Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:54:15.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethics and welfare of animals used in education: an overview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

LA King
LA King*
Affiliation:
The Humane Society of the United States, 700 Professional Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879, USA
*
*[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ethical, regulatory and scientific issues arise from the use of animals in education, from secondary level schooling through to veterinary and medical training. A utilitarian cost-benefit analysis can be used to assess whether animals should be used in scientific education. The ‘benefit’ aspect of this analysis can be examined through comparative studies of learning outcomes from animal-based versus alternative training methods, while the ‘cost’, in terms of harms to the animals used, can be subject to technical assessment using Russell and Burch's (1959) 3Rs rationale. Science has only just begun to delineate the effects of educational exercises on the welfare of subject animals. It has also begun to develop technologies and modes of instruction that reduce, refine or replace animal use in education, and instances of their successful implementation in the UK and in the USA will be highlighted. The implementation of these alternatives to animal use is inconsistent, and barriers to the adoption of alternatives include specific curriculum and legislative requirements, traditional educational methodology, and resource and training limitations, particularly when the alternative methods involve new technologies. A further problem arises from the lack of existing research data comparing the educational value of alternative, with traditional animal-based, instruction methods. Greater consistency in the use of methods that reduce, refine or replace harmful animal use could be achieved through improved knowledge of the extent and type of alternative resources currently used in particular fields of scientific education; international comparisons of educational practice; close scrutiny and harmonisation of evaluation methods; and consistency in the ethical review of educational animal use. Information and training, both in the 3Rs and in the use of specific alternative methods, could be disseminated throughout the life sciences. Evaluative research of the educational efficacy of traditional animal-based methods versus refinements or replacements would provide high quality data on which to base decisions regarding teaching methods. Since educational exercises involving animals also impart ethical training, whether inadvertently or directly, instruction in applied ethics should be considered a key element of any education program involving animals.

Keywords

alternativesanimal welfareeducationethicslife sciencestudent choice
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S221 - S227
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

APA (American Psychological Association) 1995 Behavioral Research with Animals. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1997 Animal Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) 1993 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 202(2): 229–249Google Scholar
Balcombe, J 2000 The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives and Recommendations. Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Birke, L 1995 On keeping a respectful distance. In: Birke, L and Hubbard, R (eds) Reinventing Biology: Respect for Life and the Creation of Knowledge p 76. Indiana University Press: Bloomington, USAGoogle Scholar
Brown, M J, Pearson, P T and Tomson, F N 1993 Guidelines for animal surgery in research and teaching. American Journal of Veterinary Research 54(9): 1544–1559Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, P S and Block, M 1991 Replacement of laboratory animals in an introductory psychology laboratory. Humane Innovations and Alternatives 5: 221–225Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 2003 Third Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union (COM/2003/0019 final). Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Croall, J 1994 The cutting edge: schools: animals in science. Guardian Education, 15 March.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, D and Meehan, A S 1993 Evaluation of the use of computer simulations of experiments in teaching undergraduate students. British Journal of Pharmacology 108: 5238 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Dewhurst, D G 1999 Alternatives to using animals in education. In: Dolins, F L (ed) Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Dewhurst, D G 2002 Computer-based alternatives to using animals in teaching physiology and pharmacology to undergraduate students. Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, 11-15 August 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Alternatives Congress Trust: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Dewhurst, D G and Jenkinson, L 1995 The impact of computer-based alternatives on the use of animals in undergraduate teaching: a pilot study. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 23: 521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewhurst, D G, Hardcastle, J, Hardcastle, P T and Stuart, E 1994 Comparison of a computer simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption. American Journal of Physiology 267: 595–5104 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Dewhurst, D, Hardcastle, J, Hardcastle, P and Williams, A 1992 An interactive simulation of experiments to teach the principles of nutrient transport in the small intestine. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 20: 529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewhurst, D, Hughes, I and Williams, A 1996 An interactive computer program to replace in vivo experiments on rat blood pressure for teaching undergraduate students. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 24: 707–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, H S and Brosius, E J 1968 A research study on the values gained from dissection of animals in secondary school biology. Science Education 52(2): 55–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francione, G L and Charlton, A E 1992 Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: a Guide to Conscientious Objection. The American Anti-Vivisection Society: Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, C L, Johnson, A L, Schaeffer, D J and Hungerford, L L 1995 Comparison of surgical skills of veterinary students trained using models or live animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 206(12): 1840–1845Google ScholarPubMed
Hart, C B 1995 Legal control of use of animals for scientific purposes. In: Tuffery, A A (ed) Laboratory Animals: an Introduction for Experimenters pp 37–66. Wiley: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Hughes, I 2001 Do computer simulations of laboratory practicals meet learning needs? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 22: 71–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, I, Hollingsworth, M, Jones, S J and Markham, T 1997 Knowledge and skills needs of pharmacology graduates in first employment: how do pharmacology courses measure up? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 18(4): 111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jukes, N and Chiuia, M 2003 From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse, Second Edition. Interniche: Leicester, UKGoogle Scholar
King, L A, Ross, C and Stephens, M L 2002 Biology teachers’ attitudes to dissection and alternatives. Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, 11-15 August 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Alternatives Congress Trust: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A M 2003 Client donation program to meet the needs of veterinary medical education: alternatives to healthy animal sacrifice. In: Jukes, N and Chiuia, M (eds) From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse, Second Edition pp 107–116. Interniche: Leicester, UKGoogle Scholar
Lieb, M J 1985 Dissection: a valuable motivational tool or trauma to the high school student? Masters Thesis, National College of Education, Evanston, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
Matthews, D 1998 Comparison of MacPig to fetal dissection in college biology. American Biology Teacher 60(3): 228–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCollum, T L 1987 The effect of animal dissections on student acquisition of knowledge of and attitudes toward the animals dissected. PhD Thesis, University of Cincinnati, USA.Google Scholar
More, D and Ralph, C L 1992 A test of effectiveness of courseware in a college biology class. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 29: 79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) 2003 Guidelines for the Care and Use of Mammals in Neuroscience and Behavioral Research. National Research Council: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
ORC (Opinion Research Corporation) 1999 Animal Dissection in High School Science Classes: Summary of Results. National Anti-Vivisection Society: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Orlans, F B 1993 In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Orlans, F B 1998 Dissection of frogs: the Jennifer Graham case. In: Orlans, F B, Beauchamp, T L, Dresser, R, Morton, D B and Gluck, J P (eds) The Humane Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Pavletic, M M, Schwartz, A, Berg, J and Knapp, D 1994 An assessment of the outcome of the alternative medical and surgery laboratory program at Tufts University. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 205(1): 97–100Google ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, H 2002 Humane Education: Animals and Alternatives in Laboratory Classes. Stiftelsen Forskning utan djurförsök (Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments): Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, L M 2003 Curricular design: choosing and planning a humane approach to life science education. In: Jukes, N and Chiuia, M (eds) From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse, Second Edition pp 54–65. Interniche: Leicester, UKGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1985 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
Rhoades, R 2003 The Humane Society of the United States’ Euthanasia Training Manual. Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1990 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1995 Laws relevant to animal research in the United States. In: Tuffery, A A (ed) Laboratory Animals: An Introduction for Experimenters p 67-86. Wiley: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Russell, W M S and Burch, R L 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen: London, UK. (Reissued as a special edition [1992] by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UK)Google Scholar
Sapontzis, S 1987 Morals, Reason and Animals. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Strauss, R T and Kinzie, M B 1994 Student achievement and attitudes in a pilot study comparing an interactive videodisc simulation to conventional dissection. The American Biology Teacher 56(7): 398–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Valk, J, Dewhurst, D, Hughes, I, Atkinson, J, Balcombe, J, Braun, H, Gabrielson, J, Gruber, F, Miles, J, Nab, J, Nardi, J, van Wilgenburg, H, Zinko, U and Zurlo, J 1999 The Report and Recommendations of the ECVAM Workshop 33. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 27(1): 39–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfenson, S and Lloyd, M 1998 Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare, Second Edition. Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar