.com/embed/xZ8_Ad-M-q8][https://www.youtube.com/embed/dfmgpA3x0e4]

Severe varies based upon a nations view on how bad animal "cruelty" is. My nation does not care for animals and consequently, any punishment at all might be seen as severe.

Reasonable, once again, varies from nation to nation making it such a broad term.

And what exactly do you otherwise suggest using?

A percentage of annual funding instead of broad terms.

I should have clarified. I meant unintended consequences, from genetic modification and other testing, that will only manifest in the long term.

These are still risks

These risks will not be seen and will have dire consequences.

It has to be disqualified from both the possibility of adoption and re-introduction into the wild. Toxicology testing has always been cruel but it is a necessary evil. This clause breaks it.

What kenmoria said is true.

See for yourself if testing toxicology of nicotine is cruel or not. [https://www.youtube.com/embed/xZ8_Ad-M-q8][https://www.youtube.com/embed/dfmgpA3x0e4]

[The New Nordic Union]

(OOC:

I acknowledge that orangutans are sapient, but that should surely be an argument as to why it is necessary to protect them.

My point exactly, it does not cover them.

Because they are covered by other resolutions, not least of them GAR 355, Rights of Sapient Species.

[Refuge Isle]

OOC: There have been other similarly close ones, but you're right that this one's really close right now:

For 6,867 ---- 6,861 Against

Perhaps it will be the second resolution from Marxist Germany to be repealed within a week.

[Greater Galactic Protectorate]

By the order of our Chosen Divine, He Who Save Us From Darkness of Void, The Great Protector Yugalia Xi Azlibin, the Greater Galactic Protectorate hereby condemn such blatantly outrageous act attempted by World Assembly to weaken sovereignty, freedom and integrity of their own fellow member nations by encroaching deeper into their autonomy via such ridiculous "resolution".

The Star Palace of Light, in representing the Will and Divine Grace of Our Great Protector, hereby show condolences and sympathy towards the member nations of WA, for it is regrettable to see their struggle against the corrupted coalitions of core nations, whose exercise power beyond what's actually reasonable, sensible, and redeemable, to be left in vain.

However, despite witnessing such a treacherous act, it is regrettable for us to state explicitly that the Greater Galactic Protectorate will maintain neutral stance, and respect the legitimacy and established system of WA. We strongly encourage WA to cease such self-demoralizing practices that fractured and weaken the assembly, and realize again why such a governing body exist in the first place.

The Future of The World and All Lies in the Hand of Our Great Protector, His Grace Yugalia Xi Azlibin and The Holy Mandate, the only truth of what once was, is and will be.
The Grand Shield of The Protector and The Star Palace of Light

[Satuga]

The country of Satuga agrees with the ethical treatment, and release of test animals.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Dang, I've never seen a proposal this close in the vote before. Its 50/50 right now

OOC: There have been other similarly close ones, but you're right that this one's really close right now:

For 6,867 ---- 6,861 Against

It appears the decisive vote has been cast by Delegate Kethania from The Communist Bloc, which has swung the margin to 51.0% in favour after an short lead of the "Against" camp. Barring a significant turnabout of opinion, this resolution's passage is all but certain.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: There have been other similarly close ones, but you're right that this one's really close right now:

For 6,867 ---- 6,861 Against

It appears the decisive vote has been cast by Delegate Kethania from The Communist Bloc, which has swung the margin to 51.0% in favour after an short lead of the "Against" camp. Barring a significant turnabout of opinion, this resolution's passage is all but certain.

OOC: And Ransium

OOC: There have been other similarly close ones, but you're right that this one's really close right now:

For 6,867 ---- 6,861 Against

Perhaps it will be the second resolution from Marxist Germany to be repealed within a week.

Let's hope not.

[Concrete Slab]

It appears the decisive vote has been cast by Delegate Kethania from The Communist Bloc, which has swung the margin to 51.0% in favour after an short lead of the "Against" camp. Barring a significant turnabout of opinion, this resolution's passage is all but certain.

OOC: And Ransium

Perhaps it will be the second resolution from Marxist Germany to be repealed within a week.

Let's hope not.

*cackles*

[Kenmoria]

Convention on Animal Testing was passed 7,621 votes to 7,310.

(OOC: Congratulations.)

[Mbaracaya]

I have received permission from United Americanas to reproduce some of the clause in his previous draft for use here.

Convention on Animal Testing
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics

---

The World Assembly,

Concerned by the lack of legislation regarding the treatment of testing animals,

Recognising that animals deserve to be properly treated during and after testing,

Noting that mistreatment of animal test subjects may lead to severe distress for the animal and inaccurate research results, and

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of animal test subjects,


Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. A "research facility" as any facility, private or public, which engages in animal testing for any scientific purpose, including consumer safety and weapons testing;
   2. A "test animal" as a sentient but not sapient animal in the custody of any research facility for scientific purposes;
   3. "Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;
2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
   1. Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law;
   2. Reporting instances of noncompliance with the ethical requirements mandated in this resolution to the local authorities for penalisation;
3. Dictates that member states must reasonably and proportionally penalise research labs upon receiving a report about unethical testing from the WABB;
   
   
4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:
   1. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;
   2. Carry out solely ethical testing, as defined in section 1c;
5. Requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiments:
   1. The animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, has a good chance of being returned to its natural habitat successfully, and if it poses no risk to the environment it is being released into, such as carrying diseases; or;
   2. The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if:
      1. it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption,
      2. it is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition, and,
      3. it is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;
   3. If the animal is unable to be adopted or released into the wild then it may be humanely euthanised;
6. Clarifies that an animal can still be adopted even if it is unable to live for over a year, and;
   
   
7. Prohibits the intentional killing of a test animal in a cruel manner, in addition to forbidding the killing of a former test animal before the viability of its adoption or release into the wild has been examined, and it has been found unsuitable for both.

Co-authored by United States of Americanas

Animal Research had benefits both humans and animals. However, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to many deprivation and forces. Institutions must be required – by law – to establish an Institutional Animal Care and use the fewest number of animals or NONE AT ALL.