When faced with cutting or killing an animal, most students inwardly question dissection's efficacy as a learning tool, as well as its ethical correctness. In fact, published surveys indicate that, when presented with a choice, students prefer alternatives to dissection. For example, of 468 14- and 15- year-old students surveyed, 38 percent object to any animal or animal byproduct being used for dissection, 73 percent believe it is wrong to breed animals for dissection, and 84 percent felt that alternatives to animal experimentation should be available (Millett & Lock 1992).

Yet the myth of dissection as an essential component to science classes persists because of common misconceptions that dissection is "scientific" and also because "that's the way we've always done it." But this myth is easily dispelled when one considers that nine states (California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia) ensure a student's right to use the many existing alternatives to dissection. Since 1987, when only Florida upheld such legislation, the number of counties and states adopting these "students' rights" bills continues to increase steadily, indicating a much larger demand for humane science study than commonly perceived.

So why does dissection continue to outrank its many compassionate counterparts in the classroom? Because most teachers do not present dissection as a choice and rarely offer students a form for raising questions of ethics and scientific value in relation to dissection. Therefore, presenting students with the facts and choices about dissection is essential if they are to successfully oppose dissection in favor of humane and accurate alternatives.

Students must understand their rights as human beings first, and as students second. Laws, regulations and school requirements do not necessarily consider the ethical convictions of students; consequently, it is a student's fundamental right-even duty-to object to behaviors and acts that are in opposition to his or her sense of moral conduct.

Where do the animals come from?
Schools order their animals (usually fish, worms, mice, rats, fetal pigs, rabbits, cats and dogs), from biological supply houses that each year turn the horror of capturing and killing 5.7 million animals into the highly profitable business of science class kits. Many animals, such as frogs, are taken illegally from their natural habitats. Devastation to the environment results because insect populations, normally kept in check by frogs, multiply exponentially and lead to the increased use of pesticides, which in turn poison and erode the entire ecosystem. Because many of these frog species are endangered, taking them from the wild amounts to poaching, which is a felony.

Additionally, rabbits, cats and dogs are often stolen from backyards, bought from pet stores or adopted from animal shelters, while pigs and sheep are purchased from slaughterhouses.

Undercover video investigations within the Carolina Biological Supply Company [CBSC], our nation's largest supplier, have yielded disturbing evidence of further deceit and cruelty.

Undercover video footage shows CBSC workers seizing animals with metal hooks, and then flinging them into overcrowded gas chambers. Unfortunately, many animals survive the gassing only to be subjected to embalming through infusions of burning formaldehyde into their bloodstreams. They are then left to die a slow and painful death.

What does dissection teach?
More than anything, the actions involved in dissection teach students to disregard the sanctity of life and their own intuitive compassion. Intentionally harming or killing another setient creature offends the sensitivities of most people, and studies demonstrate a close link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans.

Using dissection to study physiology can be likened to someone taking apart a care and inspecting a dislodged carburetor in order to understand the concept of the internal combustion engine. And studying anatomy be killing and cutting apart an animal simply to inspect the organs, then compare them to a labeled chart, amounts to nothing more than a callous and redundant act.

Is dissection mandatory?
Like any conduct that transgresses an individual's ethical convictions, dissection can never be forced under the constitution, regardless of the rules and regulations. Remember, you are a human being first, and a student or educator second. As mentioned before, seven states, with two more soon to follow, ensure students the right to alternatives to dissection.

But even within states and school districts that don't support such humane legislation, forcing a student to participate in dissection is arguably unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Though you may take a few extra steps to sidestep dissection, your efforts will likely succeed provided that your objection is presented to the teacher as soon as possible; that you immediately ask to substitute a humane project of equivalent effort: and that your reasons for declining dissection are based on ethical convictions as opposed to squeamishness and fear.

What are the alternatives?
Alternatives to dissection are comparable, abundant, diverse and easily accessible. Some of the many alternatives include technical illustrations and charts, interactive software, video, peel-away transparencies, plastic animal models with removable organs, and clinical observation.

Considering that dissecting animals are not reusable and that a new supply must be purchased each year [at an average cost of $9.30, the annual supply of bullfrogs for one class totals about $418.50], it simply makes sound financial sense to invest in the one-time cost, for example of The Great American Bullfrog [model] at $268.50, or The Digital Frog [Interactive CD-ROM] AT $150, or BioCam Concise dissection charts [frog] at $90. These educational tools, as well as many others, provide precise, equivalent studies in physiology and anatomy and pay for themselves in one to three years. They are accurate, easy to use and humane

Also, dissection alternatives are free from toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde that can harm students and the environment, and they leave no bio-hazardous waste to dispose of.

Furthermore, if a student or school does not have such a budget, alternatives may be borrowed through loan programs offered by several animal protection organizations such as the Ethical Science Education Coalition: [617] 367-9143.

return to top