NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if I'm a little late with this, I just had a couple questions.

Due to my own belief system, I'm not required to conduct my own stem cell research. I do however, have to pay for other countries to do so?

With this policy enacted murder remains illegal, but hiring a hitman beomes OK?
Or does the hitman have to be called a "scientist" doing "research" for his actions to be justified as legal.

No. You do not have to fund nations that do stem cell research. You only have to fund it if you do it.

Also, in this case one of the arguements for it is a case of the cells being destroyed having not been scientifically proven to be alive. If you consider them life and don't want to do the research, then feel free not to do it.

"The one thing standing in the way of this is funding. Stem Cell Research is very costly, and without proper funding, this plane will never take off the ground. In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits. "

My interpretation was that everyone in the UN had to contribute funds, and all the nations who wished to do research could use that funding. If only the nations who do the research have to contibute, it should have been made a little clearer.

Also, if only the nations doing research contribute, what's the purpose of this resolution? The poorer nations get research funding from wealthier stem cell reseaching countries?

My interpretation was that everyone in the UN had to contribute funds, and all the nations who wished to do research could use that funding. If only the nations who do the research have to contibute, it should have been made a little clearer.

I complained about the clarity myself in one post, and it was promised to be fixed if the proposal failed. Well, we can both see the likelihood of that happening.

Also, if only the nations doing research contribute, what's the purpose of this resolution? The poorer nations get research funding from wealthier stem cell reseaching countries?

The point of it, I think, was to prevent a government from allowing stem cell research but refusing to fund it. This strikes me as "you want it, you pay for it." And, since my own nation doesn't bother with outside funds for anything (good luck getting the money to us), I don't know exactly how that is being dealt with. I hope another poster can clarify it.

I complained about the clarity myself in one post, and it was promised to be fixed if the proposal failed. Well, we can both see the likelihood of that happening.

-That being said, I wish it would've failed just for the clarifications sake. I can see future potential UN members having reservations over this resolution when it's not really as controversial as it is poorly phrased.

The point of it, I think, was to prevent a government from allowing stem cell research but refusing to fund it. This strikes me as "you want it, you pay for it." And, since my own nation doesn't bother with outside funds for anything (good luck getting the money to us), I don't know exactly how that is being dealt with. I hope another poster can clarify it.

-I too, would appreciate a clarification. I was quite upset by my original assumption of the proposal's meaning. Dhalique's dilemma was that it would refuse to fund practices that it finds immoral however, whatever another country chooses to do with their own money is their business. I make no attempts to police the world accoding to my views, unless their decision (or after effects) crosses my borders.

My interpretation is that it is merely a strong recommendation and endorsement by the UN of funding stem cell research. As such, it's simply says "the UN thinks stem cell research is a good thing, and requests [note the use of the word "ask" in the proposal] that UN members fund scientists who want to do it".

My interpretation is that it is merely a strong recommendation and endorsement by the UN of funding stem cell research. As such, it's simply says "the UN thinks stem cell research is a good thing, and requests [note the use of the word "ask" in the proposal] that UN members fund scientists who want to do it".

Yea, same here. If it had required it I'd have opposed it on national soveriegnty grounds.

I read it that if scientists in your nation want to do research, you have to fund them.

So since TilEnca's scientists are wanting to do some research, I am obliged to fund them. Which I am doing.

The Telidian government has adopted the interpretation expressed by the honourable member from _Myopia_. One of our main objections with this resolution was its complete ambiguity and considering the comments in this debate that is now more apparent than ever.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

My interpretation is that it is merely a strong recommendation and endorsement by the UN of funding stem cell research. As such, it's simply says "the UN thinks stem cell research is a good thing, and requests [note the use of the word "ask" in the proposal] that UN members fund scientists who want to do it".

-I thought the whole purpose of a UN resolution was to come up with a definitive policy for dealing with a given circumstance. This resolution apparently describes no such definite policy. It vaguely states:
If you don't like stem cell research, you may choose not to fund it.
If you don't like stem cell research, you may choose to fund it.
If you like stem cell research, you may choose not to fund it.
If you like stem cell research, you may choose not to fund it, and use other's money.
If you like stem cell research, you may choose to fund it.

The point of it, I think, was to prevent a government from allowing stem cell research but refusing to fund it.

-If this were the sole purpose of the resolution, what's to prevent the research from being funded? Very little funding for medical projects comes from the government anyway. Usually it's backed by businesses that want a new product to sell. For a nominal investment and a few years time, they're pretty much guaranteed a massive payout with a healthy profit margin. All they need is the government to give the green light, and each individual country already chooses to allow or disallow stem cell research, as they see fit.

What was the purpose of this resolution then in the first place?
At the very least, I support a repeal in favor of a more well worded replacement.

Eh, this is one of the resolutions where ambiguity is nice... It leaves quiete abit up to state determination...

Eh, this is one of the resolutions where ambiguity is nice... It leaves quiete abit up to state determination...

Not when it's so ambigious as to accomplish virtually nothing. In this case (as Dhalique pointed out) the resolution leaves *so much* up to state determination that it may as well not exist at all.

Not when it's so ambigious as to accomplish virtually nothing. In this case (as Dhalique pointed out) the resolution leaves *so much* up to state determination that it may as well not exist at all.

Then there is no real complaint, and everyone wins on the issue... Sounds successful to me. Issue is settled, and we don't have to deal with debate on it anymore, unless in the form of a repeal...

Cover thyne ass - put a dollar of the budget aside for "potential stem cell research". Frame it, put it in the council chambers. There, the UN Gnomes are pacified and all is well.

Cover thyne ass - put a dollar of the budget aside for "potential stem cell research". Frame it, put it in the council chambers. There, the UN Gnomes are pacified and all is well.

Yeah, we're easily placated like that.

- "Now, if we got any actual pay..."
UN Gnome in Charge of Random Comments

Cover thyne ass - put a dollar of the budget aside for "potential stem cell research". Frame it, put it in the council chambers. There, the UN Gnomes are pacified and all is well.

Wait, so the gnomes dislike my annual health care budget of "beat random street urchin with a stick?" Well, time to start framing dollars.

-I thought the whole purpose of a UN resolution was to come up with a definitive policy for dealing with a given circumstance.

The purpose of the NSUN is whatever its proposal writers and voters choose to make it - restricted only by the game rules. Thus, if the UN electorate is happy with it, it is perfectly acceptable to have a resolution such as this which may not force any real action but is merely an announcement of the UN's official opinion on a particular topic.

We could of course at a later date pass a resolution forcing member nations to legalise stem cell research if they have not already, or even forcing them to fund it. But for now, the UN has seen fit merely to state its opinion on stem cell research and hope that its members follow the polite request to fund it.