Science Department to Offer Dissection-Free Biology Alternative
In response to an initiative by Exeter’s Animal Rights Club (ARC), the science department has decided to offer an alternative to animal dissections in introductory biology classes. Students who have demonstrated significant, longstanding objections to dissections can now enroll in separate sections of Biology 220 and 320 that will offer alternative learning aids in place of the traditional dissections.
The curriculum of introductory biology classes places emphasis on student learning through hands-on dissections, with six weeks of the term dedicated to the dissection of a fetal pig in Biology 320. For some students, these dissections are in outright violation of their moral views on animal rights, making it difficult and disturbing to participate in them. Upper Lily Friedland, who spearheaded the initiative, particularly struggled with having to perform dissections in her prep year biology class. According to history instructor Amy Schwartz, who is affiliated with Friedland’s dorm, Friedland handled the challenge “exceptionally well,” but her choice not to partake in the dissections affected her coursework. “She considered leaving Exeter, and obviously it had been a very tough experience for her,” Schwartz said. “I told her that I respected her for taking this principled stand and that if she wanted to do anything specific to follow up, I would support her.”
Over the summer of 2015, Schwartz and Friedland laid the groundwork for an Animal Rights Club at Exeter, which began meeting regularly last year. After researching alternative learning aids adopted by other schools, club members lower Anna Clark and upper Emmett Shell, along with Friedland and Schwartz, approached biology teachers to discuss a way to support students who opposed dissections. In a meeting last spring, ARC presented their beliefs and fielded questions from the department. Science instructor Anne Rankin, who had been Friedland’s teacher prep year, said, “We were incredibly impressed with their preparation for that meeting, with the tone they took with us and the approach they took to the issue. We heard their concern and we wanted to react to it at an appropriate way.”
“I think it’s amazing, rare and special that a small group of students who really cared about a cause could bring about a huge change in the policy of an entire department.”
Faculty members expressed several concerns during the meeting, including that many students are initially squeamish about dissection but end up learning a great deal from it, and that alternative learning tools might not be as detailed and effective as dissections. In addition, scheduling and staffing alternative sections of biology could be burdensome for the department and the scheduler. Finally, some teachers worried that students who express a desire to avoid dissection might not be truly committed to animal rights—for instance, they might be meat-eaters. However, according to Schwartz, “the students had good answers in response to these various challenges.” Despite observing that some teachers appeared skeptical, Schwartz recalled that they were all listening very carefully to the students. “It was a very productive meeting,” she concluded.
ARC expected to have another meeting with the science department, but the members were excited to learn at the end of this fall that the faculty had voted to create separate sections of both Biology 220 and 320 in which students could enroll after submitting a statement explaining their ethical objections to dissections and their demonstrated dedication to animal rights. “ARC was very happily surprised by this,” upper Emmett Shell explained. He went on, saying, “I think bio teachers actually care about animal rights more than may meet the eye.” Crediting the department for being so open-minded, Shell said, “I think it’s amazing, rare and special that a small group of students who really cared about a cause could bring about a huge change in the policy of an entire department.”
Schwartz echoed his amazement. “In my 16 years here, I cannot remember a department changing its curriculum in such a fundamental way solely because students asked it to do so,” she observed. Expressing her confidence that the policy change will have positive effects, making biology even more accessible and enjoyable to students, she said, “It made me proud to work here, to know them and to have been a part of it.”
Lower Anna Clark noted that while she does not think there is anything wrong with people who do choose to do dissections, she finds fault with the inhumane methods practiced at certain breeding facilities. “There are many alternatives to dissections that have been tested and shown to work just as well,” Clark said. “There are online dissection simulations of many animals from frogs to cats to fetal pigs, and there are even some three-dimensional models.”
Similarly, senior Connie Cai recognized that while there is definite scientific merit in doing dissections, especially for learning and visualising biological systems, she is “all for being flexible with people who have legitimate moral concerns with animal dissections.” In her opinion, offering an alternative to dissections might in fact be even more convenient, and “as long as they can still learn the same amount, there’s no net loss to anyone.”
As Clark pointed out, research has documented the effectiveness of using dissection alternatives in teaching anatomy, and in most cases, students who participated in the alternative performed as well or better than students who did the dissection. Shell, who shares Clark’s opposition to dissections on ethical grounds, agreed that dissecting animals might not be outdated, provided that the animal is not killed solely for dissection, but failing to offer students with an alternative is “certainly outdated.”
Other schools, including Tabor Academy, have moved towards implementing dissection alternatives in their biology curriculum. According to Rankin, Tabor ran a small trial with one group of students watching videos of dissection, another performing the actual dissection and the third making models of an organ out of clay; in a common assessment at the end, the group who had worked with clay scored the highest. “That makes us curious about what we can find that could be genuinely hands on and provide the some of the same aspects as dissection without using the actual animal,” Rankin said. “We’re in a bit of uncharted territory,” she continued, saying, “I’m guessing it’s not going to be simply video dissection, it’s not going to be pictures. We’re going to be looking for a richer and more rigorous alternative than either of those, but we’re excited to do that work with kids who are interested to do it with us.”
Though the biology teachers still feel that dissection is a valuable experience for the vast majority of students without moral objections, the department wanted and ultimately decided to respect those few students who do. Science teacher Townley Chisholm expressed regret that some students would not benefit from the learning opportunities offered by dissection and said, “Our course catalog makes the value we place on learning from dissections very clear, and I am sorry to see students miss out on that learning, though I certainly recognize the sincerity and admire the kindness behind the request for an alternative.”
Rankin pointed out that the biology curriculum should be accessible to all students, even those who oppose dissection. “My personal opinion is that I love biology, and I want to share that with kids in a way that does not oppose their moral position,” she said. “I think the world needs more people with strong moral positions, and as a teacher I feel like my job is to respect those moral positions that students have devoted a lot of time and energy towards.”