How To Animal Dissection - Quiz 1

Introduction

Harmful animal use in education has been a controversial effect, raising ethical and environmental concerns (Hug, 2008) as well as concerns virtually the potential psychological touch on students (Capaldo, 2004). The discussion so far has focused mostly on tertiary education (Knight, 2007, 2014; Zemanova, 2021; Zemanova and Knight, 2021). However, animals are non but being used in homo or veterinary medicine training at universities but besides as a part of general biology teaching in high schools. This tradition began in the early 1900s (Kinzie et al., 1993) and is all the same nowadays in many countries, despite the many available fauna-gratuitous alternatives (Balcombe, 2001) and legislation requiring replacement of animal utilise for scientific purposes–including education and training–whenever possible (e.thousand., the European union Directive 2010/63 or the Swiss Fauna Welfare Human activity).

Humane alternatives to harmful animal apply in education, such as videos, books, virtual dissections, or plastic 3D models, have been implemented since at least the 1960s (de Villiers and Monk, 2005) and accept been shown to produce equivalent or even superior learning outcomes (Knight, 2007; Patronek and Rauch, 2007; Zemanova and Knight, 2021). Nevertheless, as the number of animals used for teaching and preparation purposes remains relatively high (Zemanova et al., 2021), there is a chasm between the evidence of the efficacy of humane education methods and the continued implementation of harmful brute use in education.

Many factors can influence teachers' decisions on whether to employ fauna dissection or humane alternatives, for example, their own education, previous experience with animal-free teaching methods, or school guidelines (Oakley, 2012b). Nevertheless, up to date, only a few studies investigated the attitudes and experiences of high school biological science teachers toward animal dissection (King et al., 2004; de Villiers and Sommerville, 2005; Oakley, 2012b; Kavai et al., 2017).

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate, for the starting time time, the experiences and attitudes of the Swiss high school teachers toward the utilize of autopsy and beast-free alternatives. Specifically, the survey intended to determine (1) the extent to which animals or beast parts are beingness used in biological science classes in Swiss loftier schools, (2) whether Swiss loftier school teachers embrace and adopt animal-gratis alternatives, and (3) the attitudes of teachers toward dissection and humane instruction methods. The exploration of teachers' attitudes toward dissection and alternatives can provide a clearer picture well-nigh the barriers and opportunities for making the shift toward more humane biological science teaching (Oakley, 2012b).

Materials and Methods

Survey Design

An online survey was designed using the platform Typeforms^one to obtain anonymous responses from loftier schoolhouse biological science teachers in Switzerland. Questions were written in German language and organized into two parts: (1) a general part with questions nearly demographic data of the respondents, and (two) a scientific part with questions on the use of animal or animal organ dissection in their didactics practise. The survey contained a combination of open up-ended questions and multiple-option questions, allowing respondents to check one or more boxes from a list of possible answers. Attitudes were measured on a five-signal Likert scale (Likert, 1932). The first version of the survey was launched in August 2019 and an updated version with several additional questions was launched again in June 2021. Each time, the survey stayed open for responses for 12 weeks.

Survey Distribution and Administration

Email invitations to participate in the survey, together with a link to the bearding online questionnaire, were distributed through emailing the assistants offices of 162 loftier schools beyond 26 Swiss cantons, asking for forwarding the email to the biology teachers at their school. Schools were identified through the Swiss Rectors Association and their number represents approximately x% of all secondary schools in Switzerland (Federal Statistical Office, 2022). Respondents were also recruited through an announcement on social media and through contacting the organizations Teachers Switzerland, Association of Swiss Science Teachers, and Association of Swiss Gymnasium Teachers. Consequently, it was non possible to control how many invitation emails reached potential respondents and to calculate the response rate.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including bar plots and a frequency tabular array, were used to summarize the responses. The Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess any potential influence of the demographic characteristics (historic period, gender) on the attitudes. Significance for all levels was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in R 4.i.3 (R Cadre Team, 2022) integrated in RStudio 2022.02.1 (Rstudio Team, 2022).

Results

Demographic Characteristics

A total of 76 teachers, 22 in 2019 and 54 in 2021, completed the survey. Both genders were virtually as represented (Figure 1A), reflecting the boilerplate gender distribution among high-school teachers across Switzerland (Federal Statistical Office, 2021). One 3rd of the respondents belonged to the age category xx–35 years old, twoscore% to the age bracket 36–45 years sometime, 22% to 46–55 years one-time, and eight% to 56–65 years old (Figure 1B). The majority of the respondents taught at a grammar schoolhouse (gymnasium) and worked in the primarily German language-speaking cantons (Figures 1C,D).

www.frontiersin.org

Effigy 1. (A) Gender of the respondents participating in the survey. (B) Age of the respondents participating in the survey. (C) Type of school the respondents teach in. (D) Swiss canton the respondents teach in.

Prevalence of Autopsy, Species Used, and Availability of Fauna-Free Alternatives

Nearly all of the respondents (91%) performed dissection of animals or animal parts during their ain education, of which merely a minority (4%) reported negative experiences associated with dissection (Figure 2A). The majority (94%) as well stated that they can determine whether to include autopsy in their teaching (Figure 2B). Out of 76 teachers, but two exercise not use dissection in their science classes (for upstanding reasons; Figure 2C). Over one tertiary of the teachers participating in the survey start including dissection in biological science classes in class vii (Figure 2nd), which in the Swiss educational system corresponds to the historic period group of 12- or 13-year olds.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2. (A) Experience with dissection in respondents' ain education. (B) Extent to which the respondents can make up one's mind whether to include dissection in their teaching. (C) Utilize of beast dissection in biology classes. (D) School grade in which the respondents first include dissection in their teaching.

Most unremarkably used in dissection classes are animal organs, such as a heart or an heart, fish, insects, earthworms, and squids (Effigy 3A). The teachers usually get this material from the butcher, at pet stores, or they collect animals in nature (Figure 3B). According to the teachers, the most important thing that students can learn from dissection is anatomy, 3D experience, recognition of the complexity of reality, or ethics, and respect toward animals (Effigy 3C).

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 3. (A) Type of animals used in dissection classes. (B) Source of animals used in dissection classes. (C) The nigh important learning result of dissection practice.

The teachers actively let their students to opt out, despite the teachers' express feel with alternatives that they could provide to their students (Figures 4A,B). The teachers stated that only a minority of students–regardless of their gender–chooses not to participate in autopsy (Figures 4C,D). As the reasons of students for not wanting to participate were listed most often nausea or cloy, strong respect for animals, and religion or worldview (Figure 5A). If a student decides not to participate in dissection, the near frequently offered culling is the ascertainment of other students performing dissection, followed past videos or photos. Some teachers likewise utilize virtual autopsy equally an alternative (Figure 5B).

www.frontiersin.org

Figure four. (A) Familiarity of the respondents with the bachelor animate being-free alternatives. (B) Proportion of the respondents giving their students actively the opportunity to opt out of autopsy. (C) Estimated proportion of students opting out of autopsy. (D) Gender distribution among students refusing to participate in dissection.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure v. (A) Reasons of students for not participating in autopsy. (B) Alternatives provided by the respondents to students not wanting to participate in dissection.

The respondents were besides asked what they perceived as the barriers to implementing animal-complimentary alternatives. The majority of the respondents do not observe animal-complimentary alternatives as good for education every bit the use of real animals (Figure 6A and Table 1). The teachers likewise reported having trivial time to research advisable alternative teaching methods and that alternatives are too expensive (Figure 6A). Consequently, what would teachers need to make the shift away from using animals are high-quality alternatives, more time for the preparation of classes with alternative methods, and a higher upkeep (Figure 6B).

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 6. (A) Perceived barriers to implementing animal-free alternatives instead of animal dissection. (B) Needs of the respondents that would have to be met in gild to include animal-free alternatives in their didactics practice.

www.frontiersin.org

Table one. Percent of teachers who agreed or disagreed with the following statements regarding the use of dissection and alternatives.

Teachers' Attitudes Toward Animal Dissection and Fauna-Gratuitous Alternatives

The majority of the teachers (83%) participating in the survey agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that autopsy is a valuable part of teaching biology in schools (83%; Tabular array 1) and that autopsy interests their students (83%; Table one). More than a one-half of the teachers are aware of the available brute-costless alternatives, but lxx% disagreed with the statement that alternatives are just every bit good as animals or animal parts for educational activity biology (Tabular array 1). While 52% of the teachers would be willing to utilize an alternative in their teaching, 46% stated that it is non easy to do so (Table one). Lastly, more than half of the teachers disagreed with the statement that cantons should specify that teachers must inform students of their correct to opt out of dissection (Table ane). There was no statistically significant influence of the age on the mental attitude toward animal autopsy and alternatives. Just two statements elicited different responses between genders: women expressed concern about what dissection might be teaching the value of animal life more than often than men (statement nr. 5 in Table i; p = 0.019) and were more willing to utilize animal-free alternatives instead of animals in their teaching (statement nr. 9 in Tabular array 1; p = 0.028).

Word

Prevalence of Animal Dissection at Swiss Loftier Schools

Although in the literature Switzerland has been repeatedly listed equally one of the 5 countries–together with Argentina, Israel, Netherlands, and Slovakia–that prohibits dissection below the university level (Waltzman, 1999; Balcombe, 2000; Oakley, 2012b; Sathyanarayana, 2013; Osenkowski et al., 2015), this survey showed that dissection of animals or animal parts at Swiss high schools remains prevalent. Out of 76 teachers participating in the survey, only ii (i.eastward., iii%) practise non use brute autopsy in their pedagogy practice (Figure 2C).

These results are coordinating to findings described from other countries. In King et al. (2004) the authors reported that out of 494 American teachers participating in their survey, 79% used dissection in their classes. A more recent study from the The states by Osenkowski et al. (2015) described like results: out of 1,178 teachers, 84% reported using autopsy in biology education. The survey past de Villiers and Sommerville (2005) of 242 prospective biology teachers at a Due south African university establish that 71% would await their students to dissect animals in their classroom.

Type and Source of Animals Used in Dissection

In the survey, teachers reported that brute organs, fish, and insects are used about oft in autopsy (Figure 3A). At American loftier schools, frogs, fetal pigs, and earthworms are the most common material (King et al., 2004; Osenkowski et al., 2015). In the Us, information technology has been estimated that 99% of animals used in biology classes for autopsy are defenseless in the wild (Ecology Mag, 2004), which might mean that the size of the local population might severely decline over time, and potentially pb to an imbalance within the ecosystem. In dissimilarity, Swiss teachers usually get the dissection material from the butcher, fauna pet stores, and simply 9% of the respondents stated that they also grab animals in nature (Figure 3B).

Pedagogical Value of Animal Dissection

The teachers participating in the survey were asked what, in their opinion, dissection teaches. Amid the chief goals for the dissection exercise were stated learning anatomy, having the 3D experience, and recognition of the complexity of reality (Figure 3C). Similar responses were reported likewise from previous studies (Kavai et al., 2017). The American Psychological Association states that animal dissection "engenders creativity, original idea, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills" (American Psychological Association, 2017). Oakley (2012b) reported that some teachers are convinced that the use of animals in education might in fact teach students near the ideals of using animals in research. Indeed, several teachers in my study mentioned ethics, responsible action, respect for animals, and fascination for life as the educational outcomes (Effigy 3C).

Yet, it has been argued that autopsy can encourage a decreased sensitivity toward animal life. Solot and Arluke (1997) observed sixth-form students during fetal pig dissection. They establish that many students described themselves as becoming "allowed" or "adapted" to the state of affairs, i.eastward., appearing hardened by the activity as the dissection progressed. Sabloff (2001) postulated that through autopsy, animals become positioned equally "artifacts," meaning that they are considered (1) made for man use, (2) not sentient, (three) discardable, and (4) excluded from the moral community. And Sapontzis (1995) suggested that autopsy teaches students that an beast can exist killed for "trivial" purposes such as curiosity or tradition.

Furthermore, over the last 100 years, the focus of biology has shifted from anatomy to cellular level and genetics (Oakley, 2009). In contrast, the practice of autopsy in high schools is well-nigh 100 years onetime and it is questionable whether information technology remains a valid representation of contemporary biology (Hart et al., 2008; Oakley, 2009). Hug (2005) suggests that autopsy might have get a ritual of science carried out without critical evaluation of its usefulness. Only a part of loftier school students would eventually enroll in university courses that chronicle to the experience of autopsy, east.g., veterinary medicine, for the majority of students the autopsy experience will take no relevance for their futurity career (Orlans, 1993). In addition, there accept been contradicting opinions voiced about whether autopsy encourages or discourages students to eventually pursue a career in science. Several studies reported that dissection tin and does turn some students from life sciences (Balcombe, 2000; Bishop and Nolen, 2001).

Proportion of Students Opting Out of Fauna Autopsy

While the bulk of the teachers participating in the survey actively let their students to opt out of autopsy, vii% of the teachers do not (Figure 4B). According to the teachers' statements, only a minority of students opt out of dissection practice (Figure 4C). Previous studies have estimated that in a typical class, 3–5% of the students will openly object to dissection (Balcombe, 2000; Hart et al., 2008; Spernjak and Sorgo, 2017).

Balcombe (1997) stated that "peradventure the most misunderstood aspect of the animal dissection issue is the number of students who openly object to the practice." Students may non vocalization their preference due to fearfulness of embarrassment in front end of their peers, fear of a failing form, or fear of challenging the instructor'southward authority (Balcombe, 2000). Consequently, it is assumed that only a minority of the students objecting to autopsy expresses their concerns and opinions openly. This was reported also in the written report by Oakley (2012a), which showed that the bodily proportion of students harboring objections to dissection is higher than the proportion that voiced their opinion.

Whereas some authors merits that using autopsy provides high schoolhouse students with an "exciting" education feel (Barr and Herzog, 2000), it is of import to note that dissection may not be enjoyable for every student. There have been published several studies investigating the attitudes of high school students toward dissection. For instance, the study carried out by Stanisstreet et al. (1993) constitute that 48% of 420 students from 3 different secondary schools in the Britain considered the dissection of animals for teaching purposes to be wrong. Some other report of 85 students aged 15–16 reported that over a 3rd of the respondents felt that dissection is disrespectful to the animate being (Doster et al., 1997). A retrospective survey of 191 undergraduate students reported that 27% of them experienced negative emotional reactions to dissection in high school (Bowd, 1993).

Randler et al. (2016a) used a autopsy video clip shown before the dissection of a fish to reduce anxiety among students. In another study, Randler et al. (2016b) employed humor to reduce feet and cloy. Nevertheless, such strategies should non be encouraged as seeing their classmates joke during dissection tin exist very uncomfortable for other students (Tolbert, 2019). Since this report was limited to surveying the feel and attitudes of teachers, further enquiry elucidating the Swiss students' perspective on dissection is warranted.

Teachers' Experience With and Attitudes Toward Animate being-Gratis Alternatives

Brute dissection practice seems to be deeply ingrained in the Swiss educational system. The majority of teachers were taught through dissection (Figure 2A) and proceed to demonstrate the biological concepts in this "traditional" way (Figures 2B–D). This prevalence of autopsy tin be attributed to stiff opinions about the efficacy and usefulness of animal-complimentary alternatives exposed in the responses. The very slight gender difference in attitudes is consistent with previous studies, showing that women express concern for animal welfare and suffering more than frequently and to a greater extent than men (Herzog, 2007; Phillips et al., 2011; Zemanova, 2021).

Similarly to previous studies (Oakley, 2012b), my survey revealed that teachers continue to perceive autopsy as the best fashion for students to learn biological science (Effigy 6A and Table 1). While the majority of teachers responding to the survey found that alternatives are not as good material for learning equally animal autopsy, alternatives accept been shown to take equivalent or higher efficacy in providing the intended learning outcomes than harmful animal utilise (Zemanova and Knight, 2021). Humane teaching methods offer also other benefits. They are often less expensive, require less preparation and cleaning fourth dimension, and permit students to work at their own footstep and repeat the task as many times as needed (Oakley, 2012b; Osenkowski et al., 2015).

For instance, virtual dissections allow the study of inner anatomy by virtual manipulation, while providing substantial advantages for schools: repeatability, immediate feedback, no health risks, etc. (Havlíčková et al., 2018). The comparison of virtual frog dissection and concrete frog dissection among high school students showed equivalent learning outcomes, only virtual dissection additionally allows for repetition of the exercise at no additional instructional cost to increase retention (Lalley et al., 2010). Like studies using a computer-based rat dissection (Predavec, 2001) or a virtual fetal pig autopsy (Maloney, 2005) reported even better learning outcomes when using these alternative methods, maybe due to the opportunity to find all structures clearly and due to the time flexibility of using estimator-based learning.

Legal and Ethical Aspects of Animal Autopsy

The 3Rs principles of responsible beast employ were described in 1959, encouraging the Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement of animals used for scientific purposes, including education and grooming (Russell and Burch, 1959). Since then, the 3Rs principles accept been implemented in many legislations worldwide and promoted past various societies. In Switzerland, the 3Rs principles are anchored in the Animal Welfare Act (2005), which requires that experiments (including the use in teaching and training) on vertebrate animals, cephalopods, and decapods are just carried out if there is no suitable alternative method available. Despite these efforts and regulations, my study revealed that the utilise of animals in dissections already at the secondary education level remains widespread. The 3Rs principles are more rigorously implemented in the post-secondary educational context (Hart et al., 2008) and the secondary education seems to have been overlooked. Therefore, it is imperative that more than effort is invested in applying the 3Rs principles in loftier school education to counteract the persistent tradition of autopsy.

Another aspect that needs to be considered is ethics. Without a doubt, dissection of animals or fauna parts tin enable students to learn important concepts in anatomy, every bit stated by the teachers (Effigy 3C and Table 1). However, does the pedagogical value outweigh the ethical implications of harm to the beast (Hug, 2008)? If viable alternatives exist, the killing of animals for teaching anatomy is unnecessary and therefore ethically questionable (Oakley, 2009).

The majority (82%) of the respondents stated that they hold discussions on the ethics of dissection. In the survey conducted by Oakley (2012a) with both teachers and students, 86.iii% of teachers reported conducting classroom discussions on the ethics of dissection, while only 28.ix% of students confirmed this. Further studies surveying the students would exist needed to elucidate whether teachers indeed concur ethical discussions with their students and if then, to what extent.

Barriers to Shifting Toward Fauna-Complimentary Alternatives

Through this survey, at that place were identified several barriers to shifting abroad from animal dissection to animal-gratis alternatives in secondary instruction: (1) lack of loftier-quality alternatives, (ii) conviction that alternatives are not as good equally autopsy, (3) lack of time to prepare alternative methods, and (4) lack of funding (Figure 6 and Tabular array 1). To alter the electric current prevalent condition of beast dissection in Swiss loftier schools, these factors need to be targeted. For instance, the evolution of platforms where teachers could share their approaches to humane teaching might aid salve their fourth dimension that would be needed for grooming of classes implementing alternatives (Hart et al., 2007). To shift the opinions, pedagogical pedagogy besides every bit continuing teaching provided by teachers' associations would exist well-positioned to promote the use of humane teaching methods as well as to make teachers acquainted with available alternatives. Additionally, another strategy might be to switch from the currently implemented "opt out" practice for students who want to use alternatives to "opt in" for students who want to dissect (Downie and Meadows, 1995; van der Valk et al., 1999).

Limitations of the Study

Some reservations might be raised near the results. First, as the respondents were self-selected, I might accept received a skewed sample of teachers that were motivated to participate in the survey by their strong beliefs either in favor of or against the use of dissection in biological science instruction. 2d, since the questionnaire was bachelor only in German, the response charge per unit was highest amidst German-speaking cantons of Switzerland. Lastly, the number of participants might exist considered low, even though comparable to other studies investigating the same topic (Donaldson and Downie, 2007; Oakley, 2012b; Kavai et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Animal dissection has been used as a teaching tool for centuries, either for demonstration of animal anatomy or for hands-on practice of technical skills. Because of the long tradition, information technology might be difficult to move away from this practice. Even so, the upstanding concerns surrounding the harmful beast utilize in teaching and training require that instruction exercise evolves to embrace humane pedagogy alternatives. The teachers participating in this survey believed that dissection offers a learning experience and learning outcomes that could non be matched past animal-free alternatives. This is, however, in stark dissimilarity to the empirical prove showing that humane didactics methods are equivalent or fifty-fifty superior teaching tools than harmful animal employ. More widespread dissemination of information about available alternatives and their efficacy might therefore help teachers to prefer non-harmful practices and minimize the number of animals used in education.

Data Availability Statement

The raw information supporting the conclusions of this commodity will be made available by the author, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

The writer confirms existence the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of involvement.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this commodity are solely those of the authors and do non necessarily correspond those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any production that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

I would like to give thanks Silvia Frey for support and all participants for their time and valuable contribution.

Footnotes

^ https://www.typeform.com/

References

Balcombe, J. (2000). The Use of Animals in College Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: The Humane Guild Press.

Google Scholar

Balcombe, J. (2001). Dissection: the scientific example for alternatives. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 4, 117–126. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0402_3