Safe Research Act
I haven't posted this proposal up for approval yet, but I just want to make sure that it follows WA standards and that it doesn't have any holes I need to fix.
------------------------------SAFE RESEARCH ACT----------------------
Category: Enviromental Industry Affected: All Bussinesses
WA,
Understanding that much research takes place in many nations in the world.
Also understanding that some research may be relatively dangerous to humans and animals alike, as well as the enviroment.
Noticing that a considerable part of all research conducted involve dangerous chemicals, unstable elements/compounds, radiation, and deadly viruses or bacteria.
Worrying that in the event of contaiment failures or research errors, the above research items may cause severe damage to the research facility and/or a significant area around it.
(A) Safety Standards
Requesting that all research facilities have the following safery measures:
1. A secure facility away from areas with high populations, both human and animal.
2. Neutralizing agents in the event of a bacterial or viral outbreak, if available.
3. Proper lockdown procedures.
4. Research personnel must wear proper safety attire according to the research subject.
5. Air-tight research areas within the research facility with reserves of oxygen.
6. Communications network to allow researchers to communicate with outside world.
7. Frequent check-ins.
8. Evacuation procedures, including any research personnel and civilians within a certain radius (depending on severity) from the research facility.
(B) Testing Standards
Medical Testing
Requiring that no recently researched medicine be allowed to be sold, either through prescription or over-the-counter, before proper testing is completed.
Medicines will be tested on lab rats infected with the disease. If the rats:
1. Die, research will be discontinued or restarted.
2. Live, but not cured, research will be discountinued or restarted.
3. Heal, the rats will be monitored for atleast 4 weeks.
If the medicine passes the animal testing, it will be tested on humans.
Atleast 100 test subjects will be required, with different blood types, disabilities etc.
Test subjects will be monitored and checked daily for any abnormal symptoms for atleast 180 days.
If:
1. All subjects are killed, research will be discontinued and classified as lethal to humans.
2. Some subjects are killed, but some become healthy, the medicine will be either modified, or restricted to the category of the surviving subjects. New subjects of the same category as the survivors will be selected and monitored to ensure it is completely safe for that group.
3. All subjects are cured, the medicine will pass the testing phase and either be sold in prescriptions or over-the-counter.
Chemical Testing
Requiring that chemicals will be tested to meet certain safety standards.
Chemicals must not:
1. Irritate skin to a point where the skin deteriorates.
2. Damage the body. (Unless intentionaly inhaeled, swallowed, or applied to the eyes by the user.)
3. Destroy objects.
4. Emit dangerous gases that could endanger humans, animals, and/or the enviroment.
Synthetic elements Testing
Synthetic elements must be tested to:
1. Prove to be stable.
2. Be safely handled by humans.
3. Not cause damage to objects, humans, animals, or the enviroment.
4. Find an application for the element.
Demanding that any items that have not passed proper testing be discontinued (Not including prior to this act).
(C) Conclusion
Worrying that with no law enforcing proper research standards, many dangerous chemicals, medicines, etc. will be put to the public.
Hoping that with the passing of this act, safer products will be placed out to the public, and research will be much safer to organic life, and the enviroment.
I haven't posted this proposal up for approval yet, but I just want to make sure that it follows WA standards and that it doesn't have any holes I need to fix.
------------------------------SAFE RESEARCH ACT----------------------
Category: Enviromental Industry Affected: All Bussinesses
WA,
Understanding that much research takes place in many nations in the world.
Also understanding that some research may be relatively dangerous to humans and animals alike, as well as the enviroment.Since we are not Human guess we can see ourselves as animal.
Noticing that a considerable part of all research conducted involve dangerous chemicals, unstable elements/compounds, radiation, and deadly viruses or bacteria.
Worrying that in the event of contaiment failures or research errors, the above research items may cause severe damage to the research facility and/or a significant area around it.
(A) Safety Standards
Requesting that all research facilities have the following safery measures:
1. A secure facility away from areas with high populations, both human and animal.
2. Neutralizing agents in the event of a bacterial or viral outbreak, if available.
3. Proper lockdown procedures.
4. Research personnel must wear proper safety attire according to the research subject.
5. Air-tight research areas within the research facility with reserves of oxygen.
6. Communications network to allow researchers to communicate with outside world.
7. Frequent check-ins.
8. Evacuation procedures, including any research personnel and civilians within a certain radius (depending on severity) from the research facility.
If you have not tested whatever then how will you know if you have meet all the safety standards as testing is done to determine if their are dangers involved in using whatever and until that is done then one can't set safty standards
(B) Testing Standards
Medical Testing
Requiring that no recently researched medicine be allowed to be sold, either through prescription or over-the-counter, before proper testing is completed.
Medicines will be tested on lab rats infected with the disease. If the rats:
1. Die, research will be discontinued or restarted.
2. Live, but not cured, research will be discountinued or restarted.
3. Heal, the rats will be monitored for atleast 4 weeks.
So anyone want to invade Ratonia for lab rats? Why not pigs, cows, nerds, geeks as research subjects? Also why 4 weeks, where do you find this is enough time to be sure things are safe?
If the medicine passes the animal testing, it will be tested on humans.
Atleast 100 test subjects will be required, with different blood types, disabilities etc.So you test 100 of my people to see if something is effective to prevent them from getting a virus.. Turns out my people have natural immunity to the virus and survie, now you have a great cure to use for all humans.
Test subjects will be monitored and checked daily for any abnormal symptoms for atleast 180 days.
If:
1. All subjects are killed, research will be discontinued and classified as lethal to humans.
2. Some subjects are killed, but some become healthy, the medicine will be either modified, or restricted to the category of the surviving subjects. New subjects of the same category as the survivors will be selected and monitored to ensure it is completely safe for that group.
3. All subjects are cured, the medicine will pass the testing phase and either be sold in prescriptions or over-the-counter.
[QUOTE]Since you tested 100 of my people for the virus and used it as a cure on humans then #1 is your results.
[QUOTE]Chemical Testing
Requiring that chemicals will be tested to meet certain safety standards.
Chemicals must not:
1. Irritate skin to a point where the skin deteriorates.
2. Damage the body. (Unless intentionaly inhaeled, swallowed, or applied to the eyes by the user.)
3. Destroy objects.
4. Emit dangerous gases that could endanger humans, animals, and/or the enviroment.H2SO4 to some would fall under this while H20 or CO2 to others would fall under this for others....
Synthetic elements Testing
Synthetic elements must be tested to:
1. Prove to be stable.
2. Be safely handled by humans.
3. Not cause damage to objects, humans, animals, or the enviroment.
4. Find an application for the element.
Drop HUMAN as it needs to be safe for all races that are members of WA.. or restrictions placed on it usage to protect those it a danger to.
Demanding that any items that have not passed proper testing be discontinued (Not including prior to this act).Many have made demands and many who tried to go beyond vocal demands now rest in a cold grave.
(C) Conclusion
Worrying that with no law enforcing proper research standards, many dangerous chemicals, medicines, etc. will be put to the public.
Hoping that with the passing of this act, safer products will be placed out to the public, and research will be much safer to organic life, and the enviroment.
Might want to check this as it a bit long and may need some cutting to get it withing proposal word limits.
"If you have not tested whatever then how will you know if you have meet all the safety standards as testing is done to determine if their are dangers involved in using whatever and until that is done then one can't set safty standards"
Say we have just discovered Uranium. Thanks to the attire that scientists wear to protect themselves from the radiation, they can procede with examining the Uranium until they find the atoms within the element that cause radiation. They can then come to a conclusion that it is lethal.
Besides, if Uranium was just discovered, it was probably discovered by someone without protection, thus making his symptoms from radiation notable during the experiment.
"So anyone want to invade Ratonia for lab rats? Why not pigs, cows, nerds, geeks as research subjects? Also why 4 weeks, where do you find this is enough time to be sure things are safe?"
That is completely irrelevant to what I have suggested. All that is needed is an organism that has a complex organic make-up (heart, lungs etc.) before being tested on humans. Most people find rats a nuisance, so it is only logical that they are chosen to be tested.
Also, invading a country just to get rats is simply ridiculous. Rats can be found just about anywhere.
"H2SO4 to some would fall under this while H20 or CO2 to others would fall under this for others...."
I guess I need to make it clearer, as I have not stated it in the proposal.
What I meant by "chemicals" was detergents, cleaning products, etc. that react to a certain compound or organism.
Gobbannium
15-06-2008, 22:38
I haven't posted this proposal up for approval yet, but I just want to make sure that it follows WA standards and that it doesn't have any holes I need to fix.
We thank the honoured ambassador for his politeness and common sense in opening this matter up for debate.
Our first observation is that the proposal is long. A brief and unscientific check suggests that it is under the length limit for WA proposals, but not by a great deal. Should more than a few sentences need to be added as a result of discussion, we would not like to stand by that assertion.
We would therefore make our usual suggestion that the honoured ambassador consider splitting the proposal into two. Conveniently you have already divided the subject matter into Safety and Testing standards, and that may well be an appropriate way to proceed.
Noticing that a considerable part of all research conducted involve dangerous chemicals, unstable elements/compounds, radiation, and deadly viruses or bacteria.
While we wouldn't argue that much research involves dangerous materials, and that this clause on its own is correct if mildly inclined to overstatement, it is also the case that much research does not.
(A) Safety Standards
Requesting that all research facilities have the following safery measures:
1. A secure facility away from areas with high populations, both human and animal.
This is an entirely reasonable requirement of a research facility dealing in dangerous materials, but not all do. A centre of cryptographic research, for example, would be inconvenienced by its requirement to be sited away from a population centre to no public good. To offer an example of a less clear-cut lack of dangerous materials, it could be argued that a research hospital that is sited away from towns and cities does no one any good.
3. Proper lockdown procedures.
We fear this needs some expansion; what makes a lockdown procedure proper?
5. Air-tight research areas within the research facility with reserves of oxygen.
Again, our hypothetical cryptographers would regard this as overkill.
6. Communications network to allow researchers to communicate with outside world.
We are mildly entertained to note that whilst generally a good thing, a communications network is something that researchers into computer viruses should treat with great care! We don't however think that that point needs to be addressed in your proposal.
7. Frequent check-ins.
Again, we feel this point needs expansion. What is the point of the check-in? Is it sufficient for researchers to check in by shouting across the lab at one another? By communicating with someone in the same building, or the same site? Or by communicating with someone entirely external? How frequent is frequent? Hourly, daily, monthly? While these things do not need to be pinned down too exactly, some indication of intent would be beneficial.
(B) Testing Standards
Medical Testing
Requiring that no recently researched medicine be allowed to be sold, either through prescription or over-the-counter, before proper testing is completed.
Medicines will be tested on lab rats infected with the disease.
We believe that the author is being dangerously specific here. Not all diseases affect rats in a similar way to humans, nor is testing medicines on them always a reliable indicator as to how the medicine will act on human physiology. In many cases, researchers would be able to tell you that in advance, and indicate a more meaningful testing regime.
Further, not all medicines by some considerable measure are targetted at diseases. Warfarin, an anti-clotting agent used in high dosages in rat poison, is a classic example, but there are a large range of medicines which target blood-pressure, generally reinforce or suppress the immune system, prevent or enhance the chance of conception, or work on any of the huge number of medical issues which are not in any conventional sense diseases.
If the medicine passes the animal testing, it will be tested on humans.
It occurs to us that testing veterinarian medicines on humans may be counter-productive.
At least 100 test subjects will be required, with different blood types, disabilities etc.
While we admire the intent to ensure that a statistically meaningful test allowing for variations in the population is undertaken, we are a little leery of being specific about any one factor. The target population of the medicine may after all be very restricted, rendering wide-ranging tests somewhat superfluous.
Chemical Testing
Requiring that chemicals will be tested to meet certain safety standards.
We are much less happy about this section. It applies in a blanket manner to all chemicals for all purposes, thereby effectively halting certain types of research which could be undertaken quite safely by the use of a fume cupboard or remote handling equipment. We are also not sure whether household bleach would pass the tests.
Synthetic elements Testing
We are not entirely certain what "synthetic elements" is intended to mean, so can pass only general comment.
Synthetic elements must be tested to:
1. Prove to be stable.
"Stable" is a relative term. Might we enquire as to what sort of longevity the honoured ambassador has in mind.
4. Find an application for the element.
We really don't think this needs saying. An element which has no use will not be used, but it is not true that something which has no use now will not prove to have a vital use in the future.
I figured it was too long.
What I may eventually end up doing is just making it "Medical testing" since synthetic elements and chemicals weren't well written. I tossed those in there because I thought people might ask for them.
Thanks for your reviews. I will go and make another draft of it.
BTW, I think the check-ins part was a mishap. I didn't intend that to be in there.
Well, I shortened it down, a lot, it's probably less than half its original size.
Anyways, to cut it down, safety and research will be put in separate proposals (thanks for the suggestion, Gobbannium) and I altered it so it will only be medical testing.
One question though: what should I categorize this as? I was going to put "Enviromental" but since I took safety out, I cannot do that.
WA,
Understanding that much medical research takes place in many nations in the world.
Also understanding that after a medicine has been found, it should be tested to see if it is healthy for humans.
Worrying that with no tests undertaken after the release of a medicine, it can be fatal to humans if indgested.
Requiring that all medicines undergo a testing phase before being put out for distribution.
---Testing Standards
Requiring that no recently researched medicine be allowed to be sold, either through prescription or over-the-counter, before proper testing is completed
Atleast 100 test subjects will be required, with different blood types, disabilities etc.
Test subjects will be monitored and checked daily for any abnormal symptoms for atleast 180 days.
If:
1. All subjects are killed, research will be discontinued and classified as lethal to humans.
2. All subjects are uncured, research will be discountinued or restarted.
3. All subjects are cured, the medicine will pass the testing phase and either be sold in prescriptions or over-the-counter.
4. If part of the subjects are cured, the medicine will be restricted to that one group.
---Conclusion
Worrying that with no law enforcing proper testing standards, deadly medicines could be put out to the public.
Hoping that with the passing of this act, safer medicines will be placed out to the public.
Quintessence of Dust
16-06-2008, 10:13
(Can't believe I'm replying to this. It's been a slow morning...)
You have an excessively simplistic understanding of how medicine works. A drug can 'cure' someone while still being very damaging. 'Side-effects' are so-called because their effect is other than the main one. So a drug can have a therapeutic effect and a harmful side-effect. It would not be enough to observe 'cure' in subjects. For example, thalidomide did indeed suppress morning sickness. But it had teratogenic effects on the babies of mothers who took it (effects that were, incidentally, not easily observable in non-human test subjects). Under your system, thalidomide would be available.
I would also note that many nations will already have standard testing procedures for drugs that are likely to last ten years or more. The mechanism you outline does not include the standard double-blind test. Your proposal would also seem to prohibit every single drug that does not absolutely 'cure' the disease, such as those that suppress effects Given all of this, we're going to take a pass on approving your proposal for the moment.
-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria