{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017985611510791366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002697841726618705, 'mean_word_length': 5.183333333333334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
For an ethics of experimentation. Moral arguments supporting 3Rs

A non-ideological approach to the moral questions posed by the use of animals for experimental purposes involves taking into account: i) the debate that has developed since the modern age on the ontological status of animals and on what is due to them or we must recognize; ii) the new frontiers of knowledge opened up by disciplines such as ethology, anthrozoology, animal psychology; iii) the arguments in support of or against experimentation with animals, referring also to new perspectives opened up by methodologies commonly defined as alternatives. Referring to the 3Rs, an important starting point is to critically consider the impasse generated by the conflict of interests between human and animal welfare or, in another respect, by the conflict of benefits for humans - costs for animals. Effective development of the 3Rs requires epistemological awareness and ethical competence as the assumption of responsibility by researchers and OPBA members for the well-being of humans and animals, giving reasons for the choices that are made.