Ask the Chatbot Games & Quizzes History & Society Science & Tech Biographies Animals & Nature Geography & Travel Arts & Culture ProCon Money Videos
Animal dissection
References & Edit History Related Topics
Images
American bullfrog Four students wearing safety goggles and gloves dissect a frog in trays while a teacher in a lab coat supervises in a science classroom.
Britannica AI Icon
American bullfrog
American bullfrog Should K-12 students dissect animals in school?

Animal dissection

Should K–12 students dissect animals in science classrooms?
Written and fact-checked by
The Editors of ProCon
ProCon's editors write and verify new content and update existing content. ProCon presents the pro and con arguments to debatable issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, freely accessible way.
The Editors of ProCon
History

Dissecting a frog might be one of the most memorable school experiences for many students, whether they are enthusiastic participants, prefer lab time to lectures, or are conscientious objectors to dissection.

The use of animal dissection in education goes back as far as the 1500s, when Belgian doctor Andreas Vesalius used the practice as an instructional method for his medical students. [1]

Animal dissections became part of American K–12 school curricula in the 1920s. About 75–80 percent of North American students will have dissected an animal by the time they graduate high school. An estimated 6 to 12 million animals are dissected in American schools each year. But, in at least 21 states and D.C., K–12 students have the legal option to request an alternative assignment to animal dissection. [2] [3] [27]

Four students wearing safety goggles and gloves dissect a frog in trays while a teacher in a lab coat supervises in a science classroom.
DissectionStudents dissect a frog in science class.

While frogs are the most common animals for K–12 students to dissect, students may also encounter fetal pigs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, minks, birds, turtles, snakes, crayfish, perch, sea stars, and earthworms as well as grasshoppers and other insects. Sometimes students dissect parts of animals, such as sheep lungs, cow eyes, and bull testicles. [2]

Pros and Cons at a Glance

PROSCONS
Pro 1: Dissecting real animals provides students with more learning opportunities. Read More.Con 1: Methods used to supply animals for dissections are inhumane and bad for the environment. Read More.
Pro 2: Dissection can encourage students to pursue careers in science. Read More.Con 2: Animal dissection is not required by major high school or medical school standards. Read More.
Pro 3: Animal dissection is a productive and worthwhile use of dead animals. Read More.Con 3: Dissecting real animals is unnecessary because alternatives exist. Read More.

Pro Arguments

 (Go to Con Arguments)

Pro 1: Dissecting real animals provides students with more learning opportunities.

A 2022 study found that 83 percent of teachers surveyed in Switzerland agreed that “dissection is a valuable part of teaching biology in schools,” while 70 percent disagreed that “alternatives are just as good as animals or animal parts for teaching biology.” [26]

Dissecting an animal offers education in fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, and handling sharp objects carefully. Hands-on learning keeps students more engaged, which facilitates assimilation of information. The American Psychological Association adds that animal dissection “engenders creativity, original thought, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.” [5] [6]

Using a real animal also helps to instruct students on the ethics of using animals in research. Teachers can explain how the animals were sourced, demonstrate proper treatment of dead animals, and imbue a respect for life among students. [4]

Pro 2: Dissection can encourage students to pursue careers in science.

Vicki Besack, a high school science teacher in Florida, said, “Dissection 
 is an amazing hands-on experience,” adding that the exercise “has the power to cause a student to change how they think about science and possibly what they may pursue as a career. It gives them that ‘aha’ moment.” [7]

Teachers report that students gain invaluable hands-on science experience from dissection, including putting on lab coats and gloves, handling scalpels, and looking at samples under microscopes. The entire process can spark inspiration and excitement. [8]

Julianna Music, a former high school student, argues in favor of dissection in the classroom:

Biology is the study of life, and dissection is crucial for the understanding of life; it is a hands-on way to learn and paves a pathway for students with dreams of careers in that field 
 It lays the foundation for possible discoveries in animal diseases and prepares young people to become future veterinarians. [9]

One of Music’s classmates developed a desire to become an optometrist after dissecting a sheep eye in school. [9]

Pro 3: Animal dissection is a productive and worthwhile use of dead animals.

A large portion of dissected animals were already dead before being allocated for dissection. Having students dissect the animals allows for a learning opportunity instead of just wasting the animal.

Bio Corp, a biological supply company, reported that more than 98 percent of the animals it received were already dead. Bill Wadd, co-owner of Bio Corp, stated, “We just take what people would throw away. Instead of throwing it in the trash, why not have students learn from it?” [10]

Most animals used in classroom dissections are purchased from biological supply companies. Some animals, such as cats, are sourced from shelters that have already euthanized the animals. However, cats and dogs account for fewer than 1 percent of lab animals. Fetal pigs are byproducts of the meat industry that would have otherwise been sent to a landfill. [11] [12]

Con Arguments

 (Go to Pro Arguments)

Con 1: Methods used to supply animals for dissections are inhumane and bad for the environment.

An estimated 99 percent of animals used in dissections are caught in the wild, a practice that may decrease local populations, lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem, and reduce biodiversity. [13] [14]

Fetal pigs used in schools are sourced from the meat industry and grown in horrific conditions. Animalearn, the educational arm of the American Anti-Vivisection Society, says:

They are deprived of space, fresh air, and fresh forage for the duration of their shortened lives 
 The fetuses that end up in the dissection tray are taken from pregnant sows at the slaughterhouse. [11]

Animals sold to schools for dissection may have died by suffocation, electrocution, drowning, or euthanasia. Cats and dogs used for dissection are sourced from shelters that unnecessarily euthanize the animals instead of adopting them out to families. [11]

Con 2: Animal dissection is not required by major high school or medical school standards.

Animal dissection is not required by the College Board for AP Biology, the International Baccalaureate for IB Biology, or the Next Generation Science Standards. The inclusion of dissection units actually dissuades some students from taking elective science classes. [7] [15]

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine says that “animal dissection is not required for students to learn about and be engaged in science.” The group found that no medical schools in the U.S. or Canada use animals to train new physicians; revered medical programs at schools such as Stanford, Yale, Harvard, and the Mayo Clinic all use alternatives to animals. [15] [16] [17] [18]

Nedim C. Buyukmihci, professor of ophthalmology at the Veterinary Medicine School of the University of California at Davis, explains:

As one who did not dissect in high school, and who now is a veterinarian and trains doctors-to-be, I can unequivocally state that the experience of dissection is totally unnecessary for the biologically minded precollege student. [19]

Con 3: Dissecting real animals is unnecessary because alternatives exist.

Synthetic frogs made by SynDaver have the same visual and textural qualities as a dead female frog: skeletons with muscles, skin, and organs, including a reproductive system with eggs. The models can be reused year after year and don’t need toxic formaldehyde for preservation. Students can use the model multiple times to gain a deeper understanding of the animal’s anatomy. [20] [21]

Technological advances have led to computer programs that can simulate the dissection of frogs, squid, fetal pigs, sea stars, and cow eyes. According to a meta-review by the Humane Society, students learn just as well or better when models and computer simulations are substituted for dead animals. Models and simulations also eliminate the “gross-out factor” of smelly, slimy real dead frogs, allowing students to focus on the learning activity rather than nausea.[22] [23]

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) even has a “Make Dissection Digital” campaign, urging “Cutting edge, not cutting bodies“ and argues, “Advances in technology and an increasingly progressive understanding of animal sentience have exposed animal dissection as obsolete, dangerous, and unethical.” [28]

Assessment quiz

After reading the above debate, take our assessment quiz to test your knowledge of this issue. Good luck!

1-minute survey

After reading this debate, take our quick survey to see how this information affected your opinion of this topic. We appreciate your feedback.

Discussion questions

  1. Several cultures, including those of many Native American tribes [24] , consider animal dissection to be taboo. Consider animal dissection as a cultural matter. Which communities disagree with animal dissection for cultural or religious reasons? What is their reasoning? How can schools accommodate these cultural views while promoting STEM studies and careers to the communities? Explain your answers.
  2. Have you had to (or will you have to) dissect an animal for science class in school? What are your thoughts? Will you perform the dissection or ask for an alternative assignment? Explain your answers.
  3. Biological supply companies often use formaldehyde to preserve animals for dissection. According to Ken Roy, writing for the National Science Teaching Association, formaldehyde is “a known nasal and dermal carcinogen” and can cause allergy-related symptoms. Roy cautions, “No specimens that are preserved in formaldehyde should be used in middle school science!” [25]  What safety precautions should be taken if animals preserved in formaldehyde are used in high school or college classrooms? Should animals be preserved in another way? Explain your answers.
  4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
  5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
  6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
  7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

Sources

  1. Sneha Mantri, “Holistic Medicine and the Western Medical Tradition” (March 2008), journalofethics.ama.assn.org
  2. Jan Oakley, “Under the Knife: Animal Dissection as a Contested School Science Activity” (2009), Journal for Activist Science & Technology Education
  3. American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Student Choice Laws” aavs.org (accessed April 2, 2020)
  4. Jan Oakley, “Science Teachers and the Dissection Debate: Perspectives on Animal Dissection and Alternatives” (April 2012), International Journal of Environmental & Science Education
  5. Edu-Lab, “The Importance of Dissection in Biology” (October 7, 2016), edulab.com
  6. American Psychological Association, “Resolution Reaffirming Support for Research and Teaching with Nonhuman Animals” (August 2017), apa.org
  7. Nancy Averett, “High School Dissections Are a Science Class Tradition. But Are They Doing More Harm Than Good?” (January 27, 2020), discovermagazine.com
  8. Thomas Henley, “My Best Science Lesson: Dissecting Cow Brains to Explore Intelligence” (October 29, 2013), theguardian.com
  9. Julianna Music, “Pro: Dissection Prepares Students for the Field of Biology” (May 2, 2014), wvgazettemail.com
  10. Ted Gregory and Susan Berger, “Is Dissecting a Frog in Science Class Ethical? Protesters Challenge the Long-Standing but Controversial Practice” (June 1, 2018), chicagotribune.com
  11. Animalearn, “Frequently Asked Questions” animalearn.org (accessed April 1, 2020)
  12. Carolina, “Dissection FAQs” (March 2018), carolina.com
  13. National Anti-Vivisection Society, “Frequently Asked Questions” navs.org (accessed April 2, 2020)
  14. Editors of E Magazine, “Harvest of Shame” (February 22, 2019), emagazine.com
  15. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “Dissection Alternatives for Students” (February 22, 2019), pcrm.org
  16. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “Last Remaining Medical School to Use Live Animals for Training Makes Switch to Human-Relevant Methods” (June 30, 2016), pcrm.org
  17. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “Tell UW to Modernize Its Medical Training” pcrm.org (accessed April 1, 2020)
  18. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “Statement from the Physicians Committee on Johns Hopkins University Eliminating the Use of Animals in Medical Training” (May 18, 2016), pcrm.org
  19. Ricki Lewis, “Instructors Reconsider Dissection’s Role in Biology Classes” (November 9, 1997), the-scientist.com
  20. Julia Jacobo, “Florida High School Unveils Synthetic Frogs for Dissection in Biology Class” (November 26, 2019), abcnews.go.com
  21. Mary Caton, “Villanova Students Try Hand at Virtual Frog Dissection” (November 27, 2019), windsorstar.com
  22. Nicole Shine, “The Battle Over High School Animal Dissection” (June 14, 2017), psmag.com
  23. Associated Press, “Fake Frogs in School Dissections Eliminate Gross-Out-Factor” (December 31, 2019), wtop.com
  24. Deborah H. Williams and Gerhard P. Shipley, “Cultural Taboos as a Factor in the Participation Rate of Native Americans in STEM” (April 11, 2018), International Journal of STEM Education
  25. Ken Roy, “Dissection: Don’t Cut Out Safety” (February 2, 2007), nsta.org
  26. Miriam A. Zemanova, “Attitudes Toward Animal Dissection and Animal-Free Alternatives Among High School Biology Teachers in Switzerland” (May 4, 2022), frontiersin.org
  27. American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Student Choice Laws” aavs.org (accessed August 25, 2022)
  28. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “Dissection Is Dangerous, Unethical, and Unnecessary: Here’s Why” headlines.peta.org (accessed December 10, 2024)