[GA- PASSED] Protection of Biomedical Research [Complete]

Deropia

Deropia

Peasant Wizard
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Deropia
Discord
Dero#2736

ga.jpg

Protection of Biomedical Research
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Research
Proposed by: Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave | Onsite Topic​

Recognizing the vast potential of biomedical research to improve and save the lives of the citizens of Member-States,

Applauding the great strides already made in the field by Member-States,

Seeking to greatly expand these efforts through the expansion and facilitation of International collaboration in the field,

And condemning the placement of unjust and illegitimate restrictions on life-saving biomedical research,

The World Assembly hereby;

Defines Biomedical Research as the fields of research investigating the causes of disease, disease prevention, treatment, and the mitigation or elimination of medical conditions including, but not limited to: Cancer, Paraplegia, and Motor Neuron Diseases,

Expands the mandate of the Biomedical Innovation Organization of the World Health Authority to include:
  1. Coordination of international efforts at biomedical research,
  2. Development of a set of minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research, to be met by Member-States,
  3. Service as an advisory body for biomedical ethics organizations and biomedical ethics regulatory bodies within Member-States,
  4. Maintenance of an internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States, excepting information regarding research efforts which are protected by Member-States as a matter of security,

Mandates:
  1. That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,
  2. That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, and,

Clarifies that the above provisions are subject to extant legislation,

And reminds Member-States that any and all determinations of sapience or sentience are subject to extant World Assembly legislation and scientific procedure.[
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2018_01_07_protection_of_biomedical_research[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2018_01_07_protection_of_biomedical_research[/wavote]
 
Protection of Biomedical Research is a relatively mild proposal that seeks to ensure a standard of ethics and scientific rigor in biomedical experiments within the World Assembly. It ensures that member states engage only in research where the well-being and ethical treatment of the subjects are prioritized, but in a manner which makes additional testing on both human and lab animal tests possible. Further, it promotes additional research by tasking the World Assembly Science Programme to coordinate and advise international research efforts, as well as share data volunteered by researchers.

More importantly, the proposal preempts future attempts to block biomedical research in the name of religious or moral objections, ensuring that WA members can engage in research in the best interests of their populations.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting for the resolution.
 
That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,
That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, and,
Click to expand...
So no restrictions like...
patents...
no disturbing the dead restriction...
religious convictions...
property rights...


:headbang:

Against.
 
Against;

In addition to Clean Land's argument, I think it is bad gameplay to block off all regulation of bioethics, then use a committee to write the rules and make nations follow it, basically replacing all future resolutions on the topic with a committee.

Thats like saying "Nations must meet the minimum standard for Human Rights, minimum which is defined by this infallible Human Rights committee to determine what all of these Human Rights are." Poor gameplay.
 
For me, this has 2 major issues. First, I have to give up my National Soverignty over BioMed research and I’ve it to a world assembly committees, who are always so great and ethical and non-political *rolls eyes*.

Second is that it’s too broad in its definitions, for example it lets nations out of sharing BioMed research if they have “Security Reasons”, but doesn’t specify how these are determined, and how abuse is prevented.

For these reasons, I must vote Against
 
Clearly, I disagree, but I'm not able to vote at the moment.

The definition of biomedical research is narrow enough to avoid issues regarding patent, copyright, or property respect. Those don't fall under the ambit of biomedical research as defined in the proposal. You could read it that way if you wanted, but doing so would be a deliberate attempt to ignore a rational alternative reading.

Frankly, I can't see any reason that ethical and scientific regulations wouldn't protect the deceased or endangered species. It isn't ethical to engage in unsustainable research practices that damage the environment or risk spread of disease.

The religious convictions argument is fair. That is exactly what the proposal seems to limit.

All in all, I would recommend a vote For.

For what it's worth, I don't think calling this trash is fair. Stones and glass houses and all that.
 
I agree with Separatist Peoples and recommend a vote in favour of the proposal. There is a great misunderstanding about the breadth of the definition of 'biomedical research'.

I too agree with his characterisation of some claims of 'trash'. While there is considerable debate on whether policies are good or not, perhaps we ought leave it to authors and people familiar with the General Assembly to determine community standards on writing quality.

Also, I will note that perhaps it may not be wise on the part of certain posters here to cast aspersions on the motivations of colleagues in WALL, an organisation to which this region is a part. Similarly, I cannot conceive of how such aspersions would endear anyone to a person who sits in judgement on a challenge which they themselves brought.
 
I think SP and IA's readings here are not consistent with the resolution's text. I agree this proposal was intended to bar religiously motivated restrictions on biomedical research -- specifically embryonic stem cell research -- but for whatever reason the author decided instead to bar any impediment to biomedical research except for "scientific standards" and "ethics standards and regulations [that] serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research".

This is a breathtakingly broad prohibition that does in fact ban member states from engaging in a whole host of legitimate regulation, regardless of whether it is religiously motivated, including:
  • requiring appropriate reverence for deceased persons;
  • mandating ethical treatment of persons that are not presently sapient/sentient, such as those in comas or persistent vegetative states; and
  • enacting environmental regulation applying to non-sapient life, such as coral, plants, bacteria, or fungi.
Like SP and IA, I am an "author[] and [person] familiar with the General Assembly", and I find this proposal badly written and strongly recommend a vote against.
 
Imperium Anglorum:
While there is considerable debate on whether policies are good or not, perhaps we ought leave it to authors and people familiar with the General Assembly to determine community standards on writing quality.
Click to expand...
Yes, this proposal was drafted for less than 24 hours and, consequently, has numerous errors.

It does not account for research on cadavers, non-sapient and non-sentient animals (e.g., corals and octopuses), plants, or fungi. It is completely contrary to the ethics on the treatment of human remains and to environmental ethics. It's a total mess!
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top