B1515 – Genetic Modification (Regulation Of) Bill 2019. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
B1515 – Genetic Modification (Regulation Of) Bill 2019. LiberofLondon MP




Genetic Modification (Regulation Of) Bill 2019






An Act to protect human life on this planet and especially in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by regulating the use of genetic modifications.


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1: Definitions.
(1) For the purposes of this Act:


(2) a. ”human” is defined as:

(2)(2) i. a sperm cell of the species Homo sapiens, fertile or otherwise,
(2)(2) ii. an egg cell of the species Homo sapiens, fertile or otherwise,
(2)(2) iii. a foetus or embryo of the species Homo sapiens, whether or not it is inside of the mother or not and regardless of its viability,
(2)(2) iv. a member of the species Homo sapiens at any age, living or dead,

(2) b. ”genetic modification” refers to any attempt to modify the DNA of an animal, human, plant, virus or other lifeform or modify the DNA of any species or subspecies of any lifeform, excluding (except in humans) selective breeding.

(2) c. ”proscribed equipment” refers to any equipment which a reasonable person may consider to be, or is being used as, equipment for the purpose of genetic modification of any lifeform.

(2) d. ”dangerous manner” refers to a genetic modification or modifications that a panel established by the Department of Environmental Affairs (hereafter known as DEA) may cause harm to other animals, humans or the environment.


2: Modification of Animals

(1) It is an offence, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 2 years and a fine of level 5 on the standard scale, to genetically modify an animal without consent from the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs, with or without a licence to modify organisms.

(2) In the event that the animal has been modified in a dangerous manner, DEA shall destroy it. The modification of animals in a dangerous manner is an offence and punishable by up to 10 years inprisonment and a fine of level 5 on the standard scale.

(3) If an animal has been modified without DEA's permission, it may be sold at an auction of stolen property by whichever police force the animal was captured by, if the modification was not modified in a dangerous manner.

(4) Neither permission nor licence is needed to breed genetically modified animals.

3: Modification of Plants

(1) Plants (including fungi and yeast) may legally be genetically modified, provided that whoever is genetically modifying the plants has a licence to genetically modify organisms.

(2) The Patents Office will not grant patents for any form of genetically modified organism (including animals).

(3) All genetically modified organisms (including animals and their meat, milk and hide) may be sold legally, provided that the customer is informed that he is buying a genetically modified organism or its product.

(4) It is an offence punishable by up to 6 months of imprisonment to genetically modify organisms without a licence to do so or to own proscribed equipment without the aforementioned licence.

(5) It is an offence punishable by a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale to not disclose that a product has been genetically modified or was made with genetically modified organisms.


4: Modification of Viruses

(1) It is an offence to genetically modify viruses (excluding a non-dangerous virus designed to place DNA inside of an orgamism being modified and which has been approved by DEA), punishable by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

(2) In the event that the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs has reason to believe a genetically modified virus has been released, he may use the powers granted to him under Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and declare a quarantine around the area in which he believes the said virus has been released for up to thirty days, or (with the permission of Parliament) an indefinite period. He may also suspend the Human Rights Act 1998 in the quarantined area for up to thirty days, or (with the permission of Parliament) an indefinite period.


5: Modification of Humans

(1) It is an offence, punishable by between a minimum of 10 years of imprisonment, to genetically modify or clone a human.

(2) It is an offence, punishable by life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years, to genetically modify a human in a dangerous manner.

(3) The Secretary of State for Health may grant an exemption to §5, clause 1 of this Act for theraputic or medical reasons. He, however, may not authorise any form of cloning.

(4) Humans who have been genetically modified without the consent of the Governement will be imprisoned until such time as they consent to their modifications being removed or (if their modifications leave them without the faculties necessary to consent to one's modifications being removed) if they are removed by the Government or if the Government retrospectively gives consent for their modifications.


6: Licensing
Licences to modify organisms may be procured by any British citizen over 18, providing that he has not, in the last five years, been in prison for a term between three months to three years, and has never been in prison for longer than three years. A specific cause is not necessary to own a licence.


7: Extent
This Act extends to the United Kingdom.


8 Commencement
The provisions of this Act come into force immediately.


9: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Genetic Modification (Regulation Of) Act 2019.


Notes
Although this Act may seem draconian, it is best for our country that we regulate these things now rather than in the middle of a genetic pandemic. This Act will not affect farmers who use genetically modified crops, as a licence is only needed for anyone who wishes to make his own medications. Licencing is regulated under the same conditions as are necessary to obtain a Firearms Certificate, which is how these two dangerous objects should be treated. Furthermore, provision has been made for genetic therapy to be performed for medical reasons, which means that our country will not have to watch people die due to a ban on such medicine.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Nay.
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Well, a few things. 1) That is a sexy ass font, 2) Aye, 3) "(3) The Secretary of State for Health may grant an exemption to §5, clause 1 of this Act for theraputic or medical reasons. He, however, may not authorise any form of cloning." did you just assume that the SoS for Health will always be male, you misogynistic pig!
0
TheRadishPrince
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
I know it is more convenient to label sperm cells and egg cells as 'human', but I wouldn't call either of those, especially unfertilised ones, 'human' in the same manner I would not call a blood cell 'human'.

Essentially I think this Bill needs to be given some editing to keep sperm and egg cells seperate from the 'human' tag but keep the same terms on it, if the proposing individual wishes to, for a second reading.

Font is the best part though we can all agree
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
Aye - genetic engineering is a dangerous and potentially amoral tool.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Connor27)
Aye - genetic engineering is a dangerous and potentially amoral tool.
So are guns, so are knives, even money is 'dangerous and potentially amoral' it depends on how you use it.
3
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Nay, genetic modification has great potential to solve the worlds problems; also imprisoning someone for something they had no control over is quite barbaric and medieval
Last edited by AngryRedhead; 1 month ago
1
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Aph)
Nay.
Nice well structured analysis of the bill and reason behind your voting intention there, Aph.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Nice to see not all of the Libertarian party members are asleep.

Any time Secretary of States are brought in it would be better to say the Secretary of state with portfolio for (Environment/Health). As the official titles may vary in future.

Section 3 is worded a bit weirdly, but is permissible.


I would ask the author what about the currently procedure for the ethical approval of research does he see as a problem? I understand the moral concerns this bill presents, but I don't understand why the status quo may be seen as so offensive in that regard.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by 04MR17)
Nice to see not all of the Libertarian party members are asleep.

Any time Secretary of States are brought in it would be better to say the Secretary of state with portfolio for (Environment/Health). As the official titles may vary in future.

Section 3 is worded a bit weirdly, but is permissible.


I would ask the author what about the currently procedure for the ethical approval of research does he see as a problem? I understand the moral concerns this bill presents, but I don't understand why the status quo may be seen as so offensive in that regard.
Or just 'the Secretary of State', as set out in the bill-writing guide.

I'm genuinely undecided on this bill (and genetic modification more generally) though. Albeit I definitely feel there needs to be strong central control of what can and can't be done.

Also are the current provisions for export and (particularly) import of GMOs fit for purpose in the view of the proposer? LiberOfLondon
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Or just 'the Secretary of State', as set out in the bill-writing guide.
Except this one specifies two different ministers, so I thought it might be worth differentiating in this case.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Nay, genetic modification has great potential to solve the worlds problems; also imprisoning someone for something they had no control over is quite barbaric and medieval
”or (if their modifications leave them without the faculties necessary to consent to one's modifications being removed) if they are removed by the Government or if the Government retrospectively gives consent for their modifications.” The gov't can either remove them or give consent for them
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
I am troubled by:

"Humans who have been genetically modified without the consent of the Governement will be imprisoned until such time as they consent to their modifications being removed"

Does this not mean that someone could be imprisoned for something someone else has done to them?
2
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by 04MR17)
Except this one specifies two different ministers, so I thought it might be worth differentiating in this case.
Both should state the SoS, it is for the government of the day and not parliament to decide which minister will exercise power in the name of the queen.
0
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
”or (if their modifications leave them without the faculties necessary to consent to one's modifications being removed) if they are removed by the Government or if the Government retrospectively gives consent for their modifications.” The gov't can either remove them or give consent for them
How do you remove a modification when the person has already been born though? You can’t; so imprisonment is the only outcome. You seem to have no understanding of science
Last edited by AngryRedhead; 1 month ago
1
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
How do you remove a modification when the person has already been born though? You can’t; so imprisonment is the only outcome. You seem to have no understanding of science
It's simple, they are killed.
0
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
It's simple, they are killed.
Because this is a humane and morally correct way to behave torward fellow human beings isn't it?
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Because this is a humane and morally correct way to behave torward fellow human beings isn't it?
This is the most logical and morally correct way to behave towards a fellow member making jokes isn't it?
0
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
This is the most logical and morally correct way to behave towards a fellow member making jokes isn't it?
Jokes don't transfer well over written medium
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
How do you remove a modification when the person has already been born though? You can’t; so imprisonment is the only outcome. You seem to have no understanding of science
” if the Government retrospectively gives consent for their modifications.”
I will, however, change this text at the second reading.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (61)
23.11%
No (203)
76.89%

Watched Threads

View All