Evaluation of Educator & Student Use of & Attitudes toward Dissection & Dissection Alternatives

Abstract

Animal dissection has been routinely practiced in American biology classrooms for decades. With technological advancements, more states adopting student choice measures, and increased awareness about ethical concerns surrounding dissection, many useful dissection alternatives have been developed. To understand the current use of animal dissection and alternatives, and attitudes toward the practices, a nationwide survey of middle and high school biology teachers (n = 1178) and students (n = 500) was conducted. Most teachers (84%) and students (76%) reported using dissection in their classrooms, although nearly half of educators indicated that dissection is decreasing at their school. Educators cited student performance as the main factor driving their decision to use dissection or alternatives and reported conducting dissection exercises because of student interest. Most teachers had an interest in using alternatives, although only 36% used them in place of dissection. More than a third of biology students preferred the use of alternatives over animal specimens, yet most did not request dissection alternatives. Enabling students to opt in to dissection exercises rather than opt out, as is the current practice, and educating teachers and students about student choice and the advantages of dissection alternatives are suggested strategies to reduce animal use in education, in line with the “3 R’s” principle.

3D scanning and printing skeletal tissues for anatomy education

“…Osenkowski et al. ). Synthetic alternatives to frog tissues may also be used in consideration of the global decline of amphibian species (Edwards et al.…”

Educators’ Views on Dissection Alternatives at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…A recent survey conducted by the National Anti-Vivisection Society revealed that more than half of educators polled (56%) viewed dissection as an important tradition in biology education. The majority of educators did not believe that alternatives were as good as dissection for teaching anatomy and physiology (54%) and did not believe that technology will make dissection obsolete (59%) (Osenkowski et al, 2015). At the same time, however, our survey revealed that 59% of biology teachers felt that information about dissection alternatives is not widely disseminated (Osenkowski et al, 2015).…”

“…The practice of dissecting animals for biology instruction in American classrooms has a long history, beginning in the 1920s and becoming more widely practiced with the establishment of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in the 1960s (Orlans, 1988;NABT, 1990). Recent surveys show that dissection remains a common practice, with ~85% of high school biology teachers offering dissection exercises to their students (Osenkowski et al, 2015;NAVS, 2020). Many animal species, including frogs, pigs, cats, and crayfish, have become regular candidates for dissection, and students often participate in multiple dissections as part of their pre-college science education (Oakley, 2013).…”

Animal use in Life Sciences Education: Current Status, Teachers’ and Adolescents’ Attitudes and Alternatives

“…While teachers have been commonly found to be comfortable with dissection, students were reported to be relatively more affected, regardless of their nationality. The expressed inclination may range from been emotionally affected to being disgusted (Kavai et al, 2017;Osenkowski, Green, Tjaden, & Cunniff, 2015;Spernjak & Sorgo, 2017). This issue raises the psychological implications of animal experiments.…”

“…In contrast, many reports indicated that science teachers valued positively both hands-on and virtual variants of dissection, reporting that both variants outcomes were equivalent (Akbarsha et al, 2013;Havlickova et al, 2018;Lalley, Piotrowski, Battaglia, Brophy, & Chugh, 2010). More students than teachers had positive inclination to non-animal alternatives, suggesting an increasing tendency to exchange animal use with alternatives among students (Osenkowski et al, 2015). In this context, it has been proposed that public opinions and associated teachers' and students' attitudes to a substitute of hands-on dissection will slowly change resulting in a gradual reduction of frequency of hands-on dissection and replacement with various kinds of dissection alternatives.…”