Resolution booklet Student Parliament Rostock, 26. – 28. January 2016 2 ent.eu Committees and...

European Student Parliament

Resolution booklet

Rostock 26. – 28. January 2016

A project by: Funded by: Organised by:

European Student Parliament Rostock, 26. – 28. January 2016 1

www.student-parliament.eu

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

Rathaus der Hansestadt Rostock – Bürgerschaftsaal | Neuer Markt 1

09:00 – 09:15 Welcome talk by Mr Holger Matthäus, Senator für Bau und Umwelt

09:15 – 09:45 Parliamentary debate: position papers of committee 1

“The Human Brain”


“Living and eating healthy – but how?”


“Stem cells – the potential allrounders?”

10:45 – 11:15 Break


“Augmented human: optimizing the human”


“Imitating nature”

12:15 – 13:00 Handover of the resolution to the president of the

Kuratorium Gesundheitswirtschaft, Prof. Wolfgang Schareck, & of the

certificates to the students

13:00 Closing and departure of the students



Committees and experts

1. The Human Brain

The human brain has been investigated intensively for years. Experts hope for

therapies against dementia illnesses, but also human thinking and feeling is a

core focus. But how does our brain work? Can we really simulate our brain and

thinking? And will we be able to understand and heal dementia illnesses?

Expert: Dipl. Wirtschaftsing. Guenther A. Mohr, Vorstandsmitglied BioCon Valley

MV e.V.

2. Living and eating healthy – but how?

Organic food is ‚en vogue‘. But what is that supposed to mean? Do we better not

eat meat or even animal products at all? Are genetically engineered foods

dangerous for our health? Are long-term consequences to be expected? And how

can we be sure what is really healthy and what isn’t?

Expert: Dr. Luzia Valentini, Klinische Diätetik und Ernährung, Hochschule

Neubrandenburg

3. Stem Cells – the potential allrounders?

There would be no man or any other multicellular creature without stem cells.

What are stem cells and why is their investigation this attractive – and frowned

upon at the same time? How does our life change if we can direct stem cells –

and how is that supposed to function at all?

Expert: Prof. em. Dr. Mathias Freund, University of Rostock



4. Augmented Human: optimising the human

Glasses and protheses have been employed for many centuries to optimise the

human body. As of now a new wave of modifying the body is being initiated: by

means of the google glasses or a ring that can name objects using a camera. What

will the human being look like in 20 years’ time? Will our skills be extended

through implants, drugs or other technical means?

Expert: Prof. Dr. Thomas Gerber, University of Rostock

5. Imitating Nature

Imitating nature through a modular system – that is what synthetic biology is

about. Scientists hope for new medication and new pharmaceutical ingredients.

How is that supposed to function? How can we imitate new biological pieces,

gadgets or systems? And don’t we overstep the mark here?

Expert: Prof. Dr. Olaf Wolkenhauer, University of Rostock



Procedure of the debate

1. Reading out the claims

At the beginning of each debate, the proposing committee has the opportunity to

read out the committee’s claims which are gathered in this resolution booklet.

(One member of the proposing committee reads out the claims at the lectern.)

2. Defence speech

Subsequently, the proposing committee has the opportunity to hold a defence

speech and to explain the existing resolution and its contents. (One member of

the proposing committee reads holds the speech at the lectern; approx. three

minutes.)

3. Attack speech(es)

Directly after, all other committees have the opportunity to hold one or more

attach speeches, provided that the first attack speech does not take up all time.

Every committee which has prepared an attack speech can now explain why

some of the claims should not be accepted by the delegates. (One member of an

opposing committee; up to three minutes at own seat/via microphone.)

4. Response to attack speech(es)

The proposing committee has the opportunity to give answers to the attack

speech and to allay doubts the delegates may have. (One member of the

proposing committee; up to one minute at own seat/via microphone.)

5. Open debate

All members of all opposing committees can raise their hands to address

questions or remarks to the proposing committee. Up to three

questions/remarks are gathered from members of the different committees,

before the proposing committee can give a summarising answer to all of them.

(Up to four rounds à three questions/remarks of less than a minute; at own

seat/via microphone.)

6. Summarising speech, response to last questions

The proposing committee holds a summarising speech and answers the last

questions. (Two members of the proposing committee; three minutes at the

lectern.)

7. Voting

The chair of the debate reads out the claims and asks all delegates to vote for or

against a claim.



RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE

“The Human Brain“

The human brain has been investigated intensively for years. Experts hope for

therapies against dementia illnesses, but also human thinking and feeling is a core

focus. But how does our brain work? Can we really simulate our brain and thinking?

And will we be able to understand and heal dementia illnesses?

proposed by: Erik Bietz (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Anastasia Gaspert

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Tobias Kaphengst (ecolea), Lara Nadler

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Nick Petschow (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Louise Pischel (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Jette

Schmidt (Erasmus-Gymnasium), Tim Schumann (Erasmus-Gymnasium),

Fabienne Sperber (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Erik Walter (Erasmus-

Gymnasium), Jule Wandrey (ecolea), Dr. Robert Uhde (moderator)

We have assessed:

1. The human habits must undergo rapid changes in order to solve important issues

such as climate changes, floodings, diseases, epidemics, shortages in food and water.

2. Human brains are the most complex matter in the universe and can resolve these

challenges.

3. Latest analysis of brain research indicates, that:

I) major milestones have been recently accomplished for the understanding of

brain functionality, such as neurons having properties of biological quantum

computers and neuron/synaptic plasticity.

II) stress is the main factor of importance.

III) other areas such as dementia or other diseases are not within the broader

mainstream.

4. The most discussed elements in this context are consciousness, the solution for the

so called mind and body problem, and methods for stress reduction.

5. We need to build extended mental strength for mind and body, as this is more

effective for the accomplishment of our goals.



6. The existing educational system inhibits this build up process by:

I) producing additional stress.

II) not sufficiently providing any means of support.

7. Noval educational systems enable us to materialize the future requirements when

adapted to the characteristics of consciousness, mind and body (human brain

compatible).

We claim:

1. New stress reduction methods need to be developed and integrated into our society.

(accepted)

2. Novel teaching and learning methods be adapted to current and future state of brain

research.

(rejected)

3. Measures to change human habits have to be applied in society, that benefit our

demanding work and life balance based upon brain research.

(rejected)

4. A restructuring of educational systems and the society must be implemented to

optimize the mind and body problem as well as utilizing the full brain potential.

(rejected)

5. Citizens should be made aware of the fact that a change in their habits is unavoidable

for our joint future.

(rejected)

6. Brain related science should be introduced into regular classroom education.

(accepted)

7. Brain research is receiving highest attention at politics in order to solve all problems

as explained above.

(rejected)




“Living and eating healthy – but how?“

Organic food is ‚en vogue‘. But what is that supposed to mean? Do we better not eat

meat or even animal products at all? Are genetically engineered foods dangerous for

our health? Are long-term consequences to be expected? And how can we be sure

what is really healthy and what isn’t?

proposed by: Michelle Bernitt (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Wolfgang Böttcher

(Gymnasium Reutershagen), Anna Holz (Christophorus-Gymnasium),

Nils Klüber (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Nele Kraatz (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Carolin Krause (Christophorus-Gymnasium), Annika

Kutschke (Christophorus-Gymnasium), Paula Lankowski

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Anastasia Vatkovich (Innerstädtisches

Gymnasium), Henning Vieregg (Christophorus-Gymnasium), Daniel

Weidig (Christophorus-Gymnasium), Svenja Wiese (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Lea Zimdahl (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Michael

Lüdtke (moderator)

We have assessed:

1. Alarmed by the frightening number of deaths caused by an unhealthy diet and low

physical activity as well as cigarette smoking and environmental influences,

2. Deeply concerned about the current situation in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

with 59,9 % of overweighed inhabitants,

3. Defining a healthy diet as nutrition that contains five servings of fruits and/or

vegetables per day, whole grain foods, low processed foodstuff, enough fiber and

trace elements, a reduced intake of sugar and refined polysaccharides and fats,

4. Taking into account that if you have already been diagnosed with a mental and

physical health problem, eating well can even help to manage your symptoms and

regain control of your life,

5. Noticing that a healthy nutrition contains fruits and vegetables that have a good eco-

balance, as a unit of measurement of sustainability, that also has a positive impact on

the environment,



6. In awareness of the action plan of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, including stated

but not implemented measures,

7. Having noticed higher prices of healthy products, especially organic food,

8. Recognizing that physical activity influences the public health,

9. Underlining the urge to create better healthcare conditions for all individuals

regardless of their financial status,

10. Conscious of the fact that individual health is tightly related to the socio-economic

status,

11. Emphasizing the lifestyle of a plant-based nutrition,

We claim:

1. Calls upon raising awareness and understanding of the needed change of the lifestyle

for the human health, environment, challenges for the policy and consequences for

the social system;

(accepted)

2. Calling for the raise of physical activities with methods such as but not limited to:

a) cooperation between several sport clubs, health insurances, schools,

kindergartens and companies by:

i.) offering a better access to sport centres and clubs with governmental grants,

ii.) making physical activity more appealing by offering special rewards for

participating in sport courses,

iii.) passing on courses that show ways to deal with and to avoid a high stress

level,

b) fostering physical activities in schools by:

i.) creating the possibility to choose the kind of sport, students want to practice,

ii.) increasing the amount of PE lessons up to four per week,

(rejected)



3. Advises to establish or increase taxes on special kinds of food and luxury foods,

especially on:

a) fast food,

b) products from the intensive livestock farming,

c) products, that contain a higher percentage of sugar resulting in a higher daily,

recommended intake as defined by the WHO,

d) legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol;

(rejected)

4. Emphasises steps that motivate school to tackle the issue of unhealthy nutrition and

low physical activities by:

a) including compulsory lessons of nutrition into biology classes,

b) offering healthy food and alternatives in cafeterias according to DGE criterions,

c) establishing a half of the meals as vegetarian but including fish,

d) financially supporting schools to afford one healthy meal for every student,

e) suggesting to improve the posture by establish better chairs and tables like

height- changeable desks and stability balls,

(accepted)

5. Advises to make organic food more affordable by:

a) lowering the prices by using the tax-revenues from unhealthy products,

b) governmental subsidies organic companies and farms;

(rejected)

6. Stresses to improve and adapt the concepts of fast food chains by:

a) appeal the offer in less chemical produced more healthy food,

b) build healthy alternative fast food restaurants like healthy snack bars with

products such as salad (e.g. shop-in-shop);

(rejected)

7. Suggest measures to raise awareness of the deep impact an unhealthy lifestyle has

on the human being such as but not limited to:

a) campaigns that show the negative aspects of an unhealthy lifestyle,

b) cookery courses to make cooking easier and more interesting;

(accepted)




“Stem Cells – the potential allrounders?“

There would be no man or any other multicellular creature without stem cells. What

are stem cells and why is their investigation this attractive – and frowned upon at the

same time? How does our life change if we can direct stem cells – and how is that

supposed to function at all?

proposed by: Nico Baudis (Erasmus-Gymnasium), Luke Baumann (Innerstädtisches

Gymnasium), Tom-Ole Gutknecht (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Richard

Hintze (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Sabrina Jung (Innerstädtisches

Gymnasium), Lennart Kreuzfeld (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Maxim

Prus (Erasmus-Gymnasium), Renate Screpnecinco (Innerstädtisches

Gymnasium), Lea Walter (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Lukas Wendt

(ecolea), Lena Zenker (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Prof. Dr. Udo Kragl

(moderator), PD Dr. Hartmut Gläser (moderator), Dr. Catrin Roolf

(moderator)

We have assessed:

1. Nearly 100% success rate in curing Leukemia with adult stem cells.

2. Lack of information regarding basic functions of stem cells.

3. Stem cells have a huge potential to cure a variety of diseases without currently

available treatment.

4. Stem cell therapy and future development bring additional medical risks.

Furthermore, miss-use is possible.

5. Research in the field of stem cells will give understanding of aging of cells, but it is

expensive.

6. The access to stem cell therapy is unequally distributed over the world. In addition,

stem cell and bone marrow donators are rare.

7. Research is restricted by conservative sentiments of society.

8. Research on embryonic stem cells is essential for scientific breakthrough.



We claim:

1. It is mandatory that everybody is registered as a potential donator for stem cells.

(rejected)

2. Allocate more resources to understand the basic functions of stem cells.

(accepted)

3. We need qualified personnel and well equipped research facilities along with

outreach to the public.

(accepted)

4. Independent institutions are needed to control stem cell research and applications.

(accepted)

5. We need an international budget allowing less well-stocked countries to participate

in this research.

(rejected)

6. Cord blood of every new born individual has to be collected and stored preferred

separately.

(rejected)

7. Scientific progress should overcome cultural and religious barriers.

(accepted)

8. We call for a national referendum for the use of embryonic stem cells for research.

(rejected)




“Augmented Human: optimising the human “

Glasses and protheses have been employed for many centuries to optimise the human

body. As of now a new wave of modifying the body is being initiated: by means of the

google glasses or a ring that can name objects using a camera. What will the human

being look like in 20 years’ time? Will our skills be extended through implants, drugs or

other technical means?

proposed by: Ben Bals (Christophorus-Gymnasium), Ben-Luca Berthold (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Lina Bolte (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Viktoria Ehlert

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Alina Gazizova (Erasmus-Gymnasium),

Natalie Jaster (Christophorus-Gymnasium), Heinrich Jonas (ecolea),

Vinh Nguyen Quoc (Erasmus-Gymnasium), Max Philipp (Christophorus-

Gymnasium), Jule Philipp (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Johannes

Schmidt (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Nele Steinhäuser

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Jonas Trappe (ecolea), Tobias Voigt

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Sidney Berlin (moderator)

We have assessed:

1. Self-Optimization

• That the growing self-optimization trend is accelarated by technology (e.g.,

through smartphones) which allows for self-qualification and the assessment of

the human being through data;

• That the collected information is vulnurable to hacking, selling and abuse (e.g.,

for advertisement).

2. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)

• The possibility of screening for diseases / abilities to get a disease;

• That the “Embryonenschutzgesetz” protects embryos from further screening for

non-medical reasons in Germany.



3. Way of Life

• That we live in a hedonistic society in which many people have the illusion of not

having to do much for society;

• That many only act in their own best interested and shy away from working;

• That our wasteful and unhealthy way of living in many cases leads to health

problems, including obesity, which strain our health insurance system.

4. Cost Factor of Health Care

• That the demographic change and our growing life expectancy lead to a drastic

increase in health insurance costs;

• That currently there is a two-tier medical care system in our society in which the

type of treatment is based on the financial situation of the patient leading to a

higher medical standard for rich people.

5. Pensions / Demographic Change

• That the number of people being 60 years of age or older will increase drastically

in the next decades;

• That the pension costs therefore will surge dramatically since the amount of

people receiving pensions grows and the number of workers who pay into the

pension insurance decreases.

6. Unfair Resource Distribution / Waste

• That natural and human resources are distributed unequally among all countries

in the world.

• That especially Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) lack access to

medical treatment and knowledge.

We claim:

1) Strict international personal data protection laws to

a) Ensure privacy protection,

b) Prevent abuse of the collected personal data,

c) Ensure that only information which is shared voluntarily could be seen publicly;

(accepted)

2) To keep the laws concerning PGD to prevent too much screening and selective

abortions for non-medical reasons, and recommend the implementation of

mandatory drug tests for pregnant women (no alcohol, no smoking etc.);

(rejected)



3) To set incentives for a change in the way of living by

a) Giving extensive background content on healthy living in schools for at least 1

semester (Sek. I),

b) Incentivizing a healthy way of life (e.g. cost-saving in insurance premiums),

c) Enforcing a duty to mark unhealthy / dangerous ingredients;

(rejected)

4) A centralized health insurance system

a) Which is more efficient than the current pluralistic one,

b) Which gives the same chances to everyone,

c) To which everybody has to pay a percentage based upon one’s income;

(accepted)

5) That there is a need

a) To increase the retirement age,

b) To give health insurance benefits to working people in retirement age,

c) To increase pension insurance fees,

d) To keep health care up for everyone;

(rejected)

6) That all countries, especially developed nations, need to use their resources

responsibly and call for the release of patents for medical devices and treatment as

well as pharmaceutical products to LEDCs.

(rejected)




“Imitating Nature“

Imitating nature through a modular system – that is what synthetic biology is about.

Scientists hope for new medication and new pharmaceutical ingredients. How is that

supposed to function? How can we imitate new biological pieces, gadgets or systems?

And don’t we overstep the mark here?

proposed by: Christopher Basylewicz (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Mascha Dinga

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Lennart Findewirth (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Melanie Harder (ecolea), Max Kock (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Wiebke Kuhlmann (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Leon

Kwiatkowski (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Tuan Tung Nguyen

(Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Lukas Schumacher (Gymnasium

Reutershagen), Lena Schwarz (Innerstädtisches Gymnasium), Iskander

Suleiman (Gymnasium Reutershagen), Florian Thrams (Innerstädtisches

Gymnasium), Michael Fengler (moderator)

We have assessed:

1. Having adopted the definition of Synthetic Biology as an emerging discipline that

uses engineering principles to design and assemble biological components where

ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology meet and strengthen each other. Therefore

it is necessary to model and imitate nature thus understanding how nature works

and to use this knowledge to possibly interfere or manipulate biological systems for

solving complex human problems.

2. Acknowledges that Synthetic Biology holds great possibilities and already reached

several accomplishments. The Nobel Prize of 2013 has been given to three scientists

which deciphered how the molecular freight is transported within cells by

researching sciences. It is also possible to remodel DNA called genetic engineering, as

well as replicating simple chromosomes.

3. Recognizing the importance of synthetic biology as part of medical progress to find

treatments and cures for deadly and widespread diseases.



4. Bearing in mind that living systems are complex which is caused by its time varying

dynamics, nonlinearity, multilevelness and self-organization/emergence. This leads

to uncertainties and that leads to risks. Scientists are aware of unpredictable reaction

of modified transcripts in reality thus harm on man and environment, alien

organisms, the development of new synthetical weapons and Bioterror.

5. Additionally noticing that anyone in the USA has the ability to purchase base pairs of

a genetic sequence online at a rough cost of 0,2 cents per base pair.

6. Reminding that the research of organ printing and genetically modified organisms

(GMOs) are a sub branch of synthetic biology.

7. Observing that the heavy dependence of our society on knowledge and information

leads to an increasing importance of life science on the global economy.

8. Aware of the difficulty of exchanging medical data from patients between Federal

States and/or between states because of data safety.

9. Deeply concerned by the fact that European cancer research projects do not receive

sufficient funds to reach their potential.

We claim:

1. The risks of bioerror, bioterror and mixed gene pools will be diminished by measures,

such as but not limited to:

a.) Restricting the access to sequence information about select agents,

b.) Monitoring the sale of chemicals and lab equipment,

c.) Instructing federal agencies by the governmental body to improve the screening

process by profiling and software engineering,

d.) Implementing barcodes that identify the creator of a synthetic organism in order

to prevent scientists from breaching the set regulations.

e.) Introducing a Statute which makes it illegal to produce, synthesise, or engineer

any part of variola virus.

(rejected)

2. The German Government will examine the BMG (Bio Manufacturing Guide)

classification system to ensure it meets the requirements of future scientific

development.

(accepted)



3. Synthetic biologists have a responsibility to ensure their work isn’t making terrorism

easier, therefore an ethics advisory committee (EAC) will be developed and advice

will be freely available and confidential via an Ethics Hotline and an ethics ‘clearing

house’ website where members could report potential accidents and biosecurity

threats.

(rejected)

4. Creates the German National Fund for Environmental Concerns (GNFE), that gives

out financial aid to research facilities that work to solve the issue of breaking down

air and water pollutants and/or providing clean energy, when the following criteria

are fulfilled

a.) progress must be reported and reviewed within a 6 month period,

b.) the facility must pass safety inspections before conducting experiments and

random checks throughout the procedures,

c.) bio waste must be disposed in designated containers,

d.) continued funding will be given with additional progress.

(accepted)

5. Calls upon all member states of the European Union (EU) to increase their fund to

the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) to a

mutually agreed on amount annually, if

a.) a fair share is invested into the research of:

i.) 3D printing of organs,

ii.) the development of a device that stimulates cell repair and generates

regrowth,

iii.) colon cancer,

b.) the constant exchange of information and data between the sub facilities of

CORDIS is guaranteed

(accepted)

6. Supporting interdisciplinary, multinational and large-scaled work on synthetic biology

by adapting data exchange.

(accepted)

[Rostock denkt 365°] e.V.● Albert-Einstein-Straße 21 ● D 18059 Rostock ● +49 (0)381 498 56 90

www.Rostock365.de ● [email protected]

A project by: Organised by: Funded by:

Resolution booklet Student Parliament Rostock, 26. – 28. January 2016 2 ent.eu Committees and...

Documents

Transcript of Resolution booklet Student Parliament Rostock, 26. – 28. January 2016 2 ent.eu Committees and...