Dissection - the arguments

The Senior Secondary Assessment Board (SSABSA) sets the senior high school curriculum in South Australia. It lists dissection of a rat as an optional practical at year 12 level. Obviously SSABSA doesn't think dissection is essential.

If you object to dissecting animals or animal parts:

Find out early in your course whether any dissection is planned. If it is, approach your teacher well before the due date. Your teacher can't make alternative arrangements if you leave it to the last minute.
Be logical and polite. Present a clear argument about why you are opposed to dissection.
Suggest alternatives. This will make your teacher's job easier.
If you've followed these steps and your teacher is still being uncooperative, enlist the support of your parents. If you're still stuck, contact Animal Liberation. Remember, if you object to dissection, it is your right to refuse.

Read the rest of this document for more information about why dissection is not necessary. If you want to know more about alternatives, go to Dissection - the Alternatives.

Why is dissection wrong?

Animals are not tools or objects that exist only for human use. They have feelings, and can get a lot of pleasure from their lives. Anyone who has close contact with animals knows how much they look forward to and enjoy some activities. On the other hand, they can be frightened and distressed in other situations. Like humans, animals also have a strong instinct to live.

We accept that it is wrong to deliberately harm or kill other humans, even if they are very intellectually handicapped, or unable to speak. We should show consideration to all people, not because of their intelligence or ability to communicate, but because they have feelings and can be harmed by our actions. The same is true of animals. Why should we show them less consideration just because their feelings exist in a different kind of body?

Barbara Orlans, who teaches anatomy and physiology at Georgetown University in Washington DC, thinks that dissection makes students less sensitive to animal suffering. She says (1):
" Heavy exposure to dissection can harden attitudes toward animal suffering and foster disrespect for animal life. The killing of millions of animals each year for teen-agers' education fosters the impression that animal life is cheap. In times when we are struggling to reduce violence in our society, the practice of harming and killing sentient creatures to conduct an "educational exercise" seems out of place ."

According to Barbara Orlans there is a certain hypocrisy involved in dissection:
" It can be very confusing to students to be taught on the one hand to care for animals and revere life when on the other hand they see destruction of life in their biology classes. " (2)

Whether the animals have been killed especially for school dissections, or whether they are being disposed of by a university, they are being treated as objects, rather than sentient creatures with lives of their own.

A story written by a year 11 student in Melbourne illustrates the lack of respect for animals in dissections. Go to Voices for the animals and read "Death of the Innocent".

Why is dissection unnecessary for learning?

There is no evidence that dissection is necessary for student learning. On the contrary, studies show that students learn just as well without dissection. This is what some of these studies found:

Students either dissected 4 different species of animal, or saw films of the dissections. The film group had better results on a test of anatomy knowledge. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of skill in using a scalpel (3).
In two different studies, one group dissected a frog while the other group studied frog dissection on an interactive videodisc. There was no difference in factual knowledge between the two groups in either study (4) (5).
Students in 5 schools were taught frog structure, function and adaptation either through lectures or dissection. The lecture groups improved more in the course of the study than the dissection groups (6).
In first year at the University of Glasgow around 1 in 8 students opt out of dissection and study anatomy with models instead. These students perform just as well on the final exam, even on questions relating to the dissections (7).

The opinion that dissection is necessary for effective learning is wrong. It is not based on fact. It is not necessary even for the minority of students who go on to study science, medicine or veterinary studies. The Professor of Ophthalmology in the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California has said:
" As one who did not dissect in high school, and who now is a veterinarian and trains doctors-to-be, I can unequivocally state that the experience of dissection, or similar exercise, is totally unnecessary for the biologically minded pre-college student" .

You can read more of the Professor's views on dissection by visiting the web site of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights.

Laws about dissection

Some governments have passed laws about dissection. In 1988 the government in Argentina banned dissection (and other harmful exercises) in schools for the reasons:

that biology is the science of life, and it is not consistent to teach it at the expense of the death of other beings;
that experiments on animals are part of a dangerous process which tends to desensitise the mind to pain, suffering, to respect and to life itself;
that it is necessary to promote knowledge of biology and channel scientific inquiry in a way totally consistent with respect and reverence for all forms of life;
that it is necessary to promote a scale of moral values which is humane, giving priority to creation and not destruction.

The state of California (USA) has a law to give school students the right not to participate in harmful or destructive uses of animals. Teachers who use animals, dead or alive, or animal parts have to inform students of this right. Teachers have to provide alternative activities which take a similar amount of time and effort as the dissection. Teachers may not penalise or discriminate against students who exercise their right to refuse dissection. The states of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Florida have similar laws to protect the rights of students (8).

If you want to know more about the alternatives to dissection, go to Dissection - the Alternatives.

References

Orlans B, "The case against dissection", The Science Teacher , 1991, vol 58 (12-14)
Orlans B, "Debating dissection", The Science Teacher , 1988, vol 55 (36-40)
Fowler H & Brosius E, "A research study on the values gained from dissection of animals in secondary school biology", Science Education , 1968, vol 52 (55-57)
Kinzie M, Strauss R & Foss J, "The effects of an interactive dissection simulation on the performance and achievement of high school biology students", Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 1993, vol 30 (989-1000)
Strauss R & Kinzie M, "Student achievement and attitudes in a pilot study comparing an interactive videodisc simulation to conventional dissection", The American Biology Teacher , 1994, vol 56 (398-402)
McCollum T, "The effect of animal dissections on student acquisition of knowledge of and attitudes toward the animals dissected", Dissertation Abstracts , 1988, vol 48 (2592-A)
Downie R & Meadows J, "Experience with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology", Journal of Biological Education , 1995, vol 29 (187-194)
Hepner L, Animals in Education , Albuquerque NM: Richmond Publishers, 1994