NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

EMBRACING the noble intent expressed in "Stem Cell Reseach Funding" to find cures for debilitating diseases, such as Cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s,

CONCERNED that "Stem Cell Research Funding" does not in any way set up oversight to assure that the funds provided for stem cell research will be used according to ethical and scientific standards, while,

CONSIDERING the discovery that non-embryonic stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood and the amniotic fluid are better suited to the purposes of medicine,

SPECIFICALLY NOTING that the use of these non-embryonic stem cells does not cause the malicious tumor growth that can occur due to the use of embryonic stem cells,

RECOGNIZING that scientists have confirmed that these non-embryonic stem cells have the ability to form new nerves, bone, muscle, liver tissue, cartilage, and other biological tissue,

FURTHER NOTING that stem cells from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid lack the ethical controversy surrounding the destruction of human embryos,

BELIEVING that the United Nations should not practice scientific favoritism, especially towards fields of medicine surrounded by significant moral controversy,

CERTAIN that the scientific priorities of member nations can best be decided by member nations themselves, as legislating these issues on an international scale ignores availability of scientific and medical technology as well as the ethical and religious concerns, which are specific to each member nation,

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #82 "Stem Cell Research Funding"


This repeal is now up for approval in the "List Proposals" section of the UN. I would appreciate it if UN delegates would approve it and we can bring it to a vote before the General Assembly. Thank you!

This ACCELian repeal can be found at:

...drum roll...

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=stem%20cell

Stem Cell Research Funding


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Strong
Proposed by : Nykibo

Description : The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine. Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. But while the list of diseases that Stem Cells could cure gets longer and longer, the amount of what little funding is present continues to dwindle. I admit, some people do insist that harvesting something from a human as if it was an experiment is immoral, but allowing millions of people to die each day is much worse. This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases. 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. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.

Votes For : 13,907

Votes Against : 5,231

Implemented : Tue Nov 30 2004
The resolution in question.

Now, I don't see anything in there that forces nations to do squat. If any governments have moral or religious objections to stem cell research, then they can, even with this in place, refuse to allow it. This reso may not be the best written one on the books, but it is nat sov friendly in that it only asks and urges funding be increased, and doesn't mandate anything. Why go to the bother of repealing it?

The respresentative from The Incorporated States of Walkering Industries, humbly acknowledging his status as an observing member of the United Nations, must concur with the esteemed emissary from Waterana. The fact that the United Nations has requested its members fund stem cell research, without compelling any action or expenditure on the members' part, cannot have a negative impact on the nations that wish to forgo such funding. Furthermore, despite the well presented repeal proposal of the honorable representative from Androssia, Walkering Industries must note that the original proposal does not compel any of the dangers mentioned in the repeal proposal. Repealing Stem Cell Research Funding can only be a step backward for science. If further controls over the use of stem cells are found to be required, may we humbly suggest that an additional proposal be made to govern their uses, rather than a repeal of a proposal with only benign effect.

The representative from The Incorporated States of Walkering Industries urges all UN members not to approve this proposal for vote.

We thank you and apologize for standing in the way of the worthily composed proposal of the nation of Androssia, but our conscience allows us no other course.

The resolution in question.

Now, I don't see anything in there that forces nations to do squat. If any governments have moral or religious objections to stem cell research, then they can, even with this in place, refuse to allow it. This reso may not be the best written one on the books, but it is nat sov friendly in that it only asks and urges funding be increased, and doesn't mandate anything. Why go to the bother of repealing it?

Want me to tell you the truth? Cause it's incredibly annoying to have on the books. It's just such an eyesore, with a million reasons why it should be repealed.

Even if it doesn't force nations to do anything, should the UN be even encouraging incorrect policy? I don't think so. Here is a short summary of why we at ACCEL believe that this resolution should be repealed.

"Firstly, 'Stem Cell Research Funding' is ineffective, as it fails to set up any oversight to assure that the money contributed to stem cell research is used according to ethical and scientific standards. Secondly, embryonic stem cell research is not the only type of stem cell research that can cure diseases; umbilical cord and amniotic fluid stem cells are just as well, if not better, suited to the purposes of medicine, and lack the ethical controversy that surrounds the destruction of human embryos. Thirdly, "Stem Cell Research Funding" is a form of scientific favoritism. Many other fields, such as nanobiotechnology, are just as promising as stem cell research. Scientists, not the UN, should allocate funding among different fields, as scientists best know which fields of research will most likely result in cures for debilitating diseases. Finally, deciding whether to fund stem cell research on an international scale ignores religious and ethical concerns, vary from member nation to member nation.

Please note that the repeal of "Stem Cell Research Funding" will not outlaw stem cell research, nor in any way diminish national funding for stem cell research. The repeal of this resolution will simply eliminate ineffective legislation that does not give proper consideration to other forms of research, ethical concerns, and scientific non-favoritism."

Moralistic claptrap notwithstanding, we will probably support this repeal as the original is poorly written and ineffective. The UN can do better than this.

I would, however, like to point out an inconsistency in your argument. In the repeal text, one of the arguments is:
CONCERNED that "Stem Cell Research Funding" does not in any way set up oversight to assure that the funds provided for stem cell research will be used according to ethical and scientific standards,
Later on however, in your "short summary", you state:
Scientists, not the UN, should allocate funding among different fields, as scientists best know which fields of research will most likely result in cures for debilitating diseases.
This statement seems to indicate that you believe there should be no oversight and that "Scientists, not the UN, should allocate funding among different fields". Which is it?

Like I said, Yelda will likely end up supporting this effort, but solely on the basis that the original is poorly written and ineffective legislation.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Want me to tell you the truth? Cause it's incredibly annoying to have on the books. It's just such an eyesore, with a million reasons why it should be repealed.

Even if it doesn't force nations to do anything, should the UN be even encouraging incorrect policy? I don't think so. Here is a short summary of why we at ACCEL believe that this resolution should be repealed.

"Firstly, 'Stem Cell Research Funding' is ineffective, as it fails to set up any oversight to assure that the money contributed to stem cell research is used according to ethical and scientific standards. Secondly, embryonic stem cell research is not the only type of stem cell research that can cure diseases; umbilical cord and amniotic fluid stem cells are just as well, if not better, suited to the purposes of medicine, and lack the ethical controversy that surrounds the destruction of human embryos. Thirdly, "Stem Cell Research Funding" is a form of scientific favoritism. Many other fields, such as nanobiotechnology, are just as promising as stem cell research. Scientists, not the UN, should allocate funding among different fields, as scientists best know which fields of research will most likely result in cures for debilitating diseases. Finally, deciding whether to fund stem cell research on an international scale ignores religious and ethical concerns, vary from member nation to member nation.

Please note that the repeal of "Stem Cell Research Funding" will not outlaw stem cell research, nor in any way diminish national funding for stem cell research. The repeal of this resolution will simply eliminate ineffective legislation that does not give proper consideration to other forms of research, ethical concerns, and scientific non-favoritism."

I still think a repeal is a waste of time. If a nation wants oversight on stem cell funding, it can do it itself, if a nation wants the stem cell research expanded to other areas, it can do it itself. Oh, and the UN isn't allocating funding, it is urging nations to allocate funding. Not forcing mind, urging. There is a difference.

All this reso does is outline why the author feels the funding is needed, then urge nations to do so. Anything else is left up to nations to decide, which is what I thought nat sov supporters, such as ACCEL, preferred. Or am I wrong on that score? Maybe it is the fact a group of nations, who normally are very nat sov oriented, want to repeal a totally nat sov friendly resolution that is throwing me on this.

Don't take this as I oppose the repeal. To be honest, I couldn't really care less if it is repealed or not, and would probably abstain on a floor vote out of sheer boredom.

If any governments have moral or religious objections to stem cell research, then they can, even with this in place, refuse to allow it.

You are really lucky that Flash is currently away on personal time, because I'm sure he would defenstrate you on the spot yelling "It's Embryonic" at the top of his lungs. I, on the other hand, would rather present the simple and logical argument by naming another resolution "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles."

You see, embryonic stem cell research is a whole like hydrogen powered vehicles. It doesn't work! Would you like my kidney? Probably not, the human body has all sorts of problems with incompatible proten structures and tissue rejection from random donor organ donations. Well embryonic stem cell research has the exact same problems.

The simple truth is if you want to be cured, use your own cells. (Or the cells of a good donor match.) Adult stem cells has already produced cures, right here and right now. People's lives are being saved, right here and right now. Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing and will continue to produce nothing.

But like hydrogen powered vehicles, it's wonderfully cute and fluffy, is it not? I mean, if I were, as a scientist, working on this field, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of doing anyhing wothwhile, would I not be plugging away at ever opportunity telling the emperor he really buying the finest clothes money can buy, even though he might not see anything, because it pays my very expensive rent! (And food, and bar tab, etc.)

So why not waste money on hydrogen powered vehicles, and embryonic stem cell research? Why not waste money? Why not waste money?

So tell me, what's this moral argument I keep hearing about?

This statement seems to indicate that you believe there should be no oversight and that "Scientists, not the UN, should allocate funding among different fields".

It is not contradictory to allow scientists to allocate research funding to different fields, while holding them to ethical and scientific standards.

Meh. I just thought it sounded odd. "Scientists can't be trusted when it comes to ethical and scientific standards, but they must be trusted absolutely when it comes to which fields of research will most likely result in cures for debilitating diseases."

You are really lucky that Flash is currently away on personal time, because I'm sure he would defenstrate you on the spot yelling "It's Embryonic" at the top of his lungs. I, on the other hand, would rather present the simple and logical argument by naming another resolution "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles."

You see, embryonic stem cell research is a whole like hydrogen powered vehicles. It doesn't work! Would you like my kidney? Probably not, the human body has all sorts of problems with incompatible proten structures and tissue rejection from random donor organ donations. Well embryonic stem cell research has the exact same problems.

The simple truth is if you want to be cured, use your own cells. (Or the cells of a good donor match.) Adult stem cells has already produced cures, right here and right now. People's lives are being saved, right here and right now. Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing and will continue to produce nothing.

But like hydrogen powered vehicles, it's wonderfully cute and fluffy, is it not? I mean, if I were, as a scientist, working on this field, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of doing anyhing wothwhile, would I not be plugging away at ever opportunity telling the emperor he really buying the finest clothes money can buy, even though he might not see anything, because it pays my very expensive rent! (And food, and bar tab, etc.)

So why not waste money on hydrogen powered vehicles, and embryonic stem cell research? Why not waste money? Why not waste money?

So tell me, what's this moral argument I keep hearing about?

The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that the resolution is nat sov friendly, and doesn't force nations to fund stem cell research, doesn't force nations to allow stem cell research within their borders, doesn't force nations to allow embryonic stem cell research, and doesnt force nations to do anything else. Repealing this will have no effect on the overall numbers of nations funding and researching stem cells. Those nations that believe there is merit in the research will continue to fund and allow it, those that don't will continue to not fund and ban it.

Again, I think this repeal is a waste of everybodies time. It won't change a darn thing, and if moral reasons are part of the reason for this repeal, then again, the repeal won't change anything because nations that do think there is merit in this branch of science won't change their policies just because the UN changes its mind.

Just out of interest, would those who want to repeal this object to a much better written replacement? Still nat sov friendly and not forcing anything like the original, but going into more detail and explaining things better.

I like this repeal, I have approved it with my UN Delegate nation.

Good luck with your efforts.

The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that the resolution is nat sov friendly, and doesn't force nations to fund stem cell research, doesn't force nations to allow stem cell research within their borders, doesn't force nations to allow embryonic stem cell research, and doesnt force nations to do anything else.

Given the general state of resolution writing in that era of the UN that is highly debateable. The actual semi-operative and massivly confusing action text reads, "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. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research." First this is not a resolution at all, this is a debate argument. Second it provides funding for the 21st century hog wash. Third it is not clear whether or not the intent was that if passed UN members would actually fund Stem Cell Research.

Is this repeal worth the time? I think so, but it's a judgement call. Bad science and bad wording should be enough to merrit a repeal, as much as is the case with Hyddrogen Powered vehicles. Repeals are always Nat Sov friendly. Besides, it might pave the way for a REAL resolution on adult stem cells, umblical cord blood, etc. We might even manage to save REAL LIVES. Isn't that worth the UN's time? I know I think so.

I havge to agree with Tzor Red Brown on his basic points here. Bad Science plus Bad Wording tends to equal Bad Reso. A replacement that is more properly written wouldn't really hurt, but I don't know that I see a point to it, unless to block anything that tries to mandate the legality or banning of such research.

The simple truth is if you want to be cured, use your own cells. (Or the cells of a good donor match.) Adult stem cells has already produced cures, right here and right now. People's lives are being saved, right here and right now. Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing and will continue to produce nothing.

Twitching an eyebrow, Lio pulled a folder from his bag, dropping it open in front of him. "If you're going to make arguments on the grounds of bad science, why don't you try researching your own? Embryonic stem cells have the ability to turn into any cell in the body. Adult stem cells have a very limited range of cells which they can be used to make. Stem cells gained from the umbilical cord can be used, but there are a whole lot less of them."

He flipped through the folder, looking over the original resolution, then threw it over his shoulder like he usually did. "That being said, this resolution is rather poorly written. Would we support a repeal? Of course not. There's not reason to, unless a better written one to the same effect where ready to take its place."

Would we support a repeal? Of course not. There's not reason to, unless a better written one to the same effect where ready to take its place."

Got a pen and paper? Start writing.

"If you're going to make arguments on the grounds of bad science, why don't you try researching your own? Embryonic stem cells have the ability to turn into any cell in the body. Adult stem cells have a very limited range of cells which they can be used to make. Stem cells gained from the umbilical cord can be used, but there are a whole lot less of them."I'm'a gonna nip this in the bud. Embryonic stem cell therapy hasn't generated any actual cures yet, while cord blood and and adult stem cells have.

However, I don't want this to spin off into a Generalesque debate. Let's try to keep the RL medtech to a minimum.

A replacement that is more properly written wouldn't really hurt, but I don't know that I see a point to it, unless to block anything that tries to mandate the legality or banning of such research.
Keep in mind Article 5 of Freedom of Scientific Research:
5. REITERATES governmental rights to determine whether certain areas of research are legal or illegal within their sovereign territory,
I'm not sure what a replacement might do, but one thing it can't do is outlaw or legalise any form of stem cell research UN-wide. For that matter, "Stem Cell Research Funding" doesn't legalise stem cell research, it just asks that it be funded. So nations would be well within their rights to outlaw ESC research right now, even with UNR #82 in place.

Keep in mind Article 5 of Freedom of Scientific Research:

I'm not sure what a replacement might do, but one thing it can't do is outlaw or legalise any form of stem cell research UN-wide. For that matter, "Stem Cell Research Funding" doesn't legalise stem cell research, it just asks that it be funded. So nations would be well within their rights to outlaw ESC research right now, even with UNR #82 in place.

You win one (1) intarweb.

You win one (1) intarweb.

For future use Kiv, I present you with this.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/more%20stuff/1143052625871.jpg

For future use Kiv, I present you with this.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/more%20stuff/1143052625871.jpg

OOC: You need to make that into a card. :cool:

You win one (1) intarweb.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/more%20stuff/1143052625871.jpg

Thanks!

*surfs pr0n*

However, I don't want this to spin off into a Generalesque debate. Let's try to keep the RL medtech to a minimum.

I agree. It's sort of ironic when a nation of genetic flopping lycanthropes start making intellectual arguments about bad genetic science. :p

To answer the inquiries of those who wonder if this resolution would be replaced by a far more effective resolution if repealed, I respond that I would be happy to compose a much better resolution regarding stem cell research that would solve all the inadequacies of the original resolution.

What must be done now is that delegates must actually approve the resolution! Despite over 250 or so telegrams sent, only 35 delegates have approved it for a vote, and it will expire midnight Wednesday. I would greatly appreciate efforts by those who support this resolution to help me in "getting out the vote". Thank you!