NationStates Jolt Archive

I submitted this awhile back and have re-vamped it a bit for formatting and clearification and would like some feedback on these changes.

----
----

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 human (sapien) beings, psychologically damaging experiments, torturous electrical usages, drug testing that knowingly harms the patient, etc. without the proper consent of the individuals involved

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 (sapien) body and mind will not be knowingly put at risk in the name of science, unless proper consent of those involved in experiment is given

MANDATING that in the case of human (sapien) 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.

AUTHORISES that member nations be able to mandate, by their own laws, the treatment of prior mentioned 'animal substitutes'

I submitted this awhile back and have re-vamped it a bit for formatting and clearification and would like some feedback on these changes.

Feedback will not be hard to find here, I think. I hope mine helps, though I doubt I'll catch all the problems.

What are the category and strength for this proposal?

I would probably go with the Moral Decency category for this one, with a strength of Mild or Significant.

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

You may want to cite the full title of the resolutions here, in addition to their numbers.

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

Pretty good and also pretty vague, but I doubt you would be able to get specific enough without going way over the character limit anyway.

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

Hmmm. Burning folks at the stake could probably fit under this...

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 human (sapien) beings, psychologically damaging experiments, torturous electrical usages, drug testing that knowingly harms the patient, etc. without the proper consent of the individuals involved

Try to be consistent with your grammar here. If there are many scientific experiments, you need a plural pronoun like "in their experimentation".

Proper consent seems like another vague term. What makes one kind of consent more proper than improper consent? I recommend just using consent.

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

So? Maybe insert a "BELIEVING that" clause to identify exactly what you think should follow from these facts and why nations should have the control over this area that you give them later in this proposal.

MANDATING that the human (sapien) body and mind will not be knowingly put at risk in the name of science, unless proper consent of those involved in experiment is given

Ain't that sweet. And the body/mind dualism is interesting.

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

Add an "s" on the end of "individual". What's this "be willing" jazz? I thought you were all about the proper consent.

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.

"Contracts", not "contacts". So who will be held responsible? Their pet dolphins? The janitors who clean up after the experiment? Just saying that scientific or government orgaization isn't responsible leaves a hell of a lot of folks to use as scapegoats.

AUTHORISES that member nations be able to mandate, by their own laws, the treatment of prior mentioned 'animal substitutes'

I appreciate that. I mean, my nation being able to mandate by its own laws. How about you be real nice and let me do that for the whole proposal, and not just this part of it?

Why do you define "ethical" but not use it in any operative clauses?

DEFINES an experiment as: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth,
If you know it will 'demonstrate a known truth' and kill or harm a person then why would you test it on them? As I would consider knowingly 'testing' a rifle on a person by shooting them six times will provide you with a 'known truth'. You killed them by firing a rifle at them six times. Thus experiment is over and you proved only what was already known but now you have to bury the person you tested the rifle on.

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

AUTHORISES that member nations be able to mandate, by their own laws, the treatment of prior mentioned 'animal substitutes'
I like it the way he stated it 'animal substitutes' as the Zombies can use 'Humans' as substitutes in their experiments since they would be 'suitable' and are 'animals'.. and would give them a specimen to use other than a Zombie Child who has not had a chance to live life.. yet allow them to do needed experimentation in certain areas.. Like dunking folks under water to test to see if they are a witch or under satans control.
I appreciate that. I mean, my nation being able to mandate by its own laws. How about you be real nice and let me do that for the whole proposal, and not just this part of it?

Thus agree with HotRodia... as feel we can deal with this without UN intervention.

MANDATING that the human (sapien) body and mind will not be knowingly put at risk in the name of science,

What about the human soul?

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

Agreed.

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

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

I accept the definition, but I think Hotrodia and Zeldon make valid points.

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 human (sapien) beings, psychologically damaging experiments, torturous electrical usages, drug testing that knowingly harms the patient, etc. without the proper consent of the individuals involved

Agreed.

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.

Accepted, but I'm not sure about the stem-cell research example, for surely human participation in that type of experiment would be essential and key to the very success and nature of it.

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

Agreed.

MANDATING that the human (sapien) body and mind will not be knowingly put at risk in the name of science, unless proper consent of those involved in experiment is given

Strongly agreed.

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

Strongly agreed.

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.

AUTHORISES that member nations be able to mandate, by their own laws, the treatment of prior mentioned 'animal substitutes'

Agreed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I've already got my own proposal for this...so...er...I'll refrain from commenting outside saying I like this proposal for its streamlining, but it has some vagueness and lack of detail I don't like.