The Use of Animals for Educational and Research Purposes:
A Case Study for Middle School Students
Bryan Nicklaus Brown, BS
NIH NSRA F31 Predoctoral Fellow
McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Department of Bioengineering
University of Pittsburgh
AND
Rosa Lynn Pinkus, PhD
Professor Medicine/Neurosurgery
Associate Director, Center for Bioethics and Health Law
Director, Consortium Ethics Program
University of Pittsburgh
Peggy is a 12-year-old student at a local middle school. Her biology class has been
studying the systems of the body and is planning to do a frog dissection next week in order to
observe some of the organs they have been learning about first hand. The biology teacher
informs the class that this year, students will be given the option of using a real frog or a
“virtual” frog. They are asked to take the following permission slip home and discuss the
options with an adult in their family, chose an option for the dissection, and then have the
adult sign the form.
Note to Teachers: The permission slip includes background and an explanation of
why the school is providing students with an option. This will provide a chance for
students and their parents to think through the value of using animals in research.
Some may be opposed to the use of a frog, while others may not be opposed but really
love to use simulations. This is a good place to stop and encourage your students to
express their opinions about which option they would choose at this point and why.
You may also want to ask your students to vote on what they would choose if
presented with this choice. Once you have discussed this, you can give them the
permission slip to read. You can then ask them to vote again at the end of the module
to see if/how their opinions have changed and why.
Basically, the permission slip says that the students do not have to perform the
dissection on a real animal if they do not wish to do so. However, those students who choose
not to dissect a real frog will be required to use a computer simulation that will allow them to
get the educational experience that is gained from dissecting an animal1. Each student and
their parents must discuss and choose one of these options2.
1
For an example of an online frog dissection simulation like that mentioned in this module, teachers
are referred to: www.froguts.com.
2
For a more in-depth analysis of the social and ethical considerations of animal dissection and the use
of the simulation mentioned in this module, teachers are referred to: Kenneth R. Fleischmann. (2003)
Frog and Cyberfrog are Friends: Dissection Simulation and Animal Advocacy. Society and Animals,
11(2): 123-143.
1
Frog Dissection Permission Slip (NOTE: This exercise is to encourage reflection on the ethical
issues involved in frog dissection! We are NOT GOING TO DISSECT A FROG IN CLASS!!!)
Dear Parents/Guardians/Students,
Next week, our biology class will be starting a frog dissection unit designed to provide students with a
more in-depth understanding of the body systems that we have been learning about in class over the
last few weeks. It is our belief that dissection is a valuable educational experience for students because
it allows them to examine closely as well as touch, feel, and manipulate organs as they perform the
dissection. In addition, students often feel that they learn better during “hands-on” activities. Many of
the students who took part in this unit in previous years have said that this was one of their favorite
experiences from this class.
We understand, however, that the use of animals for educational purposes is controversial for a variety
of reasons and that not all students and/or their families are comfortable with the dissection an animal.
Therefore, students will be provided with an alternative to performing the dissection on a real animal.
The alternative will consist of an online computer-simulated dissection. Parents/guardians and students
are encouraged to visit the simulation website prior to making their final decision (www.froguts.com).
All students, regardless of which option they choose, will be required to write a one paragraph
statement detailing the reason(s) for their choice. Parents/guardians are encouraged to help with the
writing of this statement. A list of potential “pro’s and con’s” has been provided for both options to
help parents/guardians guide the discussion and decisions of the student. It should be noted that this
list is in no way exhaustive and is provided simply to facilitate discussion. Parents/guardians and
students are encouraged to discuss the “pro’s and con’s” associated with their personal, religious, and
other beliefs, which are not listed in the “pro’s and con’s” provided here. Once the student has written
their statement, their parents/guardians must sign the bottom of the form acknowledging that they give
their permission for the student to participate in their chosen activity.
Finally, our school takes respect for living creatures very seriously. We abide by the same “3R’s”
guidelines that are used in research. They are “Replace”, “Reduce”, and “Refine”. This means that,
where possible, we encourage the use of animal alternatives, only use the number of animals required
to achieve the desired educational experience, and cause the least possible amount of pain and suffering
to any animal to be used for educational purposes. In the interest of reducing the number of animals
used, we want to make sure that we order only enough animals for those who are interested in
performing the dissection. Therefore, please consider you decision carefully so that we do not waste
any animals. We also expect that all students will conduct themselves in a respectful manner. This
applies to students performing the actual dissection and the simulated dissection. By signing this form,
students acknowledge that they have considered their decision carefully and agree to conduct
themselves in a respectful manner.
Student Statement
Name:
Choice (Circle One):
Animal Dissection
Describe The Reasons For Your Choice:
Simulated Dissection
Student Signature:
Parent/Guardian Signature:
__________________________
Date:
__________________________
Date:
__________________________
__________________________
2
Frog Dissection
Simulated Dissection
Pro
 Only the exact number of animals necessary
to perform the dissection will be used
 Frogs for dissection will be euthanized by
the most human methods possible
 Many students learn better during hands on
experiences
 Many students say that this is a very
rewarding experience
Pro
 Simulation is highly detailed and includes
most of the topics to be discussed during the
“hands-on” dissection
 The least number of animals needed to
create the simulation were used
 No animals will be wasted if students choose
not to take the activity seriously
 No “gag” factor
 Interested students are encouraged to view
the simulation as many times as they want
prior to doing the actual dissection to help
them better prepare for the in-class activities
Con
 Frogs for dissection are primarily captured
from their wild habitats
 An animal has to be sacrificed in order to do
the dissection
 Animals may be wasted if students perform
the activities improperly or do not take it
seriously
 Some students will experience some amount
of discomfort due to the “gag” factor
associated with the dissection (smell, etc.)
Con
 Some animals had to be used to create the
simulation
 Students will be unable to compare organs in
one frog to another
 Students may not get a good understanding
of the textures as well as delicacy and
fragility of certain animal tissues and organs
 Students are limited by the confines of the
simulation and cannot perform additional
investigation on their own initiative. For
example, students cannot remove an organ,
turn it over to examine the underside, or
place an organ under a microscope to have a
closer look at the inner structures of an
organ.
3
Note to Teachers: This may be a good place to stop and ask your students if they can
think of any “pros’ and con’s” that are not on the list. These may include personal
and religious viewpoints. Students could also split up into two groups – one for “pro”
and one for “con” – to come up with ideas to present to the class.
Peggy has mixed feelings about the dissection. On one hand, she is very interested in
biology, and doesn’t want to miss out on something she thinks might be really interesting.
Also, she thinks that one day she might like to go to medical school, and she will have to do
dissections if she ever wants to become a doctor. On the other hand, Peggy knows that the
frog must have suffered some kind of pain during its capture, handling, and killing. It is, after
all, a living creature just like us.
When Peggy gets home and shows the permission slip to her parents, it seems as if
they too have mixed feelings. Peggy’s mom says, “Things sure have changed. I HAD to do
that when I was in school. We didn’t have the choice of a ‘virtual frog’. No one really likes
to do it, but it will help you to understand what you are learning about in a way that a
textbook or a website just can’t show you. It’s a hands-on experience that you just can’t
replace. I know it’s gross, but you’ve just got to tough it out.” Peggy’s dad tells her “I’ve
heard about some of these simulations. They are very detailed, accurate and informative, but
don’t require you to harm an animal. You also don’t have to put up with that awful smell. If
it were me, that’s what I would choose. But, you’ll have to make this decision for yourself.”
Note to Teachers: You may want to change the names, ages, genders, and/or family
dynamics of the characters in this module to better suit the demographics of your
students.
Peggy must now decide how she feels about the dissection. Is it right to use an
animal for educational purposes? Would the alternative be just as good, or will she be
missing out on an important experience? Peggy decides to call her brother Joe, who is a
bioengineering student, to help her decide.
Note to Teachers: Again, you may want to stop here and ask you students to answer
the questions listed above.
“Hi Joe,” says Peggy.
“Hi Peggy,” says Joe. “How is everything going?”
“Actually, that’s why I’m calling. I have to make a hard decision and I was
wondering if I could ask you a few questions to help me make my choice.”
“Of course you can. What are you trying to decide?”
“Did you ever have to dissect an animal when you were in school?”
“I did. Everyone had to do it. Why, you don’t want to?”
“It is not that I don’t want to do it, it’s just that I don’t know if I think it is the right
thing to do.”
“What do you mean if it is the right thing to do? You don’t really have a choice, do
you? If the teacher says you have to, then you have to. Right?”
“Actually, we have a choice. We can either do the dissection on a real animal, or we
can do it on a computer simulation, but we have to decide by tomorrow.”
“Did you ask mom and dad what they think?”
4
“They didn’t really help. Mom thinks I should do it, and dad doesn’t think I should
have to if I don’t want to, especially if I can use the simulation.”
“Hmm, you’re right. That doesn’t really help. Well, I guess we’ll just have to figure
it out ourselves. What are the reasons why you might want to do the dissection?”
“Well, I think it would be really interesting, and besides that I will probably have to
do it if I want to study biology or medicine in college, right? What if it just isn’t the same in
a simulation? I want to be sure that I learn as much as everyone else does. I don’t want to
miss out on anything. And I don’t want anyone to think I’m afraid.”
“I don’t think anyone will think you’re afraid of anything no matter what you choose.
Those are all good reasons why you would want to do it, now why wouldn’t you want to do
it?”
“It sounds kind of gross, and dad says it smells bad.”
“It does smell pretty bad. But you can hold your nose can’t you?”
“Well, not just that. I also can’t help but think that it is hurting a defenseless animal.
Doesn’t someone have to catch and kill the animal so that we can do the dissections? That
has to hurt the animal, right? And anyways, I can probably see pictures of everything on the
simulation without hurting an animal.”
“Those are also good reasons. Seems like the decision really is hard. I can tell you
that when I did it, it wasn’t too bad. I didn’t mind it so much, but at the same time it bothered
me a little bit too. Of course, I wasn’t given a choice.”
“If you were me, what would you choose?”
“Well, I know that a lot of the research labs that I am interested in working in after I
graduate use animals in their research. So, I will probably have to do some kind of animal
research if I want to go to graduate school. I think that I would probably choose to go ahead
and get the experience early. Then, if I didn’t like it, then maybe I could choose a different
kind of career later on.”
“But Joe, you said you weren’t really comfortable with the frog dissection. Won’t
animal research bother you too? Do you think it’s right to do research on animals?”
“Well, there are a lot of different views on the subject. Some people think that we
shouldn’t do any kind of animal research. They feel that we have an ethical obligation to
protect animals.”
“Wait, what do you mean an ethical obligation?”
“They think that because animals cannot refuse to be part of a research study, it is our
moral responsibility to protect them from harm. To some people this means no animal
research is acceptable. But to others this means that, if we can’t end animal research all
together, we should cause the animals as little pain or suffering as possible. In other words,
they don’t think that a living creature should be used as a means to an end.”
“I think they’re right. We shouldn’t use animals in experiments, especially
experiments that hurt them. They didn’t do anything to deserve that. Maybe I shouldn’t do
this frog dissection after all.”
3
Note to Teachers: This is an example of rights-based moral and ethical reasoning. i.e.
A living creature or person should be respected and not used as a means to an end.
You might want to stop here to explain this concept to your students and have them
come up with examples of rights-based reasoning from their own lives. Alternatively,
these concepts and the ones that follow can be explained prior to starting this module.
Consult the Harris text for a more in-depth description of the concepts of rights-based
moral reasoning.3
3
Charles E. Harris, Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, Michael J. Rabins. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and
Cases. 4th edition, Wadsworth Press, Belmont, CA. 2008. Ch 3.8 – pp. 64-69.
5
“Hold on. I haven’t told you the other side yet. Many of the people who do animal
research think that it is necessary to develop medical breakthroughs that help people. Just
think of how many medical breakthroughs wouldn’t exist today if they hadn’t been tested on
animals!”
“Like what?”
“Things like cancer treatments, vaccines, transplants, and medical equipment, to
name only a few of the thousands of medical breakthroughs that have been achieved using
animals. And it is not just the breakthroughs, we have discovered so much about how biology
works, which in itself is very valuable.”
“Oh. I didn’t realize that those things were tested on animals. And they do help a lot
of people. But, still isn’t it wrong to hurt an animal?”
“Well, some people who do animal research think that the amount of pain that is
caused to the animals during the research is much less than the amount of good that the
research can do for people. For example, if we test a new vaccine on 100 rats, maybe it could
help a million people. So, the rats suffer and die, but we save more than 10,000 times as
many human lives. I just read an article about a lab that is doing what is called tissue
engineering research to help people recover after a heart attack. They take stem cells and
place them in a gel-like material that they can inject into the heart. It sounds like it really has
the potential to help a lot of people, but they have to test it on animals first to be sure that it is
safe.”
Note to Teachers: This is an example of utilitarian based moral and ethical reasoning.
i.e. Creating the most good, or cost/benefit analysis. You might want to stop here to
explain this concept to your students and have them come up with examples of
utilitarian reasoning from their own lives. Consult the Harris text for a more in-depth
description of the concepts of utilitarian based moral reasoning.4
4
“Well, that doesn’t seem too bad. But I still don’t know how I feel about doing
something to hurt an animal on purpose. Aren’t there laws against animal cruelty?”
“I don’t think that anyone thinks that it is OK to hurt an animal for no reason or to set
out with the sole purpose of hurting an animal. Common morality tells all of us that living
things should be respected, and that causing pain for no reason is wrong. You agree with that
don’t you?”
“Yes. I think everyone does. That’s why it is called common morality, right?”
“Yep. Common morality is a set of rules that we can all agree on. Like causing pain
is wrong. Or that it is wrong to steal. Things like that.”5
Note to Teachers: This is an example of common morality. i.e. The stock of common
beliefs about moral standards, rules, and principles we believe should guide our lives.
You may want to stop here and discuss common morality. Common morality may
also be discussed prior to beginning the module. Note that each student may have a
different view of common morality based upon their family, religious, and personal
views. Consult the Harris text for a more in-depth description of the concepts of
common morality, personal morality, and professional ethics.5
4
5
Harris. Ch 3.7, pp 58-64.
Harris. Ch 1.4, pp 8-12.
6
“So, how do they know how much pain an animal is in if it is used for research?”
“Well, they don’t exactly know how much pain is being caused because the animals
can’t tell them. But, everyone who does animal research has to go trough a strict approval
process before they can begin their studies. In fact, there is a rule called the “3 R’s” rule that
scientists must follow when they plan their studies. The “3 R’s” are “Replace, Reduce and
Refine”. It means that the scientists have to make sure that there is no way to do the same
research without an animal (Replace), try to use as few animals as possible (Reduce), and try
to make sure that the methods they use cause as little pain as possible (Refine).”
“You mean like the frog dissection simulation?”
“Yes, like that. But for researchers, replacing and reducing can mean things like
using cells from an animal instead of a whole animal. If they can just use cells, then there is
no pain or death for an animal.”
“Why don’t we use cells for all of the experiments then?”
“Because cells are not always exactly the same as a whole animal. Our bodies are
very complex and have hundreds of types of cells. It would be impossible to recreate
everything in a simulation or using just one, or even a few, types of cells.”
“I think I understand a little better now.”
“OK. Now that we have talked about the options, how about we make a chart that
will help you to decide? We can come up with two situations. The first one will be a
situation where the dissection is clearly the right thing to do and one where dissection is
clearly the wrong thing to do. We’ll then put your thoughts about the dissection that your
class plans to do on our chart and see if it is more similar to the right thing to do or the wrong
thing. Then we’ll do the same for the simulation. What do you think?”
“That really sounds like it would help me to organize my thoughts about my options.”
Note to Teachers: You can have your students imagine that they are in Peggy’s
situation and fill out the empty line drawings below. They should come up with cases
of dissection and virtual simulations that are clearly positive and clearly negative. The
features of these cases are then placed in the left (negative) and right (positive) sides of
the line drawing. They should then mark where they think the frog dissection and
simulation options that their class is being offered fall along a line between the positive
and negative aspects. This will help them to compare the positive and negative aspects
of their options to make a decision. Example line drawings for this case are provided
below. Teachers are encouraged to have a completed line drawing example – it may
be helpful to choose a simple topic that students can relate to - to show your students
prior to starting this exercise. For more information on the concepts of line drawings,
please consult the Harris text.6
6
6
Harris. Ch 4.4, pp 80-84.
7
Line Drawing Worksheet
Frog Dissection
Clearly Negative
Your Situation
Clearly Positive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simulated Dissection
Clearly Negative
Your Situation
Clearly Positive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
Example Line Drawing
Note to Teachers: Some basic features of situations where dissection would be clearly
positive and clearly negative are listed here. You are encouraged to come up with
your own wrong/right situations and features of those situations. You may also want
to adjust this chart to better fit what you think will be the concerns of your students.
Frog Dissection
Clearly Negative
Case
Your Situation
Clearly Positive Case
Animals wasted on
students who did not want
to do it!
-----------------------------------
No animals wasted; as ALL
students took it seriously
Caused Pain to an Animal
-----------------------------------
Animal sacrificed using 3 “R’s
guidelines
No Educational Worth
-----------------------------------
High Educational Worth
"Gag" Factor
-----------------------------------
"Gag" factor outweighed by
educational worth of “hands
on” experience
Insert your own negative
features here
-----------------------------------
Insert your own positive
features here
Simulated Dissection
Clearly Negative
Case
Your Situation
Clearly Positive
-----------------------------------
Only # of animals aacrificed
to create aimulation (3 R’s
satisfied)
-----------------------------------
Without actual “hands-on”
experience, minimal
educational worth
Topics can be repeated as
many times as needed (at
any time) to guarantee
learning
-----------------------------------
High Educational Worth
"Gag" Factor
-----------------------------------
No "Gag" Factor
Insert your own negative
features here
-----------------------------------
Insert your own positive
features here
Sacrificing ANY animal is
wrong
Does not include “tactile”
aspects of hands-on
dissection
Note to Teachers: You should now mark where Peggy’s options fall on the dotted line
between the negative and positive cases. Your students may come up with very
different line drawings and come to different conclusions based on their personal
feelings about dissection. Students should use the information that they have been
provided and the concepts discussed in class to identify positive and negative aspects.
You may want to ask your students to vote again on whether they would choose the
dissection or the simulation to see if/how their opinions have changed following
completion of the module and why. You can also ask your students to apply these
concepts during a discussion of animal research that is designed to help people.
Where does this score on the line drawing?
9