NationStates Jolt Archive

I would encourage all delegates to approve this proposal for UN voting:

Description: COMMENDING Resolution #2 for the attempt at expanding the trade and freedom of the scientific community

ALSO COMMENDING Resolution #153 for its concern about the potential abuse that Resolution #2 did not address

DEFINES ethical as: Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

DEFINES an experiment as: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried

CONCERNED that there are many scientific experiments that could be considered unethical or otherwise cruel in its experimentation, which could include, but is not limited to: unlawful physical treatment of humans, psychologically damaging experiments, torturous electrical usages, drug testing that knowingly harms the patient, etc.

MANDATING that the human body and mind will not be knowing put at risk in the name of science.

MANDATING that in the case of human experimentation that all individual in and associated with the experiment be willing and consent to the regulations of their own government and the UN.

MANDATING that those in and associated with the experiment sign contacts of consent, in that if complications, previously unknown to occur, do occur by certain agents of the experiment, that the scientific organization and/or government not be held responsible.

NOTING the need for some potentially harmful experiment in which animals may be substituted in place of human expirimentees, these experiments include but are not limited to the testing of industrial/dietary chemicals, radiation studies, stem-cell research, etc.

NOTING that the unlawful treatment of 'animal substitutes' is inevitable with some experiments

AUTHORIZES that member nations be able to mandate, by their own laws, the treatment of said 'animal substitutes'

A link can be found below:
www.nationstates.net/91648/page=UN_proposal/start=20

This proposal is a moderation of recently repealed resolution #2 and resolution #153 that repealed it. Open discussion on this proposal is encouraged as well.

Very well written, and upon reading I was much suprised to find that I did not disagree with it!

Couple of things, mainly to do with formatting; put all the noting stuff at the beginning. So it would instead read:

COMMENDING Resolution #2 for the attempt at expanding the trade and freedom of the scientific community

ALSO COMMENDING Resolution #153 for its concern about the potential abuse that Resolution #2 did not address

DEFINES ethical as: Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

DEFINES an experiment as: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried

CONCERNED that there are many scientific experiments that could be considered unethical or otherwise cruel in its experimentation, which could include, but is not limited to: unlawful physical treatment of humans, psychologically damaging experiments, torturous electrical usages, drug testing that knowingly harms the patient, etc.

NOTING the need for some potentially harmful experiment in which animals may be substituted in place of human expirimentees, these experiments include but are not limited to the testing of industrial/dietary chemicals, radiation studies, stem-cell research, etc.

NOTING that the unlawful treatment of 'animal substitutes' is inevitable with some experiments

MANDATING that the human body and mind will not be knowing put at risk in the name of science.

MANDATING that in the case of human experimentation that all individual in and associated with the experiment be willing and consent to the regulations of their own government and the UN.

MANDATING that those in and associated with the experiment sign contacts of consent, in that if complications, previously unknown to occur, do occur by certain agents of the experiment, that the scientific organization and/or government not be held responsible.

AUTHORIZES that member nations be able to mandate, by their own laws, the treatment of said 'animal substitutes'

Thus making a clear distinction between the preamble and the operative clauses.

The only other thing that I can think of is that you may want to change "human beings" to "sapient species", and define sapient as any species with the capability to give consent to such experimentation. This just sorts out the problem of nations formed of elves, swearing dolphins, exploding penguins, etc...

MANDATING that the human body and mind will not be knowing put at risk in the name of science.
Surely all drug trails knowingly put patients at risk (as scientists are aware of possible side-effects)? Maybe unnecessary risk would be a more suitable phrase.

As the author of the repeal, I'm happy to see so many replacement attempts being proposed. Perhaps you could look over the other potential replacements and get some ideas, though this appears to be a very well thought out proposal in itself. I think a joint effort between those ready to replace this resolution would benefit us all.

My only major concern:

DEFINES ethical as: Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

I find this to be somewhat vague. Accepted principles for a profession can potentially vary from nation to nation, therefore legalizing different things for different countries.

I like this resolution, however I share Jey's concerns about the ethics clause and I worry about this clause too:

MANDATING that the human body and mind will not be knowing put at risk in the name of science.

This to me might restrict experiments where great danger might be an inevitable part of the exercise, even if the benefits from success might be extraordinary. Equally, it makes no mention of consent, which opens the door to a blanket ban of such tests, which would not be entirely desirable.

Otherwise excellent though. Congratulations.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is a very well written proposal and obviously the product of much thought. We concur with the concerns expressed by the distinguished representatives of Safalra and Compadria. All experimentation, no matter how benign, involves some risk. The subject should be allowed to consent to taking that risk after being properly informed.

We have two suggestions for the author. First, we would strongly suggest posting a draft of a proposal here before submitting it. Then you can take advantage of the comments and suggestions of members and get the proposal in the best possible shape before submission.

Also, it's certainly a smart move to provide a link for approval when the proposal is submitted. But the best way to do that is described in post #5 of this thread:

The Great Big Consolidated United Nations Sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412468)

Doing it the way that's shown there provides a link that remains valid as proposals are removed from the list.

We look forward to seeing further developments of this draft. The author is to be commended.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs