NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that resolution #82, "Stem Cell Research Funding," does not clarify or define what "Stem Cell Research" is, or whether it is Embryonic or Adult stem Cell Research. It also does not give nations any idea of how and by how much they should fund stem cell research. Here is the repeal:
UNDERSTANDING that stem cell research does have many benefits,

NOTING that the term "Stem Cell Research" can mean either adult stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research and needs more clarification,

REGRETTING that few medical advances have been made through embryonic stem cell research,

The United Nations hereby REPEALS Resolution #82, "Stem Cell Research Funding."

Sorry, this is flatly untrue, unless you don't consider bone marrow transplants to be 'medical advances'. I'd wager one or two leukemia patients would disagree with you. Furthermore, you have not:
- engaged at all with the substance of Resolution #82;
- demonstrated why a lack of research successes (once again, this is not the case, but let's put that aside for the moment) in the past necessarily precludes such successes in the future;
- recognised the existence of Resolution #166, which guarantees the right of nations to prohibit any and all forms of stem cell research anyway.

A pretty poor effort all round.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I probably should rewrite it, but it seems to me that Resolution #82 should have been repealed before #166 was even considered? Or can we actually amend past UN resoulutions?

I see it as doing something that should have been done before. I do admit, however, that I probably should have put more thought into writing it. Sorry; it is my first exprience with writng anything like this.

i disagree to the basisc fact of the proposal. i do not see any disbeneifit from the idea of stem cell funding.

I probably should rewrite it, but it seems to me that Resolution #82 should have been repealed before #166 was even considered? Or can we actually amend past UN resoulutions?
Yes, it should have been repealed: the latter resolution contradicts the former. But it wasn't, and this is the situation we're now stuck with. You can't use the argument that a previous resolution was illegal in a repeal.