Opinions vary on whether it's essential to dissect or
experiment on animals to learn about them. Many non-animal alternatives
are readily available, but students and teachers often don't know this.
A valid alternative is one that harms no animals.
Watching others work isn't necessarily acceptable.
Supporters of animal use often claim if students don't
want "to get their hands wet" they shouldn't study biology.
Recently, without supporting data, the Human Anatomy and
Physiology Society asserted "dissection and the manipulation of animal
tissues and organs are essential elements in scientific investigation
and introduce students to the excitement and challenge of future
careers."
While there's no doubt animal use has played a major
role in education, it's not clear it's essential. We certainly expect
more from students than simple appeals to history to defend ideas.
Many biology departments, including mine (and those at
local high schools), provide alternatives (computer simulations, models,
videos) for students opposed to animal use. Sue Rodriguez-Pastor, a
graduate student, now offers a non-dissection laboratory in general
biology. We also offer courses that satisfy our animal science
requirement that don't require animal use; students know in advance
what's expected.
It's essential to have clearly stated policies informing
students what options are available so responsible choices can be made.
So is dissection a cut above non-animal alternatives?
No. There's no evidence "hands on" experience is essential. Almost 20
studies comparing the educational effectiveness of non-animal
alternatives show they're often at least as good, if not better and
usually less costly, for achieving intended goals (http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/compare.html).
Equal knowledge or equivalent surgical skills are acquired using
alternatives.
Of 2,913 first-year biology undergraduates, exam results
of 308 students who studied model rats were the same as those of 2,605
students who dissected rats. When the surgical skills of 36 third-year
veterinary students who trained on soft-tissue organ models were
compared to those of students who trained on dogs and cats, each group
performed the same. And, in a study of 110 medical students, computer
demonstrations were rated higher for learning about cardiovascular
physiology than experiments using dogs.
There are numerous alternatives to cutting up live
animals or using prepared specimens. Two excellent sources are NORINA
(Norwegian Inventory of Audio-visuals; http://oslovet.veths.no/NORINA)
and Johns Hopkins University's Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Web site (http://altweb.jhsph.edu).
Others include my "Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and
Animal Welfare" (Greenwood , 1998) and "From Guinea Pig to Computer
Mouse: Alternative Methods for a Humane Education" (European Network of
Individuals and Campaigns for Humane Education, 1997; see also http://www.aavs.org.)
Questioning how biology is taught isn't to be against
science or "radical." Open, frank discussions will produce more
responsible science. Decisions against using animals don't compromise
sound education. Indeed, many students are making this choice (http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/annotate.html)
and Johns Hopkins University's Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Web site (http://altweb.jhsph.edu).
Marc Bekoff (marc.bekoff@colorado.edu) teaches in the
Environmental , Population and Organismic Biology Department at the
University of Colorado.
March 14, 1999
<> <> <> <> <>
Copyright 1999 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved. Any copying,
redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service
without the express written consent of The Daily Camera is expressly
prohibited. Users of this site are subject to our User Agreement. You
may also read our Privacy Policy.
Go on to Top 10
Reasons Why It's Great To Be A Dog
Return to 19 April 2000 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
