NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm planning on drafting a resolution that does the following:

- The UN shall issue a statement in support of human cloning and bioengineering
- Countries wishing to abolish or restrict human cloning or other comparable research will be allowed to do so but MUST give their scientists the right to go to another country to do their work if they so choose
- An International Panel of 1 scientist/representative from each country should meet every year to discuss cloning and biotechnology and do press-related stuff.

I'm thinking of an exact wording. What do you all think?

My country clones beings regularly, biotechnology helps researchers cure diseases and sicknesses. Penguenia supports it.


http://www.hostmysig.com/data/raziel/ava.jpg
Ambassador and Delegate of Penguenia, Yuri Seki

This is the Manifesto of a Belgium-based group known as the Participant Evolutionists. I may just modify this a bit and submit it. What say you all?


CLONING AND GENOME RIGHTS

The USA recently banned funding for human cloning research, because of pressure from public opinion. Various examples of laws against genetic modification are a fact in many western societies already. And laws against cloning are currently being discussed.

I

Cloning, a process that exists in nature in the form of identical twins is suddenly linked with fears of degrading respect for human quality of life and violations of human rights, when humans discover that technology.

Yet cloning research is NOT funded by societies where human rights are being violated on a large scale, but in societies where those human rights are of relatively high standards, possibly as a result of that same power of public opinion.

Once again in our history, humanity is being condemned for bringing its ‘species inherent evil?’ to a natural process, which under the coordination of nature’s survivalism, and a fair amount of CHANCE, is considered ‘inherently good?’

Amazingly reactionary thinking for people who call themselves ‘progressive.’

II

Besides the fears of cloning technology bringing degrading human rights, there’s the more justified fear that cloning can threaten our individuality.

Yet how would one’s rights to her/his individuality best be served? By allowing the individual to decide whether or not she or he would like to be cloned? Or by passing on the responsibility for that decision to a state?

The right to decide whether or not you would be cloned is linked to that of the ownership of the individual over his or her own genetic code. Western societies are rushing towards a situation where those rights are massively being given up by the ‘moral majorities’ in those societies, to the state.

Note that the right NOT to be cloned is also among those rights.

III

Since future visions of a society with abominable human rights, are being (over)used against cloning, let me make you aware of an alternative scenario.

When a theoretical human right for individuality, becomes a human DUTY for individuality, you can ask yourself this question: ‘What sort of a state would possibly seek benefit from the absolute need to identify individuals by their genetic codes?’

Also, NOWHERE in recent discussions have I come across the subject of the rights of the CLONE, to his or her individuality. A problem that could be solved in the future, should genetic modification technology be ALLOWED to develop further, that is...

The Participant Evolutionist Movement defends the rights of the individual to ownership of, and therefore the (still theoretical) right to alter her or his genome, and more general his or her physical architecture.

People who push for laws against genetic modification technology do not realize they are interfering with those rights.

I'm planning on drafting a resolution that does the following:

- The UN shall issue a statement in support of human cloning and bioengineering

I'm thinking of an exact wording. What do you all think?

I would agree gladly, as long as two things are respected:

1)No researcher or business or government shall hold intellectual property to any sequence of genes, whether mapped or synthesised;
2)No scientist that is a citizen of a country that does not recognise patents of the nation of the inventor shall be prosecuted under any law for using this knowledge to further scientific advances.

How about that?

I'm planning on drafting a resolution that does the following:

- The UN shall issue a statement in support of human cloning and bioengineering

I'm thinking of an exact wording. What do you all think?

I would agree gladly, as long as two things are respected:

1)No researcher or business or government shall hold intellectual property to any sequence of genes, whether mapped or synthesised;
2)No scientist that is a citizen of a country that does not recognise patents of the nation of the inventor shall be prosecuted under any law for using this knowledge to further scientific advances.

How about that?

On number 2, okay, on number 1, partially okay.

There shouldn't be patents on Mapped Genes, because they have occured naturally. But you SHOULD be allowed to get patents on Synthesized genes, because you INVENTED them.

On number 2, okay, on number 1, partially okay.

There shouldn't be patents on Mapped Genes, because they have occured naturally. But you SHOULD be allowed to get patents on Synthesized genes, because you INVENTED them.

That hinders research, the patenting system. Okay, you can hold patents but if I use it you can't get me if I'm in anotehr country. Does that work?

On number 2, okay, on number 1, partially okay.

There shouldn't be patents on Mapped Genes, because they have occured naturally. But you SHOULD be allowed to get patents on Synthesized genes, because you INVENTED them.

That hinders research, the patenting system. Okay, you can hold patents but if I use it you can't get me if I'm in anotehr country. Does that work?

It hinders research MORE without a patenting system since none of the inventors would be ABLE to invent anything without patent protection.

And it said you can't be prosecuted, you can still be sued.

On number 2, okay, on number 1, partially okay.

There shouldn't be patents on Mapped Genes, because they have occured naturally. But you SHOULD be allowed to get patents on Synthesized genes, because you INVENTED them.

That hinders research, the patenting system. Okay, you can hold patents but if I use it you can't get me if I'm in anotehr country. Does that work?

It hinders research MORE without a patenting system since none of the inventors would be ABLE to invent anything without patent protection.

And it said you can't be prosecuted, you can still be sued.

On number 2, okay, on number 1, partially okay.

There shouldn't be patents on Mapped Genes, because they have occured naturally. But you SHOULD be allowed to get patents on Synthesized genes, because you INVENTED them.

That hinders research, the patenting system. Okay, you can hold patents but if I use it you can't get me if I'm in anotehr country. Does that work?

It hinders research MORE without a patenting system since none of the inventors would be ABLE to invent anything without patent protection.

And it said you can't be prosecuted, you can still be sued.

On number 2, okay, on number 1, partially okay.

There shouldn't be patents on Mapped Genes, because they have occured naturally. But you SHOULD be allowed to get patents on Synthesized genes, because you INVENTED them.

That hinders research, the patenting system. Okay, you can hold patents but if I use it you can't get me if I'm in anotehr country. Does that work?

It hinders research MORE without a patenting system since none of the inventors would be ABLE to invent anything without patent protection.

And it said you can't be prosecuted, you can still be sued.

It hinders research MORE without a patenting system since none of the inventors would be ABLE to invent anything without patent protection.

And it said you can't be prosecuted, you can still be sued.

But you can't win those lawsuits.

In fact no persecution and no lawsuits. And you're wrong in the department of hinering research. People invented things just fine without patents. Most of the things we use now were invented without any patenting system and when that came around in the beginning, all the wrong people got the benefits.

Twenty people working on the same material would be able to come up with answers much faster than one guy with the patent, would you agree?

So what about that? No persecution or lawsuits as long as your country doesn't recognise patents.

It hinders research MORE without a patenting system since none of the inventors would be ABLE to invent anything without patent protection.

And it said you can't be prosecuted, you can still be sued.

But you can't win those lawsuits.

In fact no persecution and no lawsuits. And you're wrong in the department of hinering research. People invented things just fine without patents. Most of the things we use now were invented without any patenting system and when that came around in the beginning, all the wrong people got the benefits.

Twenty people working on the same material would be able to come up with answers much faster than one guy with the patent, would you agree?

So what about that? No persecution or lawsuits as long as your country doesn't recognise patents.

No. Inventors need to be protected. Patents run out after a period of time, but an inventor OWNS his own invention....

Abolishing patents MAY or MAY NOT speed up research. Just like kidnapping and dissecting live people off the streets MAY or MAY NOT speed up research. At the cost of violating individual rights.

Abolishing patents MAY or MAY NOT speed up research. Just like kidnapping and dissecting live people off the streets MAY or MAY NOT speed up research. At the cost of violating individual rights.

Slow down there buddy. There is no declaration out there supporting intellectual property rights and my nation does not recognise them. In fact I think there are no such rights. So nobody's violating anything.

You can protect inventors in your capitalist nation where it matters. It doesn't over my side of the border so why should you care? In fact your scientists can take any research of ours and use it for free. Great, isn't it?

One article protecting the researchers from being sued or persecuted over research sharing as long as their country doesn't subscribe to intellectual property, that's all I'm asking for.

Yeah I'll propose it Tuesday. That's when this resolution expires.

We in Gurthark would be pleased to support this proposal so long as it contains one important safeguard:

Until bioengineering is better understood, nations shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that new genes introduced into the plant and animal polulations do not go "wild"--that is, do not get introduced into the general, uncontrolled population.

For example, GMO crops are a very promising source of food, but until we have a firmer understanding about what side effects the genetic modification may have, it is *vitally* important that we ensure *non*-GMO lines are preserved as well. (What if the modification makes the plants more than usually sensitive to atmospheric nitrous oxide? Or completely inedible to the endangered feather-bellied tun? We'll be quite sorry if they've pushed all the non-GMO plants of those species off the face of the earth.)

We in Gurthark would be pleased to support this proposal so long as it contains one important safeguard:

Until bioengineering is better understood, nations shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that new genes introduced into the plant and animal polulations do not go "wild"--that is, do not get introduced into the general, uncontrolled population.

For example, GMO crops are a very promising source of food, but until we have a firmer understanding about what side effects the genetic modification may have, it is *vitally* important that we ensure *non*-GMO lines are preserved as well. (What if the modification makes the plants more than usually sensitive to atmospheric nitrous oxide? Or completely inedible to the endangered feather-bellied tun? We'll be quite sorry if they've pushed all the non-GMO plants of those species off the face of the earth.)

Note the provision in the final bill that lets a country regulate biotechnology.

We in Gurthark would be pleased to support this proposal so long as it contains one important safeguard:

Until bioengineering is better understood, nations shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that new genes introduced into the plant and animal polulations do not go "wild"--that is, do not get introduced into the general, uncontrolled population.

For example, GMO crops are a very promising source of food, but until we have a firmer understanding about what side effects the genetic modification may have, it is *vitally* important that we ensure *non*-GMO lines are preserved as well. (What if the modification makes the plants more than usually sensitive to atmospheric nitrous oxide? Or completely inedible to the endangered feather-bellied tun? We'll be quite sorry if they've pushed all the non-GMO plants of those species off the face of the earth.)

Note the provision in the final bill that lets a country regulate biotechnology.

I'm planning on drafting a resolution that does the following:

- The UN shall issue a statement in support of human cloning and bioengineering

I'm thinking of an exact wording. What do you all think?

I would agree gladly, as long as two things are respected:

1)No researcher or business or government shall hold intellectual property to any sequence of genes, whether mapped or synthesised;
2)No scientist that is a citizen of a country that does not recognise patents of the nation of the inventor shall be prosecuted under any law for using this knowledge to further scientific advances.

How about that?

I will support this bill under the generally the same conditions, and have a feeling my national delegate will do the same (she's my girlfriend... although, actually, I remember her saying something a while ago about being anti-cloning, so I'm not sure).

I'm hung on the issue of synthesised genes though. Either way I'll probably vote for it.

Cloning is tampering with the Sacred words of the Lord, who set it down that he shall be the sole creator or destroyer of life. Plus, cloning leads to general wilderness, marijuana, and loud, rhythmic music.

Cloning is tampering with the Sacred words of the Lord, who set it down that he shall be the sole creator or destroyer of life. Plus, cloning leads to general wilderness, marijuana, and loud, rhythmic music.

Can it lead to soft indie music too? I'm all in favour of variety.

Can you clone me some breakfast?

Only if this resolution passes

I've always wanted to try a mammoth steak.

We'd like a Dodoburger, topped with cheese from Aurochs. yummmmy :lol:

Something mentioned in the Belgian bit that's quoted, but not fleshed out--pardon the pun--is the recognition of human rights for the clones. For me that's paramount--that, upon the birth of the clone, it is a human with full standing and protection under international law. It isn't property; it's a full citizen with full rights.

We believe that any resolution supporting cloning would be in violation of existing UN resolutions - the resolution to end slavery for instance, says that a human being cannot be treated like property, and yet, if we create a human clone, we are creating them for a specific purpose like they were any other piece of property which existed to serve our needs. Human beings should not be reduced to experiments, or pieces of property to be manipulated and tailored to our specific needs, and even if full human rights were extended to clones once they were born, the process of their creation itself would be an intolerable assault on human dignity.

As Hans Jonas observes: "both in method the most despotic and in aim the most slavish form of genetic manipulation; its objective is not an arbitrary modification of the hereditary material but precisely its equally arbitrary fixation in contrast to the dominant strategy of nature"

Further:
The idea is fostered that some individuals can have total dominion over the existence of others, to the point of programming their biological identity—selected according to arbitrary or purely utilitarian criteria—which, although not exhausting man's personal identity, which is characterized by the spirit, is a constitutive part of it. This selective concept of man will have, among other things, a heavy cultural fallout beyond the—numerically limited—practice of cloning, since there will be a growing conviction that the value of man and woman does not depend on their personal identity but only on those biological qualities that can be appraised and therefore selected.
(source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_30091997_clon_en.html)

This is not something which the UN should or could endorse - it has already guaranteed that human beings have the right to not be treated as property. It cannot endorse a practice which reduces them to pieces of genetic cloth to be tailored to fit. It cannot, it should not, and it must not.