By: Sarah Johnson
This week we are going to take a Close Look at CA AB1586, relating to animal dissection in the classroom. Under the proposed legislation, all California schools would replace animal dissection activities with alternative projects, or “contemporary teaching methods”. The bill defines dissection as “the viewing of the, or act of, dismembering or otherwise destructive use of an invertebrate or vertebrate animal, as specified, in the study of biological sciences, excluding fixed histological samples of any species.”
A Little Bit of History.
Ever preform a dissection in science class growing up? Did you or someone in your class not want to participate? Depending on the state you were in and the teacher you had, you or your fellow students could have asked to opt out of dissection and be given an alternate assignment due to a legal fight in California from 1987.
Jennifer Graham, a 15-year-old California high school student, refused to dissect a frog in her school class because she believed it was immoral. Instead of simply refusing to participate in the dissection, she asked her teacher for an alternative assignment. The teacher denied her request and because she did not complete the assignment, she received a lower grade in the class. After her grade suffered, Jennifer sued the school district, claiming that requiring students to participate in dissection violates their First Amendment right to any deeply held religious and moral beliefs. Jennifer won the suit and a year later, California amended their education code giving all California K-12 public school students the right to refrain from dissection and to be given an alternative assignment without penalty. Because of this decision and Graham’s fight, 18 states have since enacted student choice laws in public education relating to dissection.
Why do People and Organizations Support this Bill?
California Assembly Member Ash Kalra along with cosponsors PETA, Social Compassion in Legislation, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine worked together to draft and propose the RAISE Act. Many people who support this legislation believe dissection is an outdated method of education, as well as believing it is unethical. When looking at the unethical components of dissecting animals, it exposes students and educators to carcinogenic chemicals, hurts animals and the environment.
There are four primary animals used for dissection: frogs, cats, fetal pigs, and humans. Frogs used for dissection are typically obtained by: being caught in the wild (during legally established hunting periods), being the byproduct of the food industry (something happens to them during the shipment of the frogs), or being raised in farm like conditions called cultures. Most cats are feral cats caught by the animal services group in communities. They are checked for a microchip and if the cat does not have a microchip, they could be euthanized to be used for dissection. Fetal pigs are a byproduct of the food industry (slaughter houses). When humans donate their bodies to science, they are volunteering for their bodies to be used as a cadaver.
With technological advances relating to anatomy, people against dissection believe the alternative projects or models (like videos, lectures, and plastic and computer models) are at least, if not more, as effective as using real animals. PETA sited studies comparing the use of animals in science education to the use of humane educational methods, showcasing their effectiveness. Today, most medical schools rely on simulation-based teaching along with dissection. An article from Medical News Today lists out the following advantages and disadvantages to ‘Anatomy and Physiology Revealed’ (APR) – a model-based computer simulation:
Advantages
- The ability to navigate efficiently through different bodily layers and structures in 3D space
- Providing more opportunities to explore anatomical structures on their own
- Allowing students more autonomy in choosing different views, angles, and combinations of anatomical images that is not possible in traditional cadaver-based instruction.
Disadvantages
- Lack of haptic (sense of touch) understanding of anatomical structures
- The ability to give students too many views of anatomical structures and, so doing, distracting them from focusing on key information
- The software’s navigation and abundant options overwhelm students’ cognitive processing capabilities and, as a result, impair learning.
When speaking about the bill, Assembly Member Kalra stated,
“Learning about anatomy in schools is important scientific pedagogy but dissection presents a significant impact on the environment and our fragile ecosystems. Advancements in educational technology have expanded access to this important scientific instructional methodology without having to rely on animals. With the development technological alternatives, virtual and computer-based science teaching practicum offer more humane teaching methods that help to better prepare students for higher education and careers in science.”
Why do People and Organizations Oppose this Bill?
The RAISE Act is opposed by several organizations including California Science Teachers Association (CSTA), California Teachers Association (CTA), California Federation of Teachers (CFT), Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), California Agricultural Teachers Association, and California Farm Bureau Federation. Not only are there disadvantages to replacing animal dissection with alternative assignments that can impact a student’s learning, many of these organizations take issue with this bill removing the agency of educators to decide the appropriateness and value of in class student dissection.
In NABT’s letter in opposition to the bill, they say “NABT supports the current California Education Code, which respects the expertise of K-12 science educators and allows these professionals to thoughtfully discern whether or not it is appropriate for their students to dissect. The current California policy also includes appropriate provisions for students to opt out of a dissection experience, promoting self-advocacy and conversation between student and teacher.” They also point to a study showcasing that the technological alternatives are not an adequate replacement.
While the increased quality and accessibility of dissection alternatives has helped address concerns from students and parents opposed to dissection, these alternatives are not without limitations. Although models and digital modalities may teach the same concepts, they rarely have the same impact. A key finding from a 2014 paper published in Advances of Physiology Education captures what thousands of biology teachers have confirmed in their own classrooms:
“When asked which type of instruction they would like to see added to the course curriculum, students requested organ dissections more often than any other treatment. Furthermore, students who performed organ dissections generally had more favorable opinions of science.” (Lombardi SA, Hicks RE, Thompson KV, Marbach-Ad G. Adv Physiol Educ 38: 80 – 86, 2014)
The CSTA says, “If passed, this bill would overnight ban all animal dissections, regardless of their species, sourcing, relevance in student learning, and course requirements. This would set a dangerous precedent of having the legislature make pedagogical decisions for teachers, schools, and districts.” The NABT echos this in their statement as well,
NABT maintains that the professional biology educator is responsible for designing meaningful learning experiences that promote positive attitudes toward science, help students better identify as scientists, and protect those students who refrain from dissection. The state’s Education Code does this, while AB1586 as written presumes that dissection has a negative impact on student learning and effectively eliminates both teacher and student agency.
The proper and ethical use of animals in science classrooms must always be matched to the explicit standards and objectives for the course and contribute to the educational outcomes for students. Ultimately, it is the professional educator in the classroom who is in the best position to make the determination about using non-living animals for dissection.
A Brief Interview with NABT About Where Things Stand
I had the pleasure of speaking with Jaclyn Reeves-Pepin, Executive Director National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) and BillTrack50 customer, this week about the bill and where things stand now.
Jacki and I spoke about some of the complications and ways NABT believed the bill went too far. First, the situation was complicated because when the bill was proposed, the California budget was already set. Second, usually state laws do not have the ability to impact private schools because private schools aren’t under the California Department of Education. Finally, NABT viewed this bill of taking the agency from teachers, the professionals in charge of education and the methods of teaching, to make this decision for their classes to achieve desired learning outcomes.
NABT supports student choice on dissection and believes students should have the choice to opt in or opt out of it if they are in a class where dissection would be used as a teaching tool. Teachers and students can make informed decisions relating to this subject, and should have that right.
When speaking about the success of their opposition to the bill, NABT said that catching the legislation early in one of their bill sheets was paramount. Having extra time prior to hearings allowed NABT to talk to their members (who range from pro to anti dissection) and really understand their position and feelings. These meaningful discussions with their board of directors and members enabled them to adequately collect, analyze, and represent their members’ views. This also gave them time to conduct their own research about alternatives and the viability of dissection’s replacements; allowing them to further refine what their opposition was and not conflate issues.
When looking at alternatives, Jacki spoke about aspects of these alternatives people in support of the legislation may not have top of mind. As an example, faux frogs have been introduced in biology class at one high school in Florida. Students have started dissecting realistic man-made frogs instead of the real animals. Although this seems like the more humane approach, Jacki brought up other possible issues this alternative poses. What is the amount of additional waste generated from these faux frogs? What is their carbon footprint impact? What is the appropriate form of waste disposal for them? What else could we not be contemplating?
Looking at where things stand now and what the future holds, NABT expects to see this legislation or similar legislation proposed in the future. California is a leader in education reform bills, but they expect that the next version of the bill to be a bit more refined and still probably have areas they disagree with. All in all, NABT thinks this legislation was a good step forward, the conversations that where had surrounding the legislation and its implications bring the whole subject area forward, which is good. But, ultimately NABT wants to protect students and their right to choose to participate or not. NABT will not support a blanket ban. Until they see what the next version holds, NABT will be waiting to see how knowing what they know now, will legislators change tack, modify language, or even continue to pursue the RAISE Act.
Cover Photo by Jack Hamilton on Unsplash
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.