By Isabella Purdy, Staff Writer & Cynthiana Vuong, Guest Writer
A bill to ban animal dissections in California’s K-12 schools was introduced in February by assembly member Ash Kalra of San Jose. Bill AB 1586 claims that it is a harmful and destructive use of animals for education. Alternatives to dissection such as videos, modeling and computer programming were proposed.
We consider both sides of the argument, weighing the costs and benefits of animal dissection in the school setting.
Against Dissection
Proponents of the bill object to the sourcing of the animals used in dissections. In the case of fetal pigs, pregnant female pigs that are slaughtered and prepared for consumption have their fetuses removed and preserved for students to examine. Some cats used for dissection were euthanized at shelters after going so long without being adopted and to compensate for the lack of space at the shelter. The continued study and dissection of these animals contributes to the killing of unborn pigs and perfectly healthy cats.
Perhaps causing the most concern is the fact that some students become nauseous due to the foul odor of the preservatives. The preservative chemicals in the animals are known to sting your eyes and nose when you get too close to them, but how else are you supposed to dissect if you’re not up close?
“Students are sticking their hands into cancer causing chemicals,” said director of academic affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Dr. John Pippin discussing the topic on the radio show AirTalk.
The bill proposes both analog and digital alternatives to animal dissection. The bill’s author suggests using books and three-dimensional models as well as “video recordings… interactive simulation software and computers” as substitutes for real-life dissection.
In Support of Dissection
On the other hand, dissections are impactful experiences for students. Schools value hands-on experiences like dissections because they help students see a future for themselves in a related career if the experience interested them. With dissections, students get to communicate and work with each other similarly to professionals in biology and physiology.
The digital alternatives to dissection simply do not help students learn the same skills, such as using a scalpel, understanding how organs feel or learning proper sanitation. Though they may be helpful lab prep tools, the digital alternatives diminish the otherwise memorable experience of dissection.
“The fetal pig dissection is something everyone will remember, even when they are 40 years old,” said Emily Barro, AP Biology teacher. While Barro prefers animal dissection over computer programming, she does not promote killing animals but believes that the fetal pigs die for a good cause.
Regardless of the the outcome, AB 1586 could change the way biology and physiology is taught in FVHS and the rest of the state.
