NationStates Jolt Archive

If someone has cancer, and they need to be cured of it, what better way to
use a cure than to try it on an animal first? How this can be done isthat you
take some of the cancer cells and inject them into a rat or mouse. Then
when the cancer is active in the animal try to use the cure that you've been
studying. If the cure fails, I would suggest euthanizing the test subject. If it
works, award the animal with some food and put a special collar on it, to
show that it can't be tested on anymore. The other thing to do is test it on
something larger, such as a shark or bird, but still repeat the process shown above. Or not do this process at all, but it's all your choice, no one cares if you do or don't.

Please note: I NOT hate animals, this is just a better thing to do than risk a human patient either dying or having to have aother human die, just to see if you can cure cancer.

An interesting idea for a proposal!

You should put this in the form of a resolution (check out other resolutions in this forum) and we will be glad to help you hammer out the details, etc.

Although I am not entirely sure what your purpose in this proposal is. Are you proposing that states mandate animal testing? Legalize animal testing? Have a standard for animal testing?

It would be standardized to all cancer reasearch facilities.

Yes, it should

I'm glad you see my point.

Then you should write a proposal. If you are uncomfortable with such writing, enlist a partner who is more experienced.

I disagree. A result with a rat (not to mention whose cancer is artificially induced) will be different from a result with a human being.

Why limit it to cancer? If you want to address the issue of animal testing globally, address the whole spectrum of disease.

Also be aware that it's not the size of the animal that makes it a good substitute for early human testing, it's the genetic similarity to the human disease model. Mice are mammals and share many human traits. Sharks and birds are dramatically different and would not be effective models for 99% of pharmaceutical or biological testing. You're better off with dogs, rabbits, and monkeys for most later stage trials.

Were I writing such a proposal, I wouldn't leave it quite as open-ended as your originally did. There are valid ethical reasons for opposing animal testing, and those need to be addressed in a considered and humane manner. Leave those out, and you have virtually no chance of passage.

Edit: to Puchi - I suggest you read up on animal testing before dismissing it out of hand. I work for a major pharmaceutical company in the so-called Real World, and I can assure you that animal testing is a vital part of our research effort.

It might be actually possible to promote cancer research without using animal testing, whilst not banning it.

If someone has a disease and they need to be cured of it, we need to urge the whole world to research into it. Understanding that it result in higher taxes, but by working together we may be able to find treatments and cures to diseases faster: not just cancer.

OOC: Given the OP doesn't seem to know how a double blind works, I wouldn't hold out too many hopes for a great proposal coming out of this thread.

Nonetheless, something on pharmaceutical testing is an excellent idea for a proposal in my view. If you dig around, I believe Ceorana or Norderia or someone-a had something going in the old UN on the subject, which never came to submission. There is, as Fris stated, no particular reason to limit it to cancer.

Ban animal testing. Rats are completely different than humans, and the test results would be irrelevant.

no, animal testing shall not be banned, even if your country is an animal loving nation, that could be just one of the 1,000,000 nations that could agree with me.

We will only agree to this if you put very clearly worded rules on how such tests are to be performed, otherwise we shall vote against this.

O.O.C you can put collars on sharks? that seems... dangerous

Rules that apply:
1: The cancer or desease MUST be contained with MAXIMUM security.
2: The test subject needs to be in top physical condition for testing.
3: All costs need to be paid by a certain dead-line.
4: And about the collar on a shark, that's really required to be a tag or dye on it's dorsal fin

Rules that apply:
1: The cancer or desease MUST be contained with MAXIMUM security.
2: The test subject needs to be in top physical condition for testing.
3: All costs need to be paid by a certain dead-line.
4: And about the collar on a shark, that's really required to be a tag or dye on it's dorsal fin
Cancer isn't infectous, nore are all diseases, so no 1 is a bit over the top. The others were not the sort of rules I had in mind. I meant more like rules on how people should treat the poor animals.

We should probably point out that for many states this resolution might be completely unecessary.

Urgench for instance has not had significant incidence of cancer in its population for a very long time.

Our medicine is sufficiently advanced to make this possible. Perhaps this statute would do better if it encouraged the sharing of medical research, and made the trade in medical technology and innovation easier between w.a. states.


Yours,

I believe such a resolution is unnessecary as most nations will already have similar research laws in place for cancer and other illnesses as well as normal medicines such as aspirin, paracetemol, nicotine patches, etc. etc.

It hardly seems WA material if it doesnt have a progressive element to it, for example, we know that testing on animals has problems in the long run when the differences of an animal to a human prove to have disastrous effects on the people who have the medicine. We also know that there is now technology to test medicines and cures on cells from human donors (its just a swap to get the dna cells, these cells are then tested on) and that such technology is more effective then animal research. So a more suitable WA Proposal to aid the search for a cure for cancer would surely be to aid encourage and aid nations in usung the more effective DNA Cell testing?

Hey, you don't have to agree to this you idiots, so buzz off!

Hey, you don't have to agree to this you idiots, so buzz off!


What charming ignorance, honoured Ambassador. Naturally no one has to agree to whatever bizarre scheme you are proposing, and doubtless few enough will, but calling those who may disagree with you "idiots" and telling them to "buzz off!" will only win you and your ideas contempt. Presumably your delegation wishes to canvass and increase support for its ideas, so far you have shown no propensity to succeed in this task, which is a shame for your delegation but probably a mercy for this organisation.


Yours in sincerity,

Hey, you don't have to agree to this you idiots, so buzz off!

You sir, are incorrect. In order for any proposal, including yours, to become a resolution it must first obtain approvals from 6% of the regional delegates, in other words, 6% of the regional delegates must agree with it. Then it goes up for vote, where it must obtain more FOR votes then AGAINST votes, which means even more people must agree with it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative and two time successful resolution author.

I deeply apologize for that statement, I was actually yelling at some kids at scholl, and i guess i typed it up. Sincere apologies

No trouble at all: if I were a teacher that's what I have to face up to every day.

We would also caution our esteemed colleague that there are nations in this body who's inhabitants are not human. Any call to this body to allow testing could meet resistance from those nations.


Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

Hey, you don't have to agree to this you idiots, so buzz off!

Could the esteemed ambassador be looking to add Tourette's Syndrome to the list?


OOC: Just kidding... couldn't resist.