ESEC Responds

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Reports the "Debate Over Dissection"

March 15, 2001

ATTN: Jim Lawrence, Editor
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
55 Exchange Blvd.
Rochester, NY 14614

VIA FAX: 716-258-2356

To the Editor,

Congratulations on reporter Matthew Daneman’s fine article ("Debate over dissection," March 10, 2001). The mandatory use of animals in education – from dead animal dissection to live animal experimentation – is one of the most earnestly debated issues in contemporary education.

Educators and students both here and abroad are proving that the "necessity" and even the usefulness of harming and killing animals is a myth. In fact, last month at an international conference in Brussels, educational leaders, students and government officials came together to urge the 100% replacement of the use of animals in education. Many countries including Denmark, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Argentina, Israel, India, Italy, and the Slovak Republic have laws banning or limiting specimen dissection at various grade and professional levels.

Of the 126 medical schools in the U.S., only one does not allow students to use alternatives, and 70% of the schools have no live animal labs. And last year, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine became the first veterinary school in the U.S. to end terminal surgery labs on all species. Given the changes occurring at even the highest levels of professional training, Monroe Community College’s rigid adherence to only the "traditional method" of specimen dissection is unwarranted. Administrators at MCC should give thorough consideration to the academic, economic, ethical and environmental merits of alternatives rather than offering unquestioning endorsement of the "merit" of specimen dissection.

As a psychologist, I must also point out that when students are forced to use animals in ways that they view as harmful, painful, stressful or lethal to the animals, students are often traumatized as a result. Under these circumstances they may actually learn less. They may withdraw and loose interest in science when not given the option to conscientiously object. Students – even those who believe they are willing participants may become desensitized and may develop a utilitarian view of animals, thereby diminishing their capacity for compassion and ethical decision-making.

Statistics from ESEC and other national organizations that offer support to students who object to the harmful use of animals in education confirm that qualified, compassionate people especially women often decide to end their career in science rather than compromise their values. This loss contributes to the gender gap in science, to individuals feeling disappointed and derailed in their career aspirations, and to science losing compassionate people. (See ESEC's Keeping Girls and Women in the Sciences.)

Please encourage your reporter to continue his sensitive and thorough coverage of this important issue. ESEC is offering a CatWorks CD-ROM "virtual reality" computer dissection program to the Biology Department at MCC should your newspaper and its readers wish to view this technology first-hand.

Sincerely,

Theodora Capaldo, EdD
President
The Ethical Science and Education Coalition (ESEC)