All kinds of animals, including fish, frogs, rats, sharks, dogs, cats, farmed animals, fur animals, and non-human primates, are frequently harmed as part of a students education. This harmful use of animals occurs at pre-university level for teaching general principals of biology, and at university level, as part of the formation of candidates in may fields, including psychology, biology, human and veterinary medicine, pharmacology, dentistry, healthcare, etc. At times, animals are killed purposely to provide body parts, such as organs and tissues, or cells. In other cases, whole animals, dead or alive, are given to the students. Dissections are among the most common practices. This consists of cutting into the pre-killed animals, generally to teach anatomical structures. Animal experimentation includes a variety of procedures on live animals. Vivisection is one of the most frequent practices; it consists in the cutting into live animals, often followed by injecting chemicals to monitor the effects on the organisms, or to practice surgery skills. Other procedures, which may or may not result in the death of the animals, are observations on the effects of starvation of differently depleted diets on animal behavior, infection development, host resistance, etc. In Canada, an estimated number of 69, 477 animals were used in 2001, solely for education and training of post secondary students (1). This number is believed to be grossly underestimated. Institutions are not required by law to keep track of the number of animals used for education; as well, a count of animals which dies in the procurement process is presumably lacking. Harmful Use of Animals Procedures involving animal use in teaching are approved, in Canada, by Universities’ Animal Care Committees (ACC’s). To be accepted, a procedure needs to comply with guidelines of these ACC’s, corresponding in most cases to the guidelines established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). Following these guidelines, alternatives should be sought before animal use is agreed upon. However, no strict procedure is required for the instructors to prove that no valid, non-harmful animal use alternatives are available. In addition, procedures involving pain and distress are allowed by these committee’s as part of the students curriculum. Of the estimated 69,477 animals used in 2001, 6,621 animals were said to be subjected to experiments that cause moderate to severe distress or discomfort; 16,984 others suffered experiments said to cause minor stress and pain of a short duration. These numbers may be much higher since the pain or suffering experienced by an animal is arbitrary assessed by those experimenting on them. Furthermore, most animal use in education ca be said to be harmful to the animals, following the definition of harm adopted by the International Network for Human Education (2). This definition considers not only physical harm, but also any limitations to animal freedoms that may cause fear, stress or discomfort. Elaborating on this definition, harm to animals occurs not only when animals are experimented on and killed, but in most steps leading to their procurement, such as during their capture and transportation, as well as when animals are prevented from engaging in their normal behaviors when housed and bred in captivity. Blatant examples of harm endured by future victims of the education system have been witnessed by an undercover inspector from People for the Ethical treatment of Animals (PETA). An investigation of a US biological supply company revealed cats packed so tightly in transport cages that their flesh protruded through the wire mesh. The killing of cats was supposed to happen as they were introduced into a gas chamber. However, several of them were observed to have survived this horrific experience, moving their paws (which were tied down) and clenching their teeth on the sponges stuffed into their mouths as employees prepared them for embalming. IN the same manner, many rats were seen kicking furiously even after their skin was pulled back from neck to mid-section (3). In addition to direct harm to individuals, the use of animals in education may be harmful to animal populations and the environment. Indeed, certain animals, like frogs and sharks, are often taken from their natural environment, leading in certain cases to species depletion and the disturbance of ecosystems (4). Impact on Students The negative consequences on the students themselves, and the learning environment, should not be dismissed. Students who do not approve of the harmful use of animals in education are often faced with what they think are their only choices: performing the activity fo which they disapprove and then trying to block their feelings, disassociating themselves from the action (with the potentially disastrous consequences that can affect an individual’s psyche) (5), or instead, choosing a field in which they wont be asked to perform such acts. The latter, although less damaging psychologically, results in a dramatic loss for science of motivated, critically-thinking students who have a high degree of respect for life. Students who do not have objections to using animals are also subject to the negative consequences of a “hidden curriculum” (6). Indeed, by being educated in an environment where animals are mere learning tools and killing is the norm, students get accustomed to the idea that it is acceptable, and in certain situations even encouraged, to use and kill other sentient beings, solely for human interests. This contributes to the shaping of attitudes that may affect not only the students’ personal life choices, but also their future careers. For example, studies of veterinary students have shown that the harmful use of animals leads to mechanism of de-sensitization (7) (8), which is certainly not in the best interest of their future patients. Researchers who have been taught harmful animal use are also most likely to perpetuate the use of animals in research and testing, in opposition to the search for humane alternatives. Any animal regulatory body concerned with a reduction of animal use in research and testing should consequently strongly favor the use of alternatives in education. Alternatives One does not have to harm animals to acquire knowledge and in some cases laboratory skills for a future career. Indeed, different approaches to teaching and the development of numerous humane educational aids, known as “alternatives”, can replace harmful animal use or complement existing humane education. These alternatives include computer models, videotapes, interactive videos, simulator models, plastic models, mannequins, ethically-sourced cadavers, etc., and are available for all educational fields involving the use of animals. Neutral or beneficial work with live animals can also be a part of a student’s learning experience (9) (10). Alternatives are used Worldwide by more and more instructors, as well as by students opposing harmful animal use as part of their education. Although their prices vary, many of these are affordable for institutions and cost effective over the long term (12). Their efficiency, evaluated by many studies (13), is reinforced by the growing number of students in all fields graduating without harming animals and with the use of these alternatives. Conscientious Objection: A Right Way to Say NO! More and more students Worldwide refuse to participate in practices they condemn. In Canada, a few articles recently reported the objection of students fro participating in harmful animal use (14) (15), raising an issue generally not publicized, yet familiar to many people. As in most other countries, only a very small number of learning institutions in Canada have an official policy on conscientious objection t animal use, allowing students to object and to be given alternatives. Yet, students have the right to say “NO”, while being educated in the field of their choice. Civil and students; rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), s.2, which states that everyone has “freedom of conscience and religion” and “freedom of thought, belief opinion and expression”. This means that students do not have to violate their ethical principles and/or religious beliefs in order to be engaged in good education. The application of these rights and freedoms, however, depends on the relationship between the government and the university or institution in which the student is registered (paralleling the First Amendment in the US) (16). For a student to invoke the charter, the university in which he/she is enrolled must be considered as a government actor. “For certain purposes”, the courts are prepared to consider universities as government actors because of their funding arrangements. This engages s.15 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination based on ‘creed’. A Supreme Court of Canada decision suggest that, for some purposes, universities are government actors. And for others, they are private actors (17). Looking into the Future: Towards a Humane, High Quality Education To our knowledge, no university in Canada has formal policies allowing conscientious objection to the harmful use of animals. Reluctance over the use of alternatives, because of vested interests or for compliance with a too comfortable status quo, is widely spread. Still, the situation is progressively, albeit slowly, changing. A 2002 survey by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) revealed that, out of the 16 medical universities in Canada, 11 no longer use live animals in their teaching curricula (18). Contacts made recently in different Canadian universities also revealed that the issue of conscientious objection to animal use is taken seriously, and most instructors contacted were willing to accommodate students, on a one-to-one basis. This is not enough, of course. Several universities and schools Worldwide allow students to have an education of their choice without compromising their beliefs and harming animals (19). Recently, a veterinary school in the US was created with a philosophy of respect for all life, and consequently the rejection of harmful animal use not for solely conscientious objectors, but for any enrolled students (20). This is a positive, “opt in” (humane, high quality education). Contrasting with traditional “opt out” of harmful animal use. With the number of efficient, modern and humane alternatives now available, and clear evidence that harmful animal use can have a negative impact on not only animals but also students and the environment, the only possible move is towards a cruelty free education. Will Canada be a World-leader in animal defense and high quality education by taking a stand on the issues?
References: (1) Statistics from the Canadian Council on Animal Care http://www.ccac.ca (2) Policy on the Use of Animals and Alternatives in Education. International Network for Humane Education (InterNICHE) http://www.interniche.org/policy.htm (3) The PETA guide to animals and the dissection industry http://www.petakids.com/lanimaldisindust.pdf (4) The Use of Animals in Higher Education. J. Balcombe, Humane Society Press, pages 32-33. (5) The psychological effect on students of using animals in ways that they see as ethically, morally and religiously wrong. T. Capaldo, NEAVS, 2001. (6) The Hidden Values: Ethics and the Use of Animals in Education. Thales Trez, Master Degree Thesis, University of Leuven, 2001. (7) Vets learn to be hard, 10 March, 2000, BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_673000/673033.stm (8) Psychological Issues in the Educational Use of Animal Experimentation, V. Pomfrey, BSc (Hons), Dip. Nat. Sci. (9) Ethical surgery training for veterinary students. D. Smeak. In: From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse, InterNICHE, p. 117-123. (10) A pedagogically sound, innovative, and humane plan for veterinary medical education. L. Rasmussen, R. Robinson, G. Johnston and S. Johnston. In: From Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse, InterNICHE, p. 125-133. (11) From Guinea Pig To Computer Mouse. International Network for Humane Education. (12) The Use of Animals in Higher Education. J. Balcombe, Humane Society Press, pages 45-46. (13) The Use of Animals in Higher Education. J. Balcombe, Humane Society Press, pages 41-42. (14) A young man finds courage in conviction, by Chris Mason, The Ottawa Citizen, January 26, 2004. (15) Vegan has beef with policy, by Astrid Poei, March.02.2004, The Eye-opener Newspaper, Ryerson university. http://www.theeyeopener.com/storydetail.cfm?storyid=991 (16) Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: a guide to conscientious objection. G. L. Francione and A. E. Charlton, American Anti-Vivisection Society, 1992. (17) McKinney v. University of Guelph http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1990/1990scc121.html (18) Based on this survey, the universities still using animals are: the University of British Columbia, Memorial university of Newfoundland, the University of Western Ontario; Queen's university and University Laval didn't answer the survey. (19) Examples of institutions having conscientious objection policies or dissection policies allowing students to object: Murdoch university (Australia), Wollongong University (Australia), University of Illinois (US), Sarah Lawrence College (US) (20) College of Veterinary Medicine, Western University of Health Sciences http://www.westernu.edu/veterinary/principles.xml |
|||
|
|||
|
|||