InterNICHE Co-ordinator
Nick Jukes
42 South Knighton Road
Leicester LE2 3LP
England
Tel/Fax +44 116 2109652
coordinator@interniche.org
|  |
|
Criticisms of Harmful Use
|
 About
InterNICHE
InterNICHE
National Contacts
About
Humane Education
Criticisms of Harmful Use
Despite an existing tradition of humane education, the majority
of animal use in education is harmful, and includes dissections for
anatomy, surgical practice, and physiology and pharmacology
experiments. Harmful animal use can be criticised on a number of
grounds:
Animal suffering and ecological disruption
Firstly, animals suffer harm when
restricted in their normal behaviour, when caused pain or killed.
They suffer in capture and transport, when housed and bred in
captivity, when killed for dissection and when subjected to
experiments. Ecologically there is concern about diminishing wild
populations of frogs, sharks and turtles which in some countries are
taken from their habitats for use in education.
De facto lesson in ethics
The widespread avoidance of
discussions on the ethics of animal use and alternatives within the
life sciences provides, according to biologist Prof George Russell
of Adelphi University, a de facto lesson in ethics: that ethical
concerns do not matter. The hidden curriculum teaches that life is
cheap and animals can be considered disposable tools. And when
science sees itself as existing in an ethical vacuum, or gives
messages like these, the consequences for science and for society
can be very serious.
Infringement of civil liberties
Many students are given no choice whether to participate in harmful
animal use for their practical work, and have no formal right to
object. Alternatives are often not provided, and there is no doubt
that the prospect of compulsory harmful animal use puts off some
students from even entering the life sciences. Some who do choose to
enter may not know what is expected of them until the last minute,
and many have been forced to change course or drop out through
academic or psychological penalty. Such discrimination is an
infringement of their civil liberties: all students should have the
right to opt out of harmful animal use and have access to
educationally-valid alternatives.
Loss to science
It is a significant loss to the professions that students don't
enter or continue in the life sciences because of harmful animal
use. It is bad for science in general and for humane research in
particular through its discrimination against good scientists: those
prepared to think critically, those familiar with alternative
methods and their efficacy, and those who haven't already lost their
respect for life. And it also increases the gender gap within
science by discriminating against young women scientists: there is a
sensitivity towards and respect for animals often shown by - but not
exclusive to - women, which cannot be accommodated within the
current framework.
"When I was studying I wasn't really sure whether I wanted to
be a veterinarian or not. If they had forced me to do animal
experiments it just wouldn't have been worth the cost, and I would
have stopped. I think that if you do animal experiments you care
less about animals, I think you will be acting differently towards
other animals, and maybe towards people too. So I think it is
harmful to do animal experiments - you are not as respectful
towards animals as you should be." - Dr. Tannetje Koning,
Veterinarian, Zeewolde, The Netherlands.
Desensitisation
A recent study published in the Veterinary Record confirmed that
veterinary students do become desensitised over the course of their
education, and there is no doubt that harmful animal use contributes
to this process. Such a change in a student has enormous
consequences for them as individuals and for society as a whole.
Australian vet student Andrew Knight writes:
"At the end of the experiments the sheep were killed by
students by a drug overdose, before regaining consciousness.
Students were instructed to open up the chest cavity to ensure the
sheep would not come back to life. One of the stated aims was that
students would develop a sense of responsibility for an animal
under their care, and the academics maintained that the practicals
were not desensitising. The farcical nature of these claims was
demonstrated by the student who was thrilled to discover, upon
placing her hand inside a sheep's chest cavity, that she could
actually feel the animal's heart stop as it died."
Focussing on biology, George Russell wrote in the American Biology
Teacher back in 1972 that:
"Experimentation of this kind can lead to a systematic and
progressive crippling of one's capacity for feeling and produces
changes of personality that, in my opinion, are noticeable even to
someone with no formal training in psychology or psychiatry… Is
it asking too much for biology teaching to try to awaken respect
for life and to develop love and admiration for living
things?"
Bad learning environment
Another criticism concerns pedagogics and the learning experience.
Countless students have complained that they learned nothing from
their animal practical work, that the experiment didn't work, and
that they just wanted to get it over with. The stress associated
with ethical conflict can create a very poor learning environment.
In contrast, there are around 30 published academic studies which
show that in terms of academic performance, students using
alternatives learn equally as well, and in some cases better, than
those using traditional animal experiments. Biologist Dr Jonathan
Balcombe, former Alternatives Adviser to InterNICHE, has summarised
the findings of these studies. And in terms of quality and depth of
education, harmful animal use as an approach is limited.
Unnecessary
The majority of life science students will never use animals in
their careers, suggesting that the current practice is of
questionable relevance. For those who will use animals -
veterinarians and some biologists, for example - the existence of
courses across the world where alternatives are already in use is
sufficient evidence that the older approaches are no longer needed.
"I built a course which would give good physiological
knowledge and experience without using animal experiments. So to
me the norm is the course without animal experiments, because they
are not necessary. There are so many ways of demonstrating
physiological principles that you do not need animal
experiments." - Prof. Kerstin Lindholm-Kiessling, Dept. of
Animal Physiology, University of Uppsala, Sweden.
Students are already graduating without the experience of harmful
animal use, and may be much better prepared for the professions they
are entering.
Financially wise?
Studies by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other
groups have compared the cost of dissection to the use of
alternatives, and found a considerable cost difference in favour of
the alternatives. Computer alternatives may require a high initial
investment if there is little existing hardware in a department, but
the outlay is recovered over time. Buying the software alone is
invariably cheaper than the costs associated with the regular
purchase and housing of animals. And while the educational benefits
of any investment in progressive alternatives are apparent
immediately, a number of other benefits such as reduced
student-teacher conflict, increased computer literacy, and an
enhanced institutional reputation, can also follow.
Against spirit of legislation
The European Convention 123 states that in their basic university
courses students should not use animals at all. The European
Directive 86/609 states that alternatives should be used where they
exist, though the letter of the legislation excludes education. Many
national laws are similar in stating that alternatives should be
used wherever possible, and there are international and national
laws and conventions against discrimination. Some countries also
have laws banning animal use at some levels of education, and laws
or regulations protecting freedom of conscience and the right to
conscientiously object. A growing number of institutions are
incorporating Student Choice Policies into their regulations and
providing quality alternatives for conscientiously objecting
students, though some are replacing the harmful animal use entirely.
|
