Boulder Camera - November 14, 1999
Rapidly increasing pressure against the use of animals
in education is generating growing interest in the development and use
of non-animal alternatives ("alternatives"). For responsible educators,
the Three R's - Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement are guides.
Reduction alternatives use fewer animals. Refinement alternatives lessen
animal pain and distress. Replacement alternatives don't involve live
animals. These include computer, clay and plastic models, videos, CD
ROMS, and mannequins.
In the United States, about 170 species, including at
least 10 million vertebrates, are used annually for education. Many come
from underhanded Class-B dealers, and include stolen animals and those
obtained from auctions, pounds and unidentified "random sources." Many
schools require or pressure students to dissect dead animal specimens,
or to vivisect live animals. Frequently, students don't express their
objections to animal use and many don't know there are numerous
alternatives readily available (http://www.aavs.org ;http://www.pcrm.org
;http://www.hsus.org). Often, students
are given short notice about labs or aren't told about alternatives.
Ridicule, humiliation and intimidation from peers and teachers coerce
many students to dissect or vivisect. They fear consequences of
resisting tradition. Often they have to face school administrators, an
Supporters of dissection and vivisection frequently
claim "hands on" experience on animals is essential to education.
However, there's no evidence this is so; their claims are based more on
tradition than facts. What about dogs and future doctors? Medical school
dog labs generate much controversy (http://www.pcrm.org).
Currently, more than one-half of American medical schools, including
such prestigious institutions as Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford,
don't use live animals to teach students. Alternatives are offered in
125 of 126 medical schools. Similar trends are developing in veterinary
Why do dog labs continue at CU's medical school? Dr. Ron
Banks, the Health Sciences Center veterinarian, claims alternatives to
dog labs are ineffective: "Until we find a good replacement, we have
chosen to use dogs." (Colorado Daily, 7-9 May, 1999) But, there are very
effective alternatives. Students at Harvard observe procedures in
operating rooms that incur no extra costs. Listening to lectures,
viewing videotapes or using CD ROMS such as SimBioSys also conveys
information in more humane and cost-effective ways than learning human
physiology or pharmacology on dogs. In one study, 110 medical students
rated computer demonstrations higher for learning about cardiovascular
physiology than demonstrations using dogs. Many studies show equal
knowledge or equivalent surgical skills are acquired using alternatives
alternatives are more effective and they're invariably less expensive.
More CU (and other) medical students choose to opt out of dog labs each
year, but often there's pressure to participate although the labs aren't
required. Thus, the labs aren't truly unconditionally optional in that
some students feel pressured and intimidated. The American Medical
Student Association condemns pressuring students who choose not to kill
animals. Since the labs are optional, one must ask if they're really
essential. Many professors say "no." Also, having completed dog labs
isn't a prerequisite for practicing medicine at CU's Health Sciences
Center or elsewhere. Clearly, dog labs aren't essential.
The sources of CU's dogs are also suspect (Colorado
Daily, 27 October 1999). Students are often told the dogs who will be
killed are condemned animals from local pounds. However, many come from
a class-B dealer whose business has been under investigation. CU admits
they buy dogs from this dealer and other "random sources." Large numbers
of dogs (122) and other animals are involved, including more than 26,000
rodents, 240 rabbits, 146 sheep, 65 pigs and 20 primates.
What can you do? Question time worn tradition. You'll be
in good company. Charles Darwin reportedly left medical school because
he was "repulsed" by dog experiments. He wrote of a man who experimented
on dogs: ". . . unless he had a heart of stone, [he] must have felt
remorse to the last hour of his death." You can always request
alternatives. Gary Francione and Anna Charlton's book, "Vivisection and
Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection,"
provides useful guidelines. These include: know how far you're willing
to go to assert your right not to engage in vivisection or dissection;
raise your objection as soon as possible; be prepared to discuss why you
object; be ready to present one or more alternatives; document
everything; if necessary seek legal help early and organize your network
Increasingly, students are seeking out alternatives (http://www.hsus.org).
Questioning how medical (and other) science is taught isn't to be
against science, anti-intellectual or "radical." Rather, better and more
responsible education will result. Many excellent schools are turning
away from animal labs.
Dissection and vivisection aren't all they're cut out to
be. It's not essential to kill animals to learn about life. There are
always ways to improve education and provide compassionate alternatives
to cruelty. Caring for other animals doesn't mean not caring about
people. Indeed, using dogs when there are better non-animal educational
alternatives is a disservice to future doctors and patients alike. The
art of healing can be well-learned without harming.
Marc Bekoff teaches in Environmental, Population, and
Organismic Biology at CU-Boulder. He left a graduate medical program
because he didn't want to kill dogs or cats.
November 14, 1999
<> <> <> <> <>
Copyright 1999 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved.
Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of
this service without the express written consent of The Daily Camera is
expressly prohibited. Users of this site are subject to our User
Suggestions? E-mail us at
Go on to
Return to 20 February 2000 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright