It’s Time to Lose the Obsolete Tradition of Classroom Animal Dissections
By Hannah Park ‘24
Millions of animals of over 170 species including cats, frogs, and fetal pigs, are killed for school and university dissections in the U.S. each year, according to the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS).There are several safer and ethical non-animal alternatives that schools can easily adopt. Anatomy and physiology can be taught as effectively (and in most cases, better) as the traditional dissections, through digital programs, 3-D models, and synthetic animals.
The history of this cruel and dangerous way of learning dates back to the sixteenth century according to AAVS’s “History of Vivisection and Dissection” page of their “Dying to Learn” website. Andreas Vesalius, known as the founder of modern human anatomy, strongly believed that dissections would be a better anatomy learning tool than illustrations or book descriptions. Human corpses were first used until legal and ethical issues led to the common use of animals, as many did not have the same concerns for animals as they did for humans. After science curricula were brought to elementary through high school students, the number of animal dissections in high schools increased.
Though animal dissections have come a long way, the practice hasn’t adapted to the major progress technology has made so far. According to the 2019 article “How Teachers Use Technology in the Classroom” by David Nagel, 95 percent of teachers use some form of technology in their classrooms. With the COVID-19 pandemic, education technology has grown even more rapidly since the article. Now, there are many apps such as “3-D Frog Anatomy” and “Froggipedia,” a frog anatomy program that not only allows students to perform a virtual dissection, but also teaches students about a frog’s life cycle. Synthetic animals are another option, and had already been used for the first time at the J.W. Mitchell High School in New Port Richey, Florida in 2019. As stated in a literature review by the Society for Humane Science (SHS), in 88 percent of studies, non-animal ways of learning were greater or equal learning tools to dissection due to factors like more comfort in knowing that their synthetic or digital dissections didn’t contribute to the suffering of real animals.
Replacing traditional dissections with the stated choices will make a positive impact on the environment. According to the Humane Education brochure by the Animal Welfare Institute, around 99 percent of animals used for dissections are taken from their natural habitats, and as there are more than 12 million animals dissected in the US each year, it can greatly disrupt local populations and lead to biodiversity loss. With a diet of insects and as prey for many birds, reptiles, mammals, fish, and invertebrates, frogs are just one example of how damage to one animal species will always affect others as well. Amphibian populations are already declining due to a multitude of reasons such as pollution, climate change, and habitat destruction. They do not need another threat like the unnecessary killing for dissections.
Along with the harm it does to ecosystems, dissections often expose students to hazardous and foul-smelling chemicals used in embalming animals. The carcinogen formaldehyde, for example, is often used to preserve animals for dissections. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the CDC describes it as “a highly toxic systemic poison that is absorbed well by inhalation. The vapor is a severe respiratory tract and skin irritant and may cause dizziness or suffocation.”
Some may argue that animal dissections are cheaper than other methods, but the Academy has the funding to provide the alternatives. Although synthetic animals may be more expensive than their real counterparts, the students’ health and ecosystems’ benefits outweigh the high prices. Additionally, there are many mission-driven donors interested in donating for a good cause, which in this case, is for the environment. For apps that offer virtual dissections, they are the most economical choice. A single software can work for years, while animals must be thrown away and newly bought after every use.
There may also be arguments about growth in hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills as students learn to use sharp tools with animal dissections. Fortunately, synthetic animals that are man-made to be as realistic as possible allow students to have the same experience without any of the cons.
We, as students, have the ability to make a great difference. Sit out during classroom dissections, and convince your parents to write a letter to your teacher explaining your reasons for why you didn’t dissect with your class. Email your teacher about possible replacements. Talk with other students who share the same views. Petition for the creation of a policy that requires dissection alternatives. Continue to educate yourself and spread knowledge on the harm dissections bring to animals and humans.
