# data[].attributes.body
Read and print the work script, it will be useful throughout these days.
At the end of this Padlet you have the evaluation system. You can read and print them.

# data[].attributes.body
In IDIBELL they explained to us how they use mice to treat cancer in patients with poor prognosis.
Some exclaimed: poor mices!
Do these mice have rights?
In this topic we propose to study it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
El Servicio de Estabulario IDIBELL está centrado en el alojamiento y cuidado de pequeños roedores y peces cebra. Este espacio está libre de patógenos (SPF) y dispone de animales de cepas inmunodeprimidas y genéticamente modificadas. Con una superficie total de 700 m², en el Servicio de Estabulario IDIBELL se alojan ratones agrupados según sus necesidades específicas (genéticamente modificados e inmunodeprimidos), en jaulas con filtro (racks ventilados) que proporcionan las condiciones de estabulación adecuadas a sus características, para evitar cualquier contaminación que les pueda afectar.

Anestesia, analgesia, eutanasia

Administración de fluidos y fármacos, extracción de sangre u otros fluidos

Hormonación, aparejamiento, control de tapones vaginales, deslechamiento y separación por sexos

Asistencia en los procedimientos quirúrgicos

Curas postoperatorias

Rederivación por cesárea

Técnicas relacionadas con oncología experimental

Inoculación de líneas tumorales o xenograft en ratones

Exéresis y medida de tumores

Cultivos primarios

Formación de personal

Asesoría en temas relacionados con el animal de laboratorio

Racks ventilados Techniplast

Cabinas de flujo laminar

Carros de anestesia

Equipos de lavado y esterilización

IVIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
El Servicio de Estabulario IDIBELL está centrado en el alojamiento y cuidado de pequeños roedores y peces cebra. Este espacio está libre de patógenos (SPF) y dispone de animales de cepas inmunodeprimidas y genéticamente modificadas.

# data[].attributes.headline
We prepare to solve a Kahoot on the subject

# data[].attributes.subject
We prepare to solve a Kahoot on the subject

# data[].attributes.body
It is necessary to collect information and write it down in your notebook.
You can use the computer or smartphone to solve the questions. You have 30 minutes.

# data[].attributes.body
Directive 2010/63 / EU regulates the use of animals in research
* To which animals does the directive apply?
* When can animals be used in research?

# data[].attributes.body
* What do the 3Rs mean?
* Describe the meaning of each
* Give examples of each

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Additional tools

Replacement, Reduction and Refinement - the "Three Rs"

What are the "Three Rs"?

The publication of "The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique" by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch in 1959 marks the birth of the principle of the "Three Rs".

The authors proposed the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (the "Three Rs") as the key strategies of a systematic framework aimed at achieving the goal of humane experimental techniques. Russell and Burch saw replacement as the ultimate goal for laboratory animal based research, education and testing, with the other two, reduction and refinement, being more readily achievable in the short term.

Replacement

Replacement can be defined as methods, strategies or approaches which do not involve the use of live animals.

Replacement may be achieved through a number of tools or their combinations including

in vitro systems using tissues, whole cells or parts of cells

systems based on biochemical approaches, i.e. using synthetic (macro)molecules as proxies of (reactive) toxicity targets. Such methods are referred to as "in chimico"

computer-based models and approaches - often termed in silico

use of 'omics' technologies (e.g. transcriptomics, proteomics and metabonomics)

non-testing approaches such as 'read-across' technique

Reduction

The concept of reduction covers any approach that will result in fewer animals being used to achieve the same objective, including maximising the information obtained per animal, reducing the number of animals used in the original procedure and/or limiting or avoiding the subsequent use of additional animals.

The number of animals can also be reduced by performing procedures on animals more than once, where this does not detract from the scientific objective or result in poor animal welfare. However, the benefit of reusing animals should always be balanced against any adverse effects on their welfare, taking into account the lifetime experience of the individual animal. As a result of this potential conflict, the reuse of animals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Refinement

Photo credit: Novo Nordisk

Today, the term refinement signifies the modification of any procedures or husbandry and care practices from the time the experimental animal is born until its death, so as to minimise the pain, suffering and distress experienced by the animal and enhance its well-being.

When an animal experiences pain, suffering or distress, there are often accompanying physiological changes which may increase the variability of scientific results. Refinement therefore is also likely to improve data quality and contribute to Reduction.

Refinement can also be achieved by moving from species that are considered more sentient to those less sentient. Examples: substituting a non-human primate by the use of a fish or substituting the use of fish with daphnia. These are both considered methods of refinement as they are likely to reduce the pain, suffering and distress experienced by the animal, however, still requiring the use of live animals.

The "Three Rs" in EU legislative framework

The principle of the "Three Rs" has been present in the EU legislation in spirit, from as early as 1986, when the first EU legislation for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes was adopted.

However, Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, for the first time in EU legislation spells out the principle of the "Three Rs" and makes it a firm legal requirement. The principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement must be considered systematically at all times when animals are used for scientific purposes in the EU. Under the Directive, the term "scientific purposes" covers all uses of animals for the purposes of basic, translation and applied research, regulatory testing and production as well as for the purposes of education and training.

Furthermore, the Directive ensures that its application goes beyond that of the original, narrower interpretation of the "Three Rs" only in the context of choice of methods. The Directive enlarges the Refinement also to cover all animal breeding and care - that is, to ensure refinement during housing, breeding and care even if the animal is not undergoing a scientific procedure.

What are alternative approaches?

The term 'alternatives' in this context includes all assays, tests, methods, techniques, tools, strategies and approaches etc. that contribute to the practical implementation of the "Three Rs". That is

to obtain the required information without the use of live animals;

to reduce the numbers of animals whilst obtaining the same level of information;

to refine the use of live animals so as to cause less pain, distress or suffering, or improve the welfare of the animals.

Alternative approaches provide opportunities to advance the "Three Rs", but equally aim at developing better and more predictive scientific tools to protect human and animal health and the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Additional tools What are the "Three Rs"? The publication of "The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique" by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch in 1959 marks the birth of the principle of the "Three Rs". The authors proposed the principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (the "Three Rs") as the key strategies of a systematic framework aimed at achieving the goal of humane experimental techniques.

# data[].attributes.body
More information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are the 3Rs? I Definitions | Replacement | Reduction | Refinement | Our impacts

What are the 3Rs?

The principles of the 3Rs ( Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) were developed over 50 years ago providing a framework for performing more humane animal research. Since then they have been embedded in national and international legislation and regulations on the use of animals in scientific procedures, as well as in the policies of organisations that fund or conduct animal research. Opinion polls of public attitudes consistently show that support for animal research is conditional on the 3Rs being put into practice.

The NC3Rs is the UK's national organisation for the 3Rs. Our strategy is to advance the 3Rs by focusing on their scientific impacts and benefits. We have re-defined the standard 3Rs definitions so that they are more reflective of contemporary scientific practice and developments.

Definitions of the 3Rs

Methods which avoid or replace the use of animals

Accelerating the development and use of models and tools, based on the latest science and technologies, to address important scientific questions without the use of animals

Methods which minimise the number of animals used per experiment

Appropriately designed and analysed animal experiments that are robust and reproducible, and truly add to the knowledge base

Methods which minimise animal suffering and improve welfare

Advancing research into animal welfare by exploiting the latest in vivo technologies and by improving understanding of the impact of welfare on scientific outcomes

Replacement

Replacement refers to technologies or approaches which directly replace or avoid the use of animals in experiments where they would otherwise have been used.

For many years research animals have been used to answer important scientific questions including those related to human health. Animal models are often costly and time-consuming and depending on the research question present scientific limitations, such as poor relevance to human biology. Alternative models can address some of these concerns. In the last decade or so, advances in science and technology have meant that there are now realistic opportunities to replace the use of animals.

We divide replacement into two key categories, full and partial replacement.

Full replacement avoids the use of any research animals. It includes the use of human volunteers, tissues and cells, mathematical and computer models, and established cell lines.

Partial replacement includes the use of some animals that, based on current scientific thinking, are not considered capable of experiencing suffering. This includes invertebrates ¹ such as Drosophila, nematode worms and social amoebae, and immature forms of vertebrates ². Partial replacement also includes the use of primary cells (and tissues) taken from animals killed solely for this purpose (i.e. not having been used in a scientific procedure that causes suffering).

¹ Note cephalopods such as octopuses and squid are protected in the UK by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

2 Under the UK's the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 embryonic and fetal forms of mammals, birds and reptiles are protected during the last third of their gestation or incubation period, fish and amphibians once they can feed independently, and cephalopods at the point they hatch. Embryonic and fetal forms are protected from an earlier stage of development if they are going to live beyond the stage described above and the procedure is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm after they have developed to that stage.

Reduction

Reduction refers to methods that minimise the number of animals used per experiment or study consistent with the scientific aims. It is essential for reduction that studies with animals are appropriately designed and analysed to ensure robust and reproducible findings.

Reduction also includes methods which allow the information gathered per animal in an experiment to be maximised in order to reduce the use of additional animals. Examples of this include the use of some imaging modalities which allow longitudinal measurements in the same animal to be taken (rather than for example culling cohorts of animals at specific time points), or microsampling of blood, where small volumes enable repeat sampling in the same animal. In these scenarios, it is important to ensure that reducing the number of animals used is balanced against any additional suffering that might be caused by their repeated use.

Sharing data and resources (e.g. animals, tissues and equipment) between research groups and organisations can also contribute to reduction.

Refinement

Refinement refers to methods that minimise the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that may be experienced by research animals, and which improve their welfare. Refinement applies to all aspects of animal use, from their housing and husbandry to the scientific procedures performed on them. Examples of refinement include ensuring the animals are provided with housing that allows the expression of species-specific behaviours, using appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia to minimise pain, and training animals to cooperate with procedures to minimise any distress.

Evidence suggests that pain and suffering can alter an animal's behaviour, physiology and immunology. Such changes can lead to variation in experimental results that impairs both the reliability and repeatability of studies.

We have recently published our strategy for improving animal welfare.

Our impacts

Our 3Rs impacts are wide ranging, from policy and regulatory change to the development and uptake of new technologies and approaches.

Here we provide case studies from the research we have funded at UK institutions to illustrate the breadth of the science we support and the benefits delivered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are the 3Rs? I Definitions | Replacement | Reduction | Refinement | Our impacts The principles of the 3Rs ( Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) were developed over 50 years ago providing a framework for performing more humane animal research.

# data[].attributes.body
* Is the use of animals allowed for research in cosmetics?
* Is Directive 2010/63 / EU mandatory?
* Do you know what stereotyped behavior is? When it occurs in animals?

# data[].attributes.headline
Everyone ready to participate in the Kahoot!

# data[].attributes.subject
Everyone ready to participate in the Kahoot!

# data[].attributes.body
Get all the information ready.
Connect your smartphone.
Join at www.kahoot.it or with the Kahoot! app.
Enter the game PIN that appears on the screen

Luck!

# data[].attributes.body
Choose a sentence and use 5 different fallacious arguments to affirm or refute it:

It is better to adopt a dog than to buy it

Animals should not be used for research

We should not eat animals

Horses should not be used to make antibodies for people

It's okay to ban parties with animals

# data[].attributes.body
Now, using the same sentence, write 5 valid arguments that affirm or refute it.

Give the completed form to the teacher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
§1. What is a good argument?

In this tutorial we shall discuss what a good argument is. The concept of a good argument is of course quite vague. So what we are trying to do here is to give it a somewhat more precise definition. To begin with, make sure that you know what a sound argument is.

Criterion #1 : A good argument must have true premises

This means that if we have an argument with one or more false premises, then it is not a good argument. The reason for this condition is that we want a good argument to be one that can convince us to accept the conclusion. Unless the premises of an argument are all true, we would have no reason to accept to accept its conclusion.

Criterion #2 : A good argument must be either valid or strong

Is validity a necessary condition for a good argument? Certainly many good arguments are valid. Example:

All whales are mammals.
All mammals are warm-blooded.
So all whales are warm-blooded.

But it is not true that good arguments must be valid. We often accept arguments as good, even though they are not valid. Example:

No baby in the past has ever been able to understand quantum physics.
Kitty is going to have a baby soon.
So Kitty's baby is not going to be able to understand quantum physics.

This is surely a good argument, but it is not valid. It is true that no baby in the past has ever been able to understand quantum physics. But it does not follow logically that Kitty's baby will not be able to do so. To see that the argument is not valid, note that it is not logically impossible for Kitty's baby to have exceptional brain development so that the baby can talk and learn and understand quantum physics while still being a baby. Extremely unlikely to be sure, but not logically impossible, and this is enough to show that the argument is not valid. But because such possibilities are rather unlikely, we still think that the true premises strongly support the conclusion and so we still think that the argument is a good one.

In other words, a good argument need not be valid. But presumably if it is not valid it must be inductively strong. If an argument is inductively weak, then it cannot be a good argument since the premises do not provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion.

For more information about inductive strength, see the previous tutorial.

Criterion #3 : The premises of a good argument must not beg the question

Notice that criteria #1 and #2 are not sufficient for a good argument. First of all, we certainly don't want to say that circular arguments are good arguments, even if they happen to be sound. Suppose someone offers the following argument:

It is going to rain tomorrow. Therefore, it is going to rain tomorrow.

So far we think that a good argument must (1) have true premises, and (2) be valid or inductively strong. Are these conditions sufficient? The answer is no. Consider this example:

Smoking is bad for your health.
Therefore smoking is bad for your health.

This argument is actually sound. The premise is true, and the argument is valid, because the conclusion does follow from the premise! But as an argument surely it is a terrible argument. This is a circular argument where the conclusion also appears as a premise. It is of course not a good argument, because it does not provide independent reasons for supporting the conclusion. So we say that it begs the question.

Here is another example of an argument that begs the question :

Since Mary would not lie to her best friend, and Mary told me that I am indeed her best friend, I must really be Mary's best friend.

Whether this argument is circular depends on your definition of a "circular argument". Some people might not consider this a circular argument in that the conclusion does not appear explicitly as a premise. However, the argument still begs the question and so is not a good argument.

Criterion #4 : The premises of a good argument must be plausible and relevant to the conclusion

Here, plausibility is a matter of having good reasons for believing that the premises are true. As for relevance, this is the requirement that the the subject matter of the premises must be related to that of the conclusion. Why do we need this additional criterion? The reason is that claims and theories can happen to be true even though nobody has got any evidence that they are true. If the premises of an argument happen to be true but there is no evidence indicating that they are, the argument is not going to be pursuasive in convincing people that the conclusion is correct. A good argument, on the other hand, is an argument that a rational person should accept, so a good argument should satisfy the additional criterion mentioned.

§2. Summary

So, here is our final definition of a good argument :

A good argument is an argument that is either valid or strong, and with plausible premises that are true, do not beg the question, and are relevant to the conclusion.

Now that you know what a good argument is, you should be able to explain why these claims are mistaken. Many people who are not good at critical thinking often make these mistakes :

"The conclusion of this argument is true, so some or all the premises are true."

"One or more premises of this argument are false, so the conclusion is false."

"Since the conclusion of the argument is false, all its premises are false."

"The conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premises. So it must be false."

Answer the following questions.

1. Does a good argument have to be sound? answer

2. Can a good argument be inductively weak? answer

These are some arguments (or just premises) that students have given to support the idea that there is nothing morally wrong with eating meat. Discuss and evaluate these arguments carefully. Think about whether the premises are true, and whether they support the conclusion that it is morally acceptable to eat meat.

1. Human beings are part of the food cycle of nature.

2. Human beings are able to digest meat.

3. It is ok to eat meat because meat is just a kind of food and we need food to survive.

4. It is ok to eat meat because lots of people eat meat; because everyone around me eat meat.

5. It is ok to eat meat because the government does not stop people from eating meat.

6. Many other people eat meat.

7. Meat contains protein, and we need protein to survive.

8. We are animals, and it is ok for animals to eat animals.

9. It is ok to eat meat because I started eating meat when I was a child.

10. Meat is more tasty than vegetables.

11. It is ok to eat meat because nobody told me that this is wrong.

12. I love eating meat.

13. It is ok to eat meat because set meals in restaurants have very little vegetables.

14. Animals kill each other.

15. Maintain the balance of nature - there will be too many animals otherwise.

16. We are more powerful than animals.

17. I was taught that I should eat meat.

18. Human beings are at the top of the food chain.

19. Eating meat can help me avoid certain diseases.

20. We have special teeth for eating meat.

§3. A technical discussion

This section is a more abstract and difficult. You can skip this if you want.

One interesting but somewhat difficult issue about the definition of a good argument concerns the first requirement that a good argument must have true premises. One might argue that this requirement is too stringent, because we seem to accept many arguments as good arguments, even if we are not completely certain that the premises are true. Or perhaps we had good reasons for the premises, even if it turns out later that we were wrong.

As an example, suppose your friend told you that she is going camping for the whole weekend. She is a trustworthy friend and you have no reason to doubt her. So you accept the following argument as a good argument:

Amie will be camping this weekend. So she will not be able to come to my party.

But suppose the camping trip got cancelled at the last minute, and so Amie came to the party after all. What then should we say about the argument here? Was it a good argument? Surely you were justified in believing the premise, and so someone might argue that it is wrong to require that a good argument must have true premises. It is enough if the premises are highly justified (of course the other conditions must be satisfied as well.)

If we take this position, this implies that when we discover that the camping trip has been cancelled, we are no longer justified in believing the premise, and so at that point the argument ceases to be a good argument.

Here we prefer a different way of describing the situation. We want to say that although in the beginning we had good reasons to think that the argument is a good one, later on we discover that it wasn't a good argument to begin with. In other words, the argument doesn't change from being a good argument to a bad argument. It is just that we change our mind about whether the argument is a good one in light of new information. We think there are are reasons for preferring this way of describing the situation, and it is quite a natural way of speaking.

So there are actually two ways to use the term "good argument". We have adopted one usage here and it is fine if you want to use it differently. We think the ordinary meaning of the term is not precise enough to dictate a particular usage. What is important is to know very clearly how you are using it and what the consequences are as a result.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this tutorial we shall discuss what a good argument is. The concept of a good argument is of course quite vague. So what we are trying to do here is to give it a somewhat more precise definition. To begin with, make sure that you know what a sound argument is.

# data[].attributes.body
Choose one of the following problems, they are numbered from 1 to 4.
You must present your conclusions in an oral presentation. Use prezi.com as digital support.

# data[].attributes.body
This document contains the rubic items to be evaluated in this work.