The two position or thesis statements have been careful constructed so
that there is no “easy” answer to the problem. Each contains two parts,
one part serving as the “cost” of the choice.

  • Write the text of the two thesis statements and conduct a brief review of the two parts of each. (The cost is underlined in each.)

    • Pro Thesis: The doctor should be allowed to continue searching for a cure for the plague, using his 'subject' in medical experiments.
    • Con Thesis: The creation must be set free, and the doctor must stop his experiments to find a cure for the plague.

Is it okay to experiment on the thing to find a cure for what is killing people?
Gene (con-thesis)
Stan-(pro thesis)
-doesn't believe in experiment
-reasons: doctor has no legal rights-against the law
creation is human
doctor is a bit odd, can't trust him with our lives
doctor is not the only hope
doctor isn't popular to the citizens
-is okay
reasons: one creature: one life sacrificed for benefit of many
isn't human so does not have human rights
creature is too dangerous to be loose
he is our only hope, really smart, no other solution
it is urgent and plague is killing the town
it is his(doc) creation

The Plague Unit will position students as investigative reporters.
The Plague Unit seeks to give students a sense of presence within the
space of Ingolstadt by positioning them as young adults learning the final
skills to become investigative reporters. Their final project is to find out
about the mysterious plague that is causing havoc in the village. By
taking on the apprentice reporter’s personna, students enter the space
with a feeling of identity, purpose, and importance. They aren’t there
simply to look around, but to impact the space around them.
Investigative reporting by its nature requires the Quester to view
details, facts, and evidence critically, and the format of the Missions
ensures that they make a physical effort to uncover that evidence for

McLaughlin raps cage rule

Bigger mouse containers costly and unneeded, research institute says


Tribune Staff Writer

New guidelines for laboratory rodent housing could squeeze Great Falls’ McLaughlin Research Institute and many other universities and laboratories across the country that use rodents in research.

A new edition of the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,” published in January 2011 recommends keeping fewer mice in each cage or moving from shoeboxsized cages to larger breadbox-sized mouse housing.

Previously, a breeding pair or trio, plus a litter of pups, could be housed inside the shoebox cage with a 51-square-inch floor.

“Now we can only have a mother and a litter in here,” said Julie Amato, animal resource center supervisor at McLaughlin.

McLaughlin Research Institute is a private, nonprofit research organization that mainly uses mice to study disease development and susceptibility.

Housing a breeding trio — two mothers and father — together is ideal for a number of reasons, Amato said.

One is that if one of the mothers doesn’t care for her pups, the other mother generally will step in to nurse and otherwise take care of them.

“This really helps the survival of the pups, having two moms in there,” Amato said.

McLaughlin Research Institute facility manager Julie Amato holds up the current containment unit used by the Institute to house its research mice. The lab will have to provide larger containers for its mice in the future. TRIBUNE PHOTO/RION SANDERS


Also, female mice are particularly fertile for four days after delivering a litter, so having the male remain in the cage helps speed breeding. Taking the male out immediately would slow breeding by at least three weeks per breeding cage, said Dr. Deborah Cabin, research scientist at McLaughlin.

The cage size standards for adult mice are based on animal weight, Cabin said. Instead of four mice being housed in a shoeboxsized cage, only three adult mice would be allowed. Four or five mice could live in the larger breadbox-sized cage with a 136-square-inch floor.

The Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, which accredits McLaughlin and most other research institutes, adopted the guide’s new standards in September 2011 and McLaughlin and all other institutes that accept National Institutes of Health funding are required to have them in place by September 2012.

McLaughlin researchers are not pleased about the new guidelines.

“I’m not sure what motivated the change,” said Dr. George Carlson, McLaughlin director.

The decision to change the cage size requirements in the guide was not substantiated by scientific findings, he said. “There really are no published studies showing the larger cages are beneficial,” Amato said.

Some studies find that mice do better in smaller cages.

Mice, which are nocturnal, spend most of the day bunched together sleeping, typically in a back corner of their cage.

“They get in these little huddles all on top of each other in a corner,” Cabin said. At night, they’re more active, moving around, burrowing in their bedding, and eating and drinking.

If there were a good reason for mice to be in larger cages, McLaughlin would happily conform to the new rules, Amato said.

“The mice are our bread and butter,” she said.

Nearly all of the institute’s research relies on the animals, and therefore its funding does, too.

Cages and the rooms where the mice are housed are specially designed for the animals’ safety and comfort. Everything from light to temperature to humidity is regulated.

“We want them to thrive and be happy,” Amato said.

McLaughlin currently houses between 18,000 and 20,000 mice. It has the capacity for 30,000 to 40,000 mice, but because fewer animals are allowed in each cage and larger cages take up more room, the change would greatly reduce the number of mice the institute could keep.

It would likely reduce McLaughlin’s mouse census by approximately 50 percent, Amato said.

Converting to all new cages would be a huge expense. Each large cage costs more than $100 and fits into a rack that ventilates each individual cage. Each rack is about $50,000.

Converting to all-new cages would easily exceed $1 million, Amato said.

The new guidelines also require that only pharmaceutical- grade chemicals or substances be used on mice. Following that guideline would be expensive, and in some cases a pharmaceutical-grade equivalent isn’t available for some of the chemicals used on mice, Cabin said.

Instead, McLaughlin researchers hope they’ll be able to amend some of the new guidelines through the center’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Each research organization that uses animals is overseen by a community-based animal- use committee made up a veterinarian, a scientist, a layperson and others.

If the committee agrees to different standards, McLaughlin can use those standards, but must provide documentation to justify the alternate standards. For example, McLaughlin could show its strong breeding and survival rates as an argument for using the previously accepted caging.

An amendment by the committee doesn’t guarantee McLaughlin that its alternate standards will be accepted by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation.

“There’s this catch 22,” said Cabin, who chairs McLaugh-lin’s animal-use committee.

But trying to amend the new guidelines is probably the best option.

“I don’t know what we can do,” Cabin said. “We simply wouldn’t have the money to change over by September.”

Cabin guesses many research institutions also will amend the guidelines through their animal-use committees.

McLaughlin is a small institution, so larger research organizations would be looking at millions of dollars to make the change, she said.

Reach Tribune staff writer Erin Madison at 791-1466, 800-438-6600 or Follow her on Twitter@GFTrib_EMadison.


McLaughlin Research Institue mice are displayed here in their current cage size, above, and their new, larger cage size, below on Thursday. TRIBUNE PHOTO/RION SANDERS