NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my proposal for a repeal of a resolution I wrote almost 3 years ago:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING the intentions of Resolution #82: “Stem Cell Research Funding” regarding the promotion and advancement of innovative medical technologies and techniques in the field of disease treatment.

RECOGNIZING that despite said intentions, Resolution #82 fails to recommend or mandate a course of action by which funds are to be raised in order to support the efforts of scientists researching the use of embryonic stem cells in disease treatment.

RECOGNIZING FURTHER that Resolution #82 fails to specify a means to examine research projects, such as a screening process, to determine which projects are legitimate and responsible as well as which projects would receive funding.

NOTING WITH REGRET that Resolution #82 also fails to formulate a list or create a committee to determine priority diseases and disorders to be focused on in the research of treatment by embryonic stem cells.

CONCERNED that due to a lack of such a screening process and prioritization of diseases that illegitimate or irresponsible research projects would also be awarded funds which could be potentially misdirected or misused.

HIGHLIGHTING, especially, the author's desire to rectify these shortcomings.

REPEALS Resolution #82: Stem Cell Research Funding




This is the resolution in question:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #82
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.


As you can see, the resolution is poorly written and I intend to rectify that.

Please note that I still support stem cell research and if this repeal is passed, I will be replacing the old resolution with a new, more thorough and properly-formated proposal.

Please also note that I recognize the proposal seen here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532727

I am currently talking with the author of that proposal on its status, and evidence of the fact that my repeal proposal above came first can be found in this thread from January 2006:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489145



Any input or feedback would be very helpful, thank you all.

Bump...

I prefer the other recently-posted draft of a repeal for your resolution.

However, it may help if the two are combined and submitted by Nykibo. If the author of the resolution submits the repeal for that reso, it says something.

















I don't know what, though.

It says that even the author realizes the flaws of the resolution.

And saying you prefer the other repeal doesn't help me make mine better.

You know, I've been wanting to see Stem Cell Research Funding repealed since it was passed simply because I don't stem cell research as being an international issue. But Nykibo, you made a fatal flaw when it comes to getting my approval, that flaw was telegramming me more than once. Anyone who does that automatically loses any chance of getting my approval on their resolution.*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*OOC: You also run the risk of running afoul of the mods as telegramming a nation more than once per submission constitutes spamming.

It says that even the author realizes the flaws of the resolution.

And saying you prefer the other repeal doesn't help me make mine better.

But we disagree about what the main flaws actually are: The alternative draft that's been posted here calls for a repeal to give national goverments more choice in the matter, possibly through separate subsequent resolutions on the use of stem cells from adults and the use of stem cells from embryos, whereas your draft calls for a repeal so that a replacmement could give the UN more powers to micromanage the topic... and as I don't see this as a suitable topic for compulsory UN legislation (rather than, perhaps, for a proposal setting up a research agency that nations would only be urged -- rather than required -- to support) in the first place I would rather not see your call to create that replacement enshrined in the UN's legislative record...

Flibbleites: I think you're being pretty harsh; I didn't intentionally telegram you twice, and I certainly didn't do it to everyone. If an accidental second telegram is enough for you to decide not to support my proposal, than so be it.

St Edmundan: I appreciate your input, and you should know that a replacement has not yet been written. I'm very open to different suggestions and I'll be taking all advice into account when drafting a replacement. Thank you.

You couldn't make it compulsory anyway: Freedom of Scientific Research (probably the most misleadingly named resolution of all?) would block that.

As I said, much is possible in terms of a replacement.

Much is possible, so long as it doesn't mandate stem-cell research.

When the author of a resolution puts forward a repeal of it, we're inclined to give the author's judgment on the matter great weight. If a replacement is offered, we'll consider it on its own merits when the time comes.

Ausserland will support this repeal proposal.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

When the author of a resolution puts forward a repeal of it, we're inclined to give the author's judgment on the matter great weight. If a replacement is offered, we'll consider it on its own merits when the time comes.

Agreed. Jey also supports the repeal and will consider the replacement once it's drafted.

We're with Ausserland and Jey on this one. We'll look at a replacement if and when one is drafted.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Thank you all for your support of my proposal and your openness to a replacement.

As the author of the other draft proposal to repeal resolution 82, we naturally have taken great interest in Nykibo's proposal.

We share the concerns voiced by other nations about the intentions of Nykibo's proposal versus ours, but we also realize that we share the same ultimate goal, which is to get UNR 82 off the books.

Therefore, we have decided not to take a formal position on this resolution. Should it be officially submitted and come to quorum, we will not stand in the way of its passage. In the absence of that, however, there is a chance that we may get the oppotunity to offically submit our proposal (we have a nation in our region currently considering joining the UN, at least partly to endorse our proposal).

The last thing we want, however, is to have these two proposals competing against each other.