Need for Alternatives for Animals in Education and the Alternative Resources

Animals have long played an important role in education and research. In higher education, in particular, animals are used to teach systematics, anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and psychology. Many science courses use dissection to help students understand animal anatomy and also to provide them with skills in medical operation/surgical techniques. The practice of animal dissection in laboratories dates back to the late 1800’s. The two aspects of animal killing in science education include dissection and vivisection, for which approximately 170 species of animals are used. Dissection is the exploration of dead animals to study their anatomy and physiology, whereas vivisection is animal experimentation, involving cutting, burning, shocking, drugging, starving, irradiating, blinding, or killing of animals. Every year, millions of animals – cats, frogs, fetal pigs, grasshoppers, minks, earthworms, rats, mice, dogs, pigeons, lizards, etc., – are dissected or vivisected in schools, colleges, and universities. In most of these cases the animals are captured live from the wild. In fact, to meet the heavy demand of the classrooms a single supplier catches 3000 frogs per month, one report says. The consequent loss of biodiversity is unimaginable and poses a serious threat to the fragile environment. The World Conservation Union reported in 2004 that one-third of all amphibian species around the globe, including frogs, were threatened with extinction. For example, thousands of frogs were collected and killed in India for educational purposes, resulting in a decline of the population of aquatic amphibians such as Rana (=Euphlyctis) hexadactyla and Rana (=Hoplobatrachus) tigrina (tigerinus). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) have estimated that about 6 million frogs are killed for dissection each year. Similarly, the declining population of Sara hardwickii (Uromastix hardwickii), the spiny-tailed lizard, is notably attributable to their large-scale removal from the wild for the purpose of education and research (Dr Krishan K. Sharma, personal communication). Although habitat loss, pollution, and climate change are the primary causes for the decline of the population of these species, demand for dissection specimens increases pressure on this threatened species. An appropriate and commonly accepted goal of education is to teach individuals to think independently in an analytical and critical way. To achieve this goal, a teacher must become less of an authority, whose role is to simply pass on information, and more of a facilitator, whose role is to promote questioning, exploration, and synthesis. In addition, teachers – and, more importantly, the education boards, the Boards of Studies, and Academic Councils – should frame syllabi and courses in such a manner that ethical education is disseminated and does not contradict the curriculum. It is ironic that Zoology/Life Science teachers on one hand emphasize the importance of biodiversity/ wildlife conservation but on the other hand practice dissection in education (Sathyanarayana, 2009). It has been much debated as to whether animal dissection is a process of learning or skill development. According to Rosse (1995), dissection is a destructive (rather than a constructive) process that destroys many of the specimen’s structures and their spatial relationships, precluding reexamination by the students. Generally, dissection is too focused on the acquisition of facts while failing to teach students to conceptualize and synthesize (Rollin, 1990). In the realm of basic sciences, it provides little learning, and whatever skill is acquired has no relevance to the future careers of the learners (Akbarsha, 2007). Need for Alternatives for Animals in Education and the Alternative Resources