| Retorna |
Alternatives to Harmful Animal Usage in Tertiary Education Andrew
Knight 3,950
words (excluding
reference list) Introduction On the 11th of November, 1998, Western Australia’s Murdoch University took the groundbreaking step of formally allowing conscientious objection by students to animal experimentation or other areas of their coursework. Murdoch is, to my knowledge, the first Australian university to formally take this step, and its decision will have ramifications for other Australian universities. Additionally the University agreed to review the humane alternatives available in all 45 teaching units using animals within Murdoch’s veterinary, biomedical and biological science courses. The recommendations of the review committee were approved on the 15th of September, 1999. Their report concluded that, “… Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that does not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose by 2005.”1 These results were not achieved easily but followed a year-long struggle by myself as a Murdoch veterinary student for humane alternatives to harmful animal usage to be made available in the veterinary course. Not surprisingly I entered the veterinary course because I hoped one day to become a healer of animals and was surprised and disappointed to discover that my participation was required in several teaching laboratories in which animals were seriously harmed or killed, and for which humane alternatives existed. When I and a classmate voiced our concerns and requested alternative assessments and educational experiences, these were granted in some units, for example in biochemistry, but denied in others, most notably in physiology. The academics in charge were unresponsive when I presented them with details of humane alternatives, of courses around the world where they're successfully used, and of the many scientific studies that demonstrate that “alternative” students are at least as competent as those trained by harming animals. Consequently we lost marks for refusing to participate in several physiology vivisection laboratories. After exhausting all the avenues available within the university at the time, I took legal advice as a last resort. I discovered that discrimination against students on the basis of their beliefs is, in some circumstances, illegal under Australian legislation. Consequently I took action through the state Equal Opportunity Commission with the result that negotiations commenced and my marks were returned to me. These events became the catalyst for the university reviews of conscientious objection and the use of animals in teaching which culminated in the enlightened decisions that followed. Similar situations are occurring with increasing frequency all around the world. Partly as a result, by January 1999 the number of veterinary medical colleges in the United States offering alternative programs for students who request them had increased to 21 out of 31.2 By 1997 just over half of the 126 US medical schools had completely eliminated animal usage and all bar one of the remainder were offering alternative programs. The sole exception was a military college.3 For years all 6 of the UK vet schools have had, by Australian standards, an alternative system. Instead of practising surgical exercises on donated greyhounds and other animals that are later killed, students learn by assisting with necessary surgery on real patients that actually benefit from the surgery, in the same way that human doctors learn.4 Some of these changes have occurred after students have taken legal action as a last resort. Given the increasing
frequency with which these changes are occurring worldwide, and the recent
developments in Western Australia, it seems appropriate to review some of
the arguments for and against humane alternatives to harmful animal usage
in tertiary education. In the following the alternatives themselves are
briefly introduced and the arguments for and against their use examined. Alternative veterinary surgical courses comprise a number of stages. In the beginning students learn basic manual skills such as suturing and instrument handling using knot tying boards, simulated organs, and other models. They then progress to simulated surgery on ethically-sourced cadavers obtained from animals that have died naturally or in accidents or been euthanased for medical reasons. Finally students observe, assist with, and then perform necessary surgery under close supervision on real patients that actually benefit from the surgery, as distinct from on healthy animals that are later killed. An important part of alternative veterinary surgical courses worldwide are the highly popular animal shelter sterilisation programs, in which homeless animals are sterilised by students under close supervision and returned to the shelters. The popularity of these programs stems in part from the fact that all parties gain from them. The animals have their adoption rates consistently increased by these programs, the students gain invaluable experience at some of the most common procedures they will later perform in practice, and their vet school has its image enhanced by providing a useful community service. Reasons for
Usage of Humane Alternatives Clearly In some scientific circles a
feeling that ethical considerations are somewhat “unscientific”
unfortunately persists, with the result that this reason for considering
alternatives is sometimes neglected. If, however, science does not exist
to help alleviate the suffering and improve the quality of life of
sentient creatures then one must ask what, indeed, does it exist for?
Simply to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of the members of one
sentient species at the expense of the lives of others? Scientists,
veterinarians and doctors should be at the forefront of the effort to save
lives, minimise suffering and maximise well-being through utilisation of
their special skills and knowledge. This applies as much in teaching as it
does in practise. These are, in fact, the most important reasons for the
usage of humane alternatives, and I have therefore placed ethical
considerations ahead of all other reasons. Code of practice and legislative requirements By 1999 the NHMRC Code was legally enforceable in all Australian states and territories barring Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and even there government funding of universities is dependent on compliance with the Code. Hence in Australia the Code of Practice and legislative requirements alone really make all further debate superfluous. Teaching efficacy 1. Pavletic and others (1994)12 studied new graduates from the Tufts University veterinary class of 1990. The class included 12 students who had participated in an alternative small animal medical and surgical procedures course. These students and 36 of their conventionally-trained counterparts were assessed by questionnaires sent to their employers. Employers were asked to rate the competency of the new graduates at the time of hiring and 12 months later. It was found that there was no significant difference on either occasion in the abilities of the conventional and alternative graduates to perform common surgical, medical and diagnostic procedures; in their attitudes towards performing orthopaedic or soft tissue surgery; confidence in performing the listed procedures; or ability to perform those procedures without assistance. 2. Fawver and others (1990)13 studied 85 1st year US vet students who were randomly split into groups assigned to either two live animal cardiovascular physiology laboratories or interactive videodisk simulations. Students were given a post-laboratory test to assess their mastery of the learning objectives. No significant difference in mastery was found but the alternatives were significantly quicker in terms of both student and staff time. This study is particularly interesting for myself and Murdoch University because the first live animal laboratory in this study appears virtually identical to one of the physiology laboratories that I and a classmate boycotted, with the exception that sheep were used at Murdoch instead of dogs. Apart from the large number of published studies affirming the competency of students trained using alternative methods, the teaching efficacy of such methods is further demonstrated by the growing number of courses around the world in which alternatives are extensively and successfully used. Some of these were listed previously; numerous others exist. Hence it is not surprising that there are many academics who believe that alternatives are more effective than animal-based laboratories at imparting knowledge (e.g., Scott 1986,14 Buyukmihci 1989,15 and Clamann 199816). Clarke (1987),17 in his description of nerve physiology experiments, provides some insights as to why: “Previously, in such experiments, out of a typical
allocated time of 3 hours, considerable time would be taken dissecting a
viable sciatic nerve preparation and further time spent in trying to gain
some small competence with the apparatus, at which point there would be a
distinct possibility that the nerve was no longer viable (during the
process of experimentation with the apparatus students often succeed in
applying stimuli of enormous magnitude and frequency to the tissue). It is
often a tired and irritable student who finally comes to the point in the
experiment of measuring changes in response. Such a student is not in the
optimum frame of mind to either perform the experiment with the due care
and attention required or to think about the neurophysiological concepts
involved. With the simulation, such problems are eliminated. Not only is
much more time devoted to the experiment, but time is available to explore
the subject in greater depth.” Greater flexibility of
learning is another example of the superior teaching efficacy of
alternatives. Students are more able to work at their own pace and can
repeat experiments where necessary to aid understanding. With little
difficulty computer labs can be made available around the clock allowing
students to work at times that suit them, or even, via the internet, from
home. Legal liability and adverse publicity International human rights
legislation and the national laws of several countries, including
Australia, support the rights of students to conscientiously object to
participating in activities that run counter to their beliefs. This is
recognised as being an essential feature of a democratic society. For
example, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948,22
states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Another example is provided by the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Act (1984),23 which in some circumstances outlaws discrimination in education on the grounds of belief. Universities that refuse to
provide alternatives for students can find themselves legally liable and
in some cases damages have resulted. In one US case a medical student sued
her university for US$95,000 after being refused an alternative and
consequently failing her course.24 Furthermore, considerable
adverse publicity has often been the result for universities whose
uncompromising attitudes have resulted in lawsuits by students. As
Francione & Charlton put it in 1992,25 “The
conclusion that most people draw is an important and correct one: those
who exploit nonhuman animals are often not reluctant to violate the civil
rights of humans.” Objections to
Usage of Humane Alternatives Objections to the use of
humane alternatives include claims that animal experiments are necessary
because they teach essential tissue handling skills, provide an essential
introduction to surgical procedures, are essential to illustrate
biological variability, demonstrate how the experimental data and
principles found in textbooks were obtained, and result in better
understanding and retention of information. Tissue handling skills Opponents of humane alternatives sometimes claim that animal experiments are necessary to teach essential tissue handling skills. This objection, along with most of the others listed, was presented as a reason to deny me alternatives in my veterinary course.26 However, before we consider whether tissue handling skills might be obtained in other ways, it is interesting to reflect briefly on how essential these skills really are. Certainly such skills are essential for surgeons but it is ludicrous to suggest that surgical students would not gain a very thorough grasp of tissue handling skills in their surgery courses. Such skills are presumably also essential for biological or biomedical science graduates who will go on to become animal experimenters. It is illuminating, though, to consider the proportion of biological and biomedical science graduates who will even obtain jobs in the sciences, and the proportion of those who will perform animal experiments in their work, and the proportion of those who will not receive adequate in-house training by their new employers, particularly where new graduates are involved. When viewed realistically the numbers seem very small indeed. Given that this is so, and given the many powerful reasons in favour of humane alternatives, it seems illogical to impose animal experiments on entire courses for the sake of a very few. However, even for those very few there are other ways that tissue handling skills can be taught. Tissues can be obtained via ethically-sourced cadavers from animals that have died naturally or in accidents or been euthanased for medical reasons. Plastic soft tissue organ models such as those successfully used in alternative surgical courses are available. In all cases videos can assist with the teaching of procedures. Certainly whenever studies have been done assessing the skills of students trained using such alternative methods their skills have been found to be at least as good as those of their conventionally-trained counterparts (e.g. Jones et al 1978,27 Pavletic et al 1994,12 and Greenfield et al 199528). Introduction to surgical procedures Similar to the claim that animal experiments provide essential tissue handling skills is the claim that they provide an essential introduction to surgical procedures for those training to become surgeons.26 Not surprisingly, however, it is easily argued that the appropriate place to learn surgery is in a surgery course, and the numerous successful alternative surgical courses worldwide prove that there are ethical ways of doing that. The even more numerous presurgical courses where alternatives are extensively and successfully used, show clearly that early surgical familiarisation via animal experimentation is not necessary. The remarkable absence of published studies demonstrating the supposed advantages of such experimentation, despite the criticisms leveled at it, suggests that such early familiarisation is perhaps not even measurably beneficial. It is sometimes claimed that alternatives lack the variability encountered in the biological world.26 However, numerous alternative methods can be used to illustrate this, including ethically-sourced cadavers, plasticised specimens, videos, and self experimentation. An August 1999 search of the US Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights “Alternatives in Education” database (online at http://AVAR.org) revealed 28 alternatives, many of them computer simulations, that incorporated pathological conditions or other forms of biological variability.29 Just 3 are listed here: 1. The veterinary Virtual Ventilator is an interactive simulation allowing students to practise setting up a surgical ventilator for a variety of patients with various degrees of lung pathology. Students can change the patient's ventilation parameters and immediately observe the effects on the patient and on the ventilator itself. A brief article on the Virtual Ventilator can be found in issue 8 of Alternatives in Veterinary Medical Education (online at http://AVAR.org).30 2. The interactive problem-based anaesthesia case simulations used at Michigan State University cover a range of different disease syndromes, species and anaesthetic challenges.31 Good student decisions are usually followed by good patient outcomes, but in some cases another problem will develop despite the best of care, just as in real life. 3. Finally, simulations such as the Ilium, from Biosoft, have random elements incorporated to simulate biological variability, in this case illustrating variability of responses to the same dose of drug.32 Additionally, as mentioned previously, the time savings inherent in simulations, and the limitless numbers of “virtual animals” available, can in fact allow students to investigate a greater number of variables and combinations of variables than can be encountered with a single animal during a typical 3 hour laboratory class. Origins of experimental data and principles Opponents of humane alternatives also claim that animal experiments are necessary because they demonstrate how the experimental data and principles found in textbooks were obtained.26 However, animal experiments are not necessary for this. Students can easily gain an appreciation of such things via alternative methods such as computer simulations, videos and books. Thankfully, students the world over learn how the atomic bomb was made without actually attempting to build one. Opponents of humane alternatives such as Wheeler (1993)33 claim that personal participation in animal experimentation results in a memorable experience that “can persist for a lifetime.” They claim that the powerful experiences involved result in better understanding and retention of information. However, whilst indeed often memorable, the experiences can be so for the wrong reasons. Wheeler himself notes that, “There is no doubt that the student’s first exposure to a mammalian dissection can be a traumatic and worrying experience for them, and for some a source of long-lasting negative emotions towards high school biology.” Furthermore, if personal participation in animal experimentation did indeed result in better understanding and retention of information then this would be apparent in the comparative studies of the performances of alternative and conventionally-trained students. However, as stated previously, almost every study conducted so far has shown that alternative students perform at least as well as those trained by harming animals. To claim otherwise is to deny the remarkably consistent scientific evidence. On the other hand, universities which seize the opportunity to make progressive changes are able to portray themselves as ethical, fiscally responsible, and capable of providing the latest in educational technology. By becoming, to my knowledge, Australia’s first university to formally allow conscientious objection, Murdoch has demonstrated its commitment to equity and cemented its reputation as one of Australia’s most progressive institutions. By reviewing the humane alternatives in all teaching units using animals, and concluding that, “… Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that does not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose by 2005.”,1 Murdoch now has the opportunity to become an Australian leader in this area and to build on its reputation for providing excellence in its teaching. The increase in the number of students worldwide insisting on humane alternatives to harmful animal usage in their education is exceeded only by the growth in the numbers of alternatives themselves. In considering their responses to the issues of humane alternatives and student concerns, universities are faced with two major choices today. They can seek to hold back the tide by clinging to an increasingly outdated tradition of harmful animal usage, or they can embrace the exciting possibilities the rapidly expanding field of alternatives represents. They can, in fact, choose to help shape the future or to be shaped by it.
References 1.
Evans, D., July 1999, Report
on the Review of the Use of Animals in Teaching, unpublished report to
Murdoch University’s Academic Council, p. 9 2.
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Jan. 1999,
“Comparison of alternatives offered by veterinary schools”, Alternatives
in Veterinary Medical Education, Issue 10, p. 8 3.
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, 1997, “PCRM
update”, Alternatives in Veterinary Medical Education, Issue 6, p. 6 4.
Association of Veterinary Teachers and Research Workers (UK), 7th
September 1998, letter to Andrew Knight concerning the teaching of
veterinary students in the UK 5.
Hood, J., 1998, unpublished Report
to Academic Council on the Use of Animals in Teaching at Murdoch
University, p. 6 6.
Office of Animal Welfare, 1996, Animal
Usage Report - 1995/96 - A Summary of Animal Use in Research and Teaching
in the State of South Australia, Adelaide: Dept. of the Environment
& Natural Resources 7.
Bureau of Animal Welfare, Agriculture & Resources, 1997, Statistics of Animal Experimentation – Victoria - Fifteenth Report 1
January 1996 to 31 December 1996, Melbourne: Dept. of Natural
Resources & the Environment 8.
Public Health & Animal Welfare Section, 1997, Animal
Research Statistics Tasmania – Annual Report - Report No. 1: 1996/97 –
[Period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997], Hobart: Dept. of Primary
Industry & Fisheries, p. 9 9.
Animal Research Review Panel New South Wales, 1997, Annual Report 1996/97, Sydney: New South Wales Dept. of Agriculture,
p. 32 10.
National Health and Medical Research Council, 1997, Australian
Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service, pp. 6, 45 11.
Balcombe, J., accessed on 16th August 1999,
“Comparative studies of dissection and other uses of animals in
education”, online at http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/compare.html
12.
Pavletic, M.M., Schwartz, A., Berg, J., and Knapp, D., 1st
July 1994, “An assessment of the outcome of the alternative medical and
surgical laboratory program at Tufts University”, Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 205, no. 1,
Special Report, pp. 97-100 13.
Fawver, A.L., Branch, C.E., Trenthem, L., Robertson, B.T., and
Beckett, S.D., 1990, “A comparison of interactive videodisc instruction
with live animal laboratories”, American
Journal of Physiology, Dec 1990, vol. 259, no. 6, part 3 of 3,
pp. s11 – s14 14.
Scott, E.M., & Waterhouse, J.M., 1986, Physiology
and the Scientific Method, Manchester: Manchester University Press, in
Scroop, G.C., undated, Research
Project Practicals in the Department of Physiology, Adelaide: The
University of Adelaide, p. 1 15.
Buyukmihci, N.C., 1989, “Non-violence in surgical training”, in
Buyukmihci, N.C. (Ed.), 1989, Alternatives
to the Harmful Use of Nonhuman Animals in Veterinary Medical Education, California:
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, pp. 14-16 16.
Clamann, H.P., 7th Aug. 1998, email to Andrew Knight
concerning alternative methods of teaching physiology at the University of
Bern Medical School, Switzerland 17.
Clarke, K., 1987, “The use of microcomputer simulations in
undergraduate neurophysiology experiments”, Alternatives
to Laboratory Animals, vol. 14, pp. 134-140, in Pope, S., 1995, AWIN
Alternatives to Animals in Teaching, St. Morris: Animal Welfare
Information Network (AWIN), p.44 18.
Dewhurst, D., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P., & Williams, A.,
1992, “An interactive computer simulation of experiments to teach the
principles of nutrient transport in the small intestine”, Alternatives
to Laboratory Animals, vol. 20, pp. 529-535, in Pope, S., 1995, AWIN
Alternatives to Animals in Teaching, St. Morris: Animal Welfare
Information Network (AWIN), p.47 19.
Brown, G., Collins, G., Dewhurst, D., & Hughes, I., 1998,
“Computer simulations in teaching neuromuscular physiology – time for
a change from traditional methods?”, Alternatives
to Laboratory Animals, vol. 16, pp. 163-174 20.
Henman, C., & Leach, G., 1983, “An alternative method for
pharmacology laboratory class instruction using Biovideograph video tape
recordings”, British Journal of
Pharmacology, vol. 80, p. 591P, in Pope, S., 1995, AWIN
Alternatives to Animals in Teaching, St. Morris: Animal Welfare
Information Network (AWIN), p. 47 21.
Dewhurst, D., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P., & 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, vol. 267, (Advances in Physiology Education 12/1) pp. S95-S104 22.
United Nations General Assembly,
1948, Universal Declaration
of Human Rights 23.
Commissioner for Equal Opportunity, undated, “Equal Opportunity
Act 1984 Reference Guide”, Perth: Equal Opportunity Commission 24.
Balcombe, J., Jan. 1997, “Student/teacher conflict regarding
animal dissection”, The American
Biology Teacher, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 22-25 25.
Francione, G.L, & Charlton, A.E., 1992, Vivisection
and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection, PA,
USA: American Anti-Vivisection Society, p. x 26.
Creed, K., 1998, personal communications to Andrew Knight
concerning the necessity of animal experiments in teaching veterinary
physiology at Murdoch University 27.
Jones, N.A., Olafson, R.P., and Sutin, J., 1978, “Evaluation of a
gross anatomy program without dissection”, Journal
of Medical Education, vol. 53, pp. 198-205 28.
Greenfield, C.L., Johnson, A.L., Schaeffer, D.J., and Hungerford,
L.L., 1995, “Comparison of surgical skills of students trained with
models or live animals”, Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 206, pp.
1840-1845 29.
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, accessed Aug. 1999,
Alternatives in Education database, online at http://AVAR.org 30.
Keegan, R., 1998, “Accent on an alternative: Virtual
ventilator”, Alternatives in Veterinary Medical Education, Issue 8, 1998, pp. 2-3 31.
Wilson & Sneed, Fall 1992, “The use of interactive
computer-based case simulations to teach veterinary anaesthesia”, Journal
of Veterinary Medical Education, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 164 32.
Zinko, U., Jukes, N., & Gerike, C., 1997, “Ilium”, From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse, UK: European Network of
Individuals & Campaigns for Humane Education (EuroNICHE), p. 187 33.
Wheeler, A., 1993, “Justifying the dissection of animals in
biology teaching”, Australian
Science Teachers’ Journal, vol. 36, pp. 46-49, in Pope, S., 1995, AWIN
Alternatives to Animals in Teaching, St. Morris: Animal Welfare
Information Network (AWIN), p. 52
|