Programs & Campaigns

Realms and Realities of the Possibility of 100% Replacement of the Harmful Use of Animals in Education

By Theodora Capaldo, Ed.D

(02/21/01) — They said, "It couldn't be done." Tom Watson, a founder of IBM, a world leader in computer technology, once commented, "I think there is a world market for about five computers." And one of young Albert Einstein’s teachers predicted, "This boy will never amount to anything." Our ability to predict the future with even a moderate amount of accuracy has been proven limited time and again. Our ability to adapt to change, even though it is an essential and unavoidable part of life, is often fraught with resistance, disbelief, denial, anger, and the slow start-up of acceptance – convinced as we may be that the old way is, of course, preferable. Yet, in the midst of rapidly changing technologies, future generations will be weaned and raised in worlds of ever changing options for new and different approaches to just about everything.

We are here because they said it couldn't be done. They said we could not 100% replace the harmful use of animals in education. They said it was not possible. Scientists said this. Science educators said this. They said this even in the face of the reality that if science and education are about anything, they are about possibility. We are not here to talk about the reasons for the resistance of some to even the idea of replacing animals. We all know what these reasons include: fear, tradition, profit, hidden agendas – to name a few.

Rather we are here to prove to those who said "it couldn't be done" that: the world is run on computers; that Einstein was one of the great minds of our century; and, that the 100% replacement of the harmful use of animals in education is no longer just an idea but rather an idea whose time has come.

We will begin by briefly summarizing the continuum of change that accompanies most important social progress. At first the curve is flat – over days, months, years or decades with barely an incline – until this impetus for change, borne on the shoulders of visionaries and the just plain tenacious, begins its slow and often tedious ascent. People begin to be positively influenced, and they react – if not wholeheartedly at this stage then at least with a willingness to "wait and see." As more people, in our cat-like cautious curiosity, accept the realms of possibility, the reality takes hold. The impetus for change then reaches a certain pitch and acceptance begins happening at an accelerated rate until VOILÀ … the new way of thinking and doing becomes mainstream.

This process of change happens on several levels: social, economic, intellectual, psychological and the less measurable level of consciousness. Ken Keyes’ story of the "100th Monkey" gave us a metaphor to understand this phenomenon (Keyes, 2001, Vibrani Web site). A simple accident – a monkey dropping a sweet potato into the island stream – led to the discovery that without dirt the potato tasted better. The behavior was learned and then taught, by example, to other monkeys. Soon all the monkeys near that island stream were routinely washing their sweet potatoes. Then at some critical number suddenly, monkeys on other islands spontaneously began washing their sweet potatoes. The 100^th monkey story suggests that the acceptance of new ideas and new behaviors is not a simple linear or tangible process.

A brief timeline of the development and success of alternatives shows us the fertile ground from which our change curve moves upward toward complete accomplishment of our goal.

From Aristotle’s writings circa 384 BCE to DaVinci's anatomical drawings in the late 14 and 1500's, writers and artists helped explain and replace the "real thing." By the mid-1700's Lelli was creating life-like three-dimensional wax anatomical models, while by the mid-1800's photography began to capture images of reality through technological eyes. In the early 1900’s vinyl gave science the possibility of recreating sturdy, colorful, and precise dimensional representations. With silent movies, followed by the "talkies" and then those convenient little plastic VCR's came the ability to move beyond the static page. By the 1980's the popularity of personal computers took what is doable in the classrooms, laboratories and even living rooms to new levels. By the 80's and 90's simulation through computer technology was possible in hospitals and training centers worldwide.

We have come from drawings, to photographs, to moving pictures, to computers, to everything that is now possible through technology. Since the middle to late 20^th century the change curve of viable substitutes for animals in science education has taken a sharp upward incline. This acceleration of both the development and sophistication of alternatives is represented in an example from Denoyer-Geppert, an educational company in business since the 1920’s. In 1992, they introduced an over-sized plastic bullfrog model with removable organs that became a mainstay of "good" alternatives to specimen dissection. A mere nine years after its birth, "The Great American Bullfrog" is now carted around by ESEC, along with the latest state-of-the-art computer software, as proof positive of how far "good" alternatives have come.

In 1992, ESEC published Beyond Dissection one of the first comprehensive listings of alternatives to the use of animal specimens for dissection. This first edition contained 43 descriptions of alternatives deemed worthy of inclusion by a panel of science teachers. Only eight of these alternatives were computer programs. By 1998 and the 3rd edition nearly 400 alternatives – deemed worthy by a similar panel – were included. A full 25% of these were computer programs.

In 1993 NORINA, the Norwegian Reference Centre for Laboratory Animal Science and Alternatives’ database listed 400 alternatives to the use of animals in teaching, while as of 2001, they have over 3,000 entries (NORINA Web site, 2001). The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights’ (AVAR) explained that, while in 1990, AVAR had "several dozen" entries in their alternatives database, they now have over 7000 (Buyukmihci, 2001). And our host, InterNICHE, had, in 1997, 400 entries while their second edition of From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse offers 500 alternatives for all levels of science education. Finally, alternatives’ Web sites are too numerous to accurately count and offer seemingly infinite possibilities.

The proliferation of alternatives must be looked at in two ways. On the one hand the creation of more and better alternatives can take some credit for more and wider use of alternatives. At the same time, the economic perspective suggests that the expanding market of available products is a direct response to the expanding demand. Take, for example, the fact that Digital Frog has shown a 290% growth in its revenue in only three years (Clark, 2001). Either way we look at it, whichever is the chicken, whichever is the egg, and whichever comes first, the animals, the students, and ultimately science and society win.

Two concrete examples of change come from NEAVS and ESEC. As far back as the late 1980’s, ESEC began working to pass a moderate and very reasonable law to guarantee Massachusetts’ students the right to choose an alternative to specimen dissection without penalty. ESEC met with opposition from groups such as state teachers’ associations. We have reintroduced the bill that now includes the support of not only the Commonwealth's Assistant Majority Leader and former Co-Chair of the Education Committee, but also the endorsement of the Department of Education. Further, the Massachusetts Association of Science Teachers has withdrawn its opposition and we have actually presented on alternatives at both their annual directors’ meeting and annual conferences. Thanks to tenacity and the rightness of the cause, Massachusetts promises to be the next state in the U.S. to provide legal protection to students who refuse to participate in the harmful use of animals

While our educational affiliate is busy passing Dissection Choice legislation, NEAVS was successful in working with Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine in closing their terminal animal labs – making Tufts the first U.S. veterinary school to end all terminal labs on all species. This success reflects the change curve. As early as 1987 Tufts students pushed and met with the University's resistance to providing an alternative track to the sad and unnecessary "dog lab" where purpose bred puppies were used to practice surgical techniques and then euthanized. Undaunted, the students returned a year later with a 50-page proposal asking for ethical sourced cadavers and externships at local clinics. Tufts countered the proposal, offered no externships, but did offer cadavers from clients, euthanized research dogs and greyhounds. The students rejected the research dogs and greyhounds and refused to attend junior surgery lab until only ethical-sourced cadavers were procured. Finally, by 1989, Tufts agreed to allow a three-year alternative "pilot" program (NEAVS’ internal document, 1999, pp. 4-7). During this same time, the issue of so-called "dog labs" was gaining more attention. For example, Ohio State University was sued by a vet student for violating her religious right to conscientiously object to the harmful use of live healthy animals in the curriculum. By 1991, her lawsuit was won and she was provided a surgery option that remains in place today (AVAR President’s Letter, 2000).

By 1992, Roger Fingland, Professor of Surgery and Director of the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital at Kansas State University conducted a study in which he determined that vet students who participate in repeated spay/neuter alternatives to terminal lab actually do better in surgery than do students trained in "traditional" terminal surgery labs (Fingland, 1999, pp. 1, 6).

That same year, Tufts and a Boston shelter submitted a proposal to NEAVS asking for funding to start a spay/neuter program for Tufts students. NEAVS agreed and healthy cats were sterilized and placed in good homes, thus also preventing the potential birth of millions of homeless kittens.

Why did it take so long to arrive at the obvious – that students can learn and help animals – perhaps because the engrained belief was that "It couldn't be done," – it is not administratively convenient and no one else is doing it.

With the success of the program and the growing research suggesting that repeated spay/neuter experiences better prepare vets for their surgical responsibilities, Tufts decided in 1993 to make "spay lab" the core surgery course and to make the once required terminal dog lab an elective.

In 1994 Tufts evaluated the "alternative" students upon graduation and one year later (An assessment, 1994). They concluded, "… that use of cadavers… when supplemented with additional clinical training… can provide training comparable to that provided in a conventional laboratory program (JAVMA, 205, No.1, 97-100)." Yet despite these results, Tufts continued to provide terminal labs as an elective.

By 1998 the new Board and staff at NEAVS felt compelled to return to Tufts to finish this unfinished business. NEAVS provided funding for Tufts students to learn surgical techniques and help animals through supervised training at shelters and clinics, the same model used to teach human surgery. In addition, NEAVS funded an ethics professor to raise questions associated with "traditional" veterinary education. We donated numerous books and computer alternatives. NEAVS met with Tufts repeatedly to discuss this final necessary change: to eliminate the cruel practice of dog lab even as an elective. We were told at our first meeting that if this could be done, they would have done it. We were told, "It cannot be done."

We were perplexed and frustrated that certain officials were unwilling to listen to their very own history and study. We looked to the Tufts community – to students, faculty, and shelters and clinics. We appealed to their reason, to their data, and to their desire to position Tufts as the veterinary school committed to ethics as a signature program. We met, discussed, bargained, offered, and held out the ever-present reality of unfavorable public pressure to continuing a cruel practice that they "proved" could end, and that a significant proportion of their students and faculty agreed should end.

In February 2000, about one year after our initial "re-visit," Tufts and NEAVS issued a joint press release announcing that Tufts was eliminating terminal labs even as an elective. To this day we applaud and continue to support Tufts in this groundbreaking action.

Accomplishments have been made in other areas of science as well. Paul Cunningham tells us that in the discipline of psychology, "many colleges and universities no longer maintain animal facilities, successfully teach psychology without animal labs and have highly-rated doctoral programs, including DePaul University, Georgetown University, Rice University, University of Denver, and the University of Houston (Cunningham, 2000, pp. 191-212)." A study by Plous suggested that a full 54% of nearly 4,000 psychologists "believed that laboratory work with animals should not be a required part of the undergraduate psychology major…." Of those who showed "support for animal use in psychology classrooms" such support "appeared to be limited to demonstrations involving observation and confinement (Cunningham)." Another Plous study indicated that 54% of psychology students agreed (Cunningham).

In 1995, both the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) (Cunningham, 2000) and the Foundation for Biomedical Research (Cunningham) approximated that 36% of all U.S. civilian medical schools used no live animal laboratories in their curriculum. According to PCRM, today, six years later, 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 (PCRM representative, 2001).

At the 1999 Third World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, reports on the progress of the replacement of animals in education were abundant. According to Barbara Orlans, "National laws prohibiting animal experimentation by primary and secondary school students have been enacted in Denmark, the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland (An ethical rationale, 2000, p. 1330)." Jonathan Balcombe informed us that Argentina, Israel and the Slovak Republic have banned dissection, and [that] an Italian law is designed to protect conscientious objectors (A global overview, 2000, pp. 1343-49). Alex Davies of Massey University, New Zealand, explained that there is "currently a rapid expansion in the development of alternatives. (Session summary, 2000, p. 1322)."

The formaldehyde and dead bodies, and the blood and guts of living animals are being replaced by silicon and quartz, operating systems and disk drives. And in this world where today’s education and science find themselves linked to computers, we see the face of change. The new generation who has been brought up on computers relishes their possibilities and creates their lives with the help of this high-tech, high-speed method of learning. Yet, those of us – only one generation removed – who were introduced to computers in our adult lives, still resist, forget how to save documents and somewhere inside still believe that cutting and pasting your paper together with scissors and tape is preferable to the click of a mouse. Resistance to change is a given yet the inevitability of change is reality.

The momentum toward the 100% replacement of the harmful use of animals in education does not move on the wings of computer technology alone. Computers are merely a handmaiden to such an accomplishment. Rather, we live in a time when every child on earth knows something about "animal rights" and the "green" concerns for the environment. We live in a world where our tolerance for violence has been pushed to the limit and is begging for quick and effective deterrents to all its manifestations. This world will replace the harmful use of animals by embracing a new ethic that mandates that when animals participate in the educational needs of students, the individual animals themselves must benefit as well.

In the U.S. alone there are nearly 100 different Bioethics organizations. Today we live in a world where the 19^th century warnings of Shelley, whose novel Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus, "delineated the horrifying outcome when reason is divorced from feeling and science from ethics (Rudacille, 2000, p. 14)." We have tasted, felt, heard and seen the 20^th century realities of the benefits of science and of science gone awry. We live in a world where the means to the ends of the promises of science are no longer allowed unchecked. Instead we express our desire to return to our world science that is firmly based on ethics, the laws of human compassion, and principled thought and action. While we may never return to "old fashioned values," such values would not serve us anyway. We must instead create for the world, science and science education that answer to a new 21^st century ethic. And that new ethic must and WILL be grounded in the 100% replacement of the harmful use of animals in education.

References

AVAR (Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights) President’s Letter and Timeline. (2001).

Balcombe, J. (2000). A global overview of law and policy concerning animal use in education. Progress in the Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement of Animal Experiments. Balls, M. et al (eds). B. V.: Elsevier Science, 1343-49.

Balcombe, J., Hughes, I., Davies, A. (2000). Session Summary: The use of animals in education and training. Progress in the Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement of Animal Experiments, 1322.

Beyond Dissection (1998). Ethical Science and Education Coalition (ESEC), Boston, MA.

Buyukmihci, N. (2001).Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. E-mail correspondence.

Clark, C. (2001).Digital Frog. E-mail correspondence.

Cunningham, P. (2000). Animals in Psychology Education and Student Choice. Society and Animals, 8, No. 2, 191-212. Washington Grove, M.D.: Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Benedict & Stoloff, 1991; Gallup & Eddy, 1990; Hull, 1996; Robinson, 1990, quoted.

Cunningham, citing Plous, S. (1996a). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychologists. American Psychology, 51, 1167-1180.

Cunningham, citing Plous, S. (1996b). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychological Science, 7, 352-358.

Cunningham, citing Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (1995). Alternatives in medical education: non-animal methods. [Brochure] Washington, D.C.: PCRM.

Cunningham, citing the Foundation for Biomedical Research. (1995). Most medical students and professors consider live-animal labs useful. Washington, D.C.: FBR Facts, 2, 1.

Fingland, R., DVM. (1999). Comparison of Skills Oriented and Procedure Oriented Junior Surgery Laboratory Curriculum. Interview in AVAR’s Alternatives in Veterinary Medical Education. 10, 1-6.

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Web site. (2001). http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/dissection_laws.html

JAVMA, 205, No. 1, 97-100.

Keyes, K., Jr. (1983). The 100^th Monkey. Coos Bay: VISION BOOKS quoted on www.vibrani.com/monkey.htm

NEAVS (New England Anti-Vivisection Society) internal document. (1999). Terminal Dog Lab at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, Boston, MA, 4-7.

NORINA Web site. (2001). http://oslovet.veths.no/norina/.

Orlans, F. B. (2000). An ethical rationale for why students should not be permitted to harm or kill animals. Progress in the Reducation, Refinement, and Replacement of Animal Experiments. Balls, M. et al (eds). B. V.: Elsevier Science, 1330.

Pavletic, M., DVM; Schwartz, A., DVM, PhD; Berg, J., DVM, MS; Knapp, PhD (1994). An assessment of the outcome of the alternative medical and surgical laboratory program at Tufts University. JAVMA, 205, No. 1, 97-100.

PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) representative. (2001). Phone conversation.

Rudacille, D. (2000). The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The War between Animal Rights and Animal Protection. NY: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 14.

Action Alert!
> Kraft Foods Commercials
> Help pass H.1252
> Chimps in Commercials

Your support saves animal and human lives.


The State of the Anti-Vivisection Movement in America