Student Concerns "[Science] use to be my favorite subject." "I never took another class in biology [after dissection]." "I just felt that if I wasn't involved in science I wouldn't have to [dissect]." "I know I would never [pursue] a career that required dissection." "Previously, I’d wanted to be a veterinarian. Science classes were always my favorite. I chose not to take a science class my senior year and took computer science instead of a lab science in college. I was appalled by the disrespect for life [that was] demonstrated." (ESEC brochure, 2000) Under the stress of forced dissection – or dog lab, or any other harmful use of an animal – education is thwarted. When forced to use animals in ways the student objects to, the student is traumatized and invariably learns less. Education must stop putting students in double bind conflicts that create stress, depression, anxiety and in unrelenting cases, dissociative symptoms. In a double bind conflict, there is impetus to both approach and avoid the same situation. When we delude students into thinking that a given animal exercise is critical to their learning, they, of course, want to learn. And yet the nature of the actual exercise is something that many, based on their ethics and feelings, will want to avoid. An approach-avoidance situation is always fraught with stress and deep internal conflict. It is commonplace to hear physicians – for whom the blood and guts of life present no problem – remembering and saying things such as, "I will never forget what we did to those poor dogs in medical school (NEAVS’ Viewpoints 2000 series, #3, p. 4)." These recollections are not from good lessons learned but rather from the trauma at seeing another living being treated cruelly and callously within a sanctimonious situation of approval. The consequence of forcing persons to do something against their beliefs takes its toll not only on the animals and students involved but on the whole of society. When the status quo is not only maintained but becomes a rite of passage, then growth and enhancement of that society and of that discipline are stymied by prejudice, tradition and fear. Coercing – intentionally or unintentionally – students to participate in the harmful use of animals in their education interferes with learning. Observational and critical thinking skills can be dulled (Kelly, 1985, in Cunningham, 2000, pp. 191-212). Students can become numb to what was once rightfully disturbing to them (Thomas et al, 1977, in Cunningham). The remedy to end the psychological damage being done to students is neither complicated nor out of reach. In creating an environment in which all students can learn because it respects and enhances the worth of every student, educators play an influential role in the development of morals and in the acquisition of not simply knowledge but, more importantly, wisdom. Excerpts from The Psychological Effect on Students of Using Animals in Ways that They See as Ethically, Morally and Religiously Wrong by Theo Capaldo, EdD. Read the entire article.