The principles of the 3Rs—replacement, refinement, and reduction—strongly shape discussion of methods for performing more humane animal research and the regulation of this contested area of technoscience. This special issue looks back to the origins of the 3Rs principles through five papers that explore how it is enacted and challenged in practice and that develop critical considerations about its future. Three themes connect the papers in this special issue. These are the multiplicity of roles enacted by those who use and (...) care for animals in research, the distribution of “feelings that matter” across species and spaces of laboratory animal practice, and the growing importance of “cultures of care” in animal research. (shrink)

SummaryThe germs of future development, contained in Aristotle's logical works, are indicated, and their influence on the later evolution of logic is explained.The history of symbolic logic since Boole's Mathematical analysis and De Morgan's Formal logic, both of which were published in 1847, is divided into four approximately subsequent phases, viz.:1. algebra of logic; this phase is characterized by Boole's work;2. logical foundation of mathematics; this phase is characterized by Frege's, Peano's and Russell's work, by the discovery of the antonomies (...) of logic and set theory, by the Couturat‐Poincaré debate and by the rise of Brouwer's intuitionism;3. intuitive metamathematics, concentrating in Hilbert's attempts towards a consistency proof for classical analysis; the discovery of Gödel's theorem necessitated a change of policy;4. axiomatic methodology, deriving from Hilbert's metamathematics and culminating so far in Tarski's semantics. — E. W. B. (shrink)

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that the assignment of Godel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Godel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Godel number 28. 320. 514. 782 The correction to be made on (...) page 294, L 20 is obvious. (shrink)

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the tact that the assignment of Gödel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Gödel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Gödel number 23. 329. 514. 732 The correction to be made on (...) page 294, l. 20 is obvious. (shrink)