GA Resolution: Convention On Animal Testing

[Lenlyvit]

Convention On Animal Testing

Convention On Animal Testing

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Bioethics

Proposed by: Marxist Germany

The World Assembly,

Concerned by the lack of legislation regarding the treatment of testing animals,

Recognising that animals deserve to be properly treated during and after testing,

Noting that mistreatment of animal test subjects may lead to severe distress for the animal and inaccurate research results, and

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of animal test subjects,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. A "research facility" as any facility, private or public, which engages in animal testing for any scientific purpose, including consumer safety and weapons testing;

b. A "test animal" as a sentient but not sapient animal in the custody of any research facility for scientific purposes;

c. "Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;

2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:

a. Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law;

b. Reporting instances of noncompliance with the ethical requirements mandated in this resolution to the local authorities for penalisation;

3. Dictates that member states must reasonably and proportionally penalise research labs upon receiving a report about unethical testing from the WABB;

4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:

a. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

b. Carry out solely ethical testing, as defined in section 1c;

5. Requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiments:

a. The animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, has a good chance of being returned to its natural habitat successfully, and if it poses no risk to the environment it is being released into, such as carrying diseases; or;

b. The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if:

i. it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption,

ii. it is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition, and,

iii. it is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;

c. If the animal is unable to be adopted or released into the wild then it may be humanely euthanised;

6. Clarifies that an animal can still be adopted even if it is unable to live for over a year, and;

7. Prohibits the intentional killing of a test animal in a cruel manner, in addition to forbidding the killing of a former test animal before the viability of its adoption or release into the wild has been examined, and it has been found unsuitable for both.

Co-authored by United States of Americanas

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Dorab]

Seems like a good resolution that protects animals without hindering science too much.

[Deleted]

This would pretty much put the kibosh on any and all research around diseases and their treatments, which require infecting the animals to determine if the cure is actually going to work. There's no way to do this with diseases with known, distressing symptoms or side-effects under the provided definition of 'ethical testing', which is mandated. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

THX, through its WA proxy, will vote against.

[Dorab]

Nov 16, 2019 11:01:57 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

This would pretty much put the kibosh on any and all research around diseases and their treatments, which require infecting the animals to determine if the cure is actually going to work. There's no way to do this with diseases with known, distressing symptoms or side-effects under the provided definition of 'ethical testing', which is mandated. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

THX, through its WA proxy, will vote against.

Not necessarily, because it specifies that it must "not maliciously intend" to cause pain, and when testing for cures you are not maliciously intending to cause harm to the animal.

[Deleted]

Nov 17, 2019 10:12:53 GMT -5 Dorab said:

Nov 16, 2019 11:01:57 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

This would pretty much put the kibosh on any and all research around diseases and their treatments, which require infecting the animals to determine if the cure is actually going to work. There's no way to do this with diseases with known, distressing symptoms or side-effects under the provided definition of 'ethical testing', which is mandated. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

THX, through its WA proxy, will vote against.

Not necessarily, because it specifies that it must "not maliciously intend" to cause pain, and when testing for cures you are not maliciously intending to cause harm to the animal.

Semantics, really. One could make the argument that knowingly infecting an animal with a disease that would cause distress, is malicious. Simultaneously, it's a bit absurd to assume that any entity conducting legitimate research on animals - even for non-essential reasons - is doing so with malice. The line is too murky, and the definition too vague.
I would have preferred to see a broad exemption given for essential medical research and a more specific targeting of research for non-essential reasons, as opposed to what's being provided here. I also think this, specifically, will be this resolution's undoing.

[Marxist Germany]

Nov 17, 2019 10:12:53 GMT -5 Dorab said:

Nov 16, 2019 11:01:57 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

This would pretty much put the kibosh on any and all research around diseases and their treatments, which require infecting the animals to determine if the cure is actually going to work. There's no way to do this with diseases with known, distressing symptoms or side-effects under the provided definition of 'ethical testing', which is mandated. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

THX, through its WA proxy, will vote against.

Not necessarily, because it specifies that it must "not maliciously intend" to cause pain, and when testing for cures you are not maliciously intending to cause harm to the animal.

Pretty much this, malicious has to be with evil intent

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2019 9:53:23 GMT -5 Marxist Germany said:

Nov 17, 2019 10:12:53 GMT -5 Dorab said:

Not necessarily, because it specifies that it must "not maliciously intend" to cause pain, and when testing for cures you are not maliciously intending to cause harm to the animal.

Pretty much this, malicious has to be with evil intent

'Evil' is a pretty abstract concept, but if you're suggesting the vast majority engaged in animal testing are doing so for sport, then I think you're misrepresenting what animal testing seeks to achieve. Like I've said, I doubt there are many (if any) legit testing entities out there that are tenting their mutual fingers at the prospect of conducting cruel and unusual tests on animals, purely out of the blackness of their hearts. If that hypothetical group is your only target, then the resolution ignores the much greater problem of testing on animals for things like cosmetics, food preservatives, etc. Surely these sort of tests are not, by definition, 'evil', but they are most certainly unnecessary and occasionally frivolous.

I still maintain that you've missed the mark here, by your choice of language.

[Lenlyvit]

Congrats to the author on passage