Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T04:40:48.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Current pupil attitudes and perceptions and a framework for the future.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

Michael J Reiss*
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Cambridge, 17 Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1QA, UK.
Get access

Extract

The last ten years have seen a great deal of discussion about the use of animals in education. The aim of this paper will be to summarise current pupil attitudes and perceptions, and to provide an ethical framework within which the use of animals in education can be examined. In many countries the recent years have seen a considerable reduction in the use of animals in school science education (Reiss and Beaney, 1992). Whole animal dissection has become significantly less common within the last decade. It is, for example, now required by none of the Examining Boards in the UK, even for advanced level biology. Part of the reason for such changes has been a shift in the perceptions by many pupils and students, and some teachers, about the appropriateness of the use of animals in schools. Recent work by Roger Lock and Katherine Millett has shown how strong are pupil views against animal experimentation and the use of animals in schools (Lock and Millett, 1992; Millett and Lock, 1992). For instance the majority of 14-15 year-olds disagreed with the statement 'New medicines should be tested on animals before they are taken by humans'. Similarly, the majority of these pupils agreed with the statement 'I think that it is wrong to breed animals that will only be used for dissection'.

Type
Use of Animals in the Educational Context
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bateson, P. (1991) Animal Behaviour, 42, 827839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J. (1789) Principles of morals and legislation. In The collected works of Jeremy Bentham, vol 2.1, ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. (1980) Animal suffering: the science of animal welfare. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. (1986) The inner eye. London: Faber and faber.Google Scholar
Lock, R. and Millett, K. (1992) School Science Review, 74(266), 115123.Google Scholar
Midgley, M. (1983) Animals and why they matter: a journey around the species barrier. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Millett, K. and Lock, R. (1992) Journal of Biological Education, 26, 204208.Google Scholar
Rachels, J. (1990) Created from animals: the moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, M. J. and Beaney, N. J. (1992) Journal of Biological Education, 26, 6366.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1975) Animal liberation: towards an end to man's inhumanity to animals. (1983 paperback published by Thorsons, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire.)Google Scholar