Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Dissection
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Advantages and disadvantages== Proponents of animal-free teaching methodologies argue that alternatives to animal dissection can benefit educators by increasing teaching efficiency and lowering instruction costs while affording teachers an enhanced potential for the customization and repeat-ability of teaching exercises. Those in favor of dissection alternatives point to studies which have shown that computer-based teaching methods "saved academic and nonacademic staff time ... were considered to be less expensive and an effective and enjoyable mode of student learning [and] ... contributed to a significant reduction in animal use" because there is no set-up or clean-up time, no obligatory safety lessons, and no monitoring of misbehavior with animal cadavers, scissors, and scalpels.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |last1=Dewhurt |first1=D |last2=Jenkinson |first2=L |title=The impact of computer-based alternatives on the use of animals in undergraduate teaching: A pilot study |journal=ATLA |volume=23 |date=1995 |issue=4 |pages=521β530 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Predavec |first1=M. |title=Evaluation of E-Rat, a computer-based rat dissection, in terms of student learning outcomes |journal=Journal of Biological Education |date=2001 |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=75β80 |doi=10.1080/00219266.2000.9655746|s2cid=85201408 }}<!--|access-date=3 February 2015 --></ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Youngblut |first1=C. |title=Use of multimedia technology to provide solutions to existing curriculum problems: Virtual frog dissection |journal=Doctoral Dissertation |date=2001|bibcode=2001PhDT........42Y }}</ref> With software and other non-animal methods, there is also no expensive disposal of equipment or hazardous material removal. Some programs also allow educators to customize lessons and include built-in test and quiz modules that can track student performance. Furthermore, animals (whether dead or alive) can be used only once, while non-animal resources can be used for many yearsβan added benefit that could result in significant cost savings for teachers, school districts, and state educational systems.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Several peer-reviewed comparative studies examining information retention and performance of students who dissected animals and those who used an alternative instruction method have concluded that the educational outcomes of students who are taught basic and advanced biomedical concepts and skills using non-animal methods are equivalent or superior to those of their peers who use animal-based laboratories such as animal dissection.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Patronek |first1=G. J. |last2=Rauch |first2=A |s2cid=5164145 |title=Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education |journal=Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association |date=2007 |volume=230 |issue=1 |pages=37β43 |doi=10.2460/javma.230.1.37 |pmid=17199490}}<!--|access-date=3 February 2015 --></ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Knight |first1=A. |title=The effectiveness of humane teaching methods in veterinary education |journal=ALTEX |date=2007 |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=91β109 |doi=10.14573/altex.2007.2.91 |pmid=17728975 |doi-access= }}</ref> Some reports state that students' confidence, satisfaction, and ability to retrieve and communicate information was much higher for those who participated in alternative activities compared to dissection. Three separate studies at universities across the United States found that students who modeled body systems out of clay were significantly better at identifying the constituent parts of human anatomy than their classmates who performed animal dissection.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Waters |first1=J. R. |last2=Van Meter |first2=P. |last3=Perrotti |first3=W |last4=Drogo |first4=S |last5=Cyr |first5=R. J. |title=Cat dissection vs. sculpting human structures in clay: An analysis of two approaches to undergraduate human anatomy laboratory education |journal=Advances in Physiology Education |date=2005 |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=27β34 |doi=10.1152/advan.00033.2004|pmid=15718380 |s2cid=28694409 }}<!--|access-date=3 February 2015 --></ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Motoike |first1=H. K. |last2=O'Kane |first2=R. L. |last3=Lenchner |first3=E. |last4=Haspel |first4=C. |title=Clay modeling as a method to learn human muscles: A community college study |journal=Anatomical Sciences Education |date=2009 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=19β23 |doi=10.1002/ase.61|pmid=19189347 |s2cid=28441790 |doi-access=free }}<!--|access-date=3 February 2015 --></ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Waters |first1=J. R. |last2=Van Meter |first2=P. |last3=Perrotti |first3=W. |last4=Drogo |first4=S. |last5=Cyr |first5=R. J. |title=Human clay models versus cat dissection: How the similarity between the classroom and the exam affects student performance |journal=Advances in Physiology Education |date=2011 |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=227β236 |doi=10.1152/advan.00030.2009|pmid=21652509 }}<!--|access-date=3 February 2015 --></ref> Another study found that students preferred using clay modeling over animal dissection and performed just as well as their cohorts who dissected animals.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=DeHoff |first1=M. E. |last2=Clark |first2=K. L |last3=Meganathan |first3=K. |title=Learning outcomes and student perceived value of clay modeling and cat dissection in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology |journal=Advances in Physiology Education |date=2011 |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=68β75 |doi=10.1152/advan.00094.2010|pmid=21386004 |s2cid=19112983 }}<!--|access-date=3 February 2015 --></ref> In 2008, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) affirmed its support for classroom animal dissection stating that they "Encourage the presence of live animals in the classroom with appropriate consideration to the age and maturity level of the students ... NABT urges teachers to be aware that alternatives to dissection have their limitations. NABT supports the use of these materials as adjuncts to the educational process but not as exclusive replacements for the use of actual organisms."<ref>{{cite web |title=The Use of Animals in Biology Education |url=http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=97 |website=Position Statements: National Association of Biology Teachers |publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers |access-date=3 February 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150513074408/http%3A//www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p%3D97 |archive-date=13 May 2015 }}</ref> The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) "supports including live animals as part of instruction in the K-12 science classroom because observing and working with animals firsthand can spark students' interest in science as well as a general respect for life while reinforcing key concepts" of biological sciences. NSTA also supports offering dissection alternatives to students who object to the practice.<ref>{{cite web |title=NSTA Position Statement: Responsible Use of Live Animals and Dissection in the Science Classroom |url=http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/animals.aspx |website=National Science Teachers Association |access-date=3 February 2015}}</ref> The NORINA database lists over 3,000 products which may be used as alternatives or supplements to animal use in education and training.<ref>[http://oslovet.norecopa.no/NORINA NORINA]</ref>{{primary inline|reason=notability|date=November 2024}} These include alternatives to dissection in schools. InterNICHE has a similar database and a loans system.<ref>[http://www.interniche.org InterNICHE]</ref>{{primary inline|reason=notability|date=November 2024}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)