Update; my attempt to influence my school on alternatives to animal dissection

January 24, 2009

Hello group,

I posted awhile back about a Comparative Anatomy class I will be

taking in the spring and how I don't want to participate in harming

any more animals for my education.

I wrote to my professor about my concerns and let him know there are

humane alternative available which I would look into.

He wrote me back;

" Dissection is an essential part of Biology, without dissection

there would be no anatomy, no surgery, no understanding of

functional developmental or evolutionary morphology. Dissection is

raw empiricism, raw, irreplaceable obeservation and the scientific

method at it's best. If dissection does not appeal to you, perhaps

you should not take the course. "

I responded;

" I respectfully disagree that dissection is an essential part of

Biology. I agree that in the past it may have been significant for

medical advancement, but I would hope that it could evolve more

ethically especially since there are more humane alternatives

available. "

He then wrote me:

" Your argument is dependent on the assertion that there are more

humane alternatives to dissection. Think carefully, Michelle. "

and he went on some more to say that I can't possibly know all the

goals of the course and how well do I know that these " alternatives "

meet the goals of this course.

I am frustrated because I want to take this course but not have to

kill or harm any animals and he doesn't seem to be willing to

compromise with me.

The crazy thing is that it is a Catholic School and one of the ten

commandments is " Thou shall not kill. " Yet here they are insisting

that we kill.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Michelle

January 25, 2009

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I think there's a strong

case to be made that, if you wanted to advance in the field of biology

or medicine, you would have a difficult time without getting direct

hands-on experience with organs and tissue. At the high school and

undergraduate level, a computer simulation is probably adequate for an

intro class, but I don't see how someone train to be, for example, a

surgeon or a veterinarian without poking around inside first. (This is

one of the reasons I chose engineering instead of medicine or biology!)

I wonder if there's a middle ground here. Instead of breeding or

capturing animals specifically to be dissected for students, why not

use roadkill or human cadavers? It's certainly gruesome, but no new

animals would be specifically killed for dissection. It could also be

a much more interesting leaning experience than dissecting a frog. And

imagine how fascinating a group class dissection of a human cadaver

would be for a new student who is already interested in the inner

workings of life.

On Jan 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Michelle wrote:

> He then wrote me:

> " Your argument is dependent on the assertion that there are more

> humane alternatives to dissection. Think carefully, Michelle. "

> and he went on some more to say that I can't possibly know all the

> goals of the course and how well do I know that these " alternatives "

> meet the goals of this course.

>

January 26, 2009

MichelleSorry if this is a repeat...PCRM has some great info on their website re this topic that may help:http://www.pcrm.org/resch/meded/index.htmlYou can also email them for additional help if needed. I believe they even have surgeons on their staff who are opposed to animal dissection.On Jan 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Michelle wrote:

> He then wrote me:

> "Your argument is dependent on the assertion that there are more

> humane alternatives to dissection. Think carefully, Michelle."

> and he went on some more to say that I can't possibly know all the

> goals of the course and how well do I know that these "alternatives"

> meet the goals of this course.

>