1

Introducing alternatives to using animals in teaching

in Balkan universities

Zvezdana Kojic, Marina DjelicSchool of Medicine, University of Belgrade

Alternatives 2007Ankara, Turkey

2

Belgrade, Medicine, Physiology laboratory classes

• 2002: - many problems… - we started introducing computer-based alternatives …

• staged process … - 2003: weekly regular staff meetings, 2004: “electronic room”, 2005: Lab

Textbook, 2006: Annual award of School of Medicine for improvement of

teaching. • resulting in significant savings in the number of animals used in teaching

- 2003/04: 600 frogs, 195 mammals - 2004/05: 0 frogs, 30 mammals

• Estimated animal use still was high: - other parts of Belgrade University: >1000 animals/year,- Balkan University sector: ~ 40,000 animals/year

• Background in applying for funding from LDF.• Support:

- Serbian Physiological Society- Serbian Pharmacological Society

3

The Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research

• Aims: to significantly reduce the number of animals used in teaching physiology and pharmacology in some of Balkan universities by supporting the introduction of computer-based alternatives into the curricula.

Project deliverables1. A staff-development workshop in Belgrade (Sept. 2006)2. A range of 17 computer-based alternatives, supplied by

Sheffield BioScience Programs (www.sheffbp.co.uk), to be freely distributed to teachers

3. A follow up report on the impact of the project approximately 1 year after the workshop

4. A written project report

4

• try to implement at least one of the alternatives

into their teaching in the next academic year.

• Questionnaires about:

1. the use of animals in education

2. awareness of e-learning initiatives

3. current use of alternatives

4. possible reasons why alternatives were not currently

being used.

Project participans committed to:

5

Photos taken during workshop: introducing lesson

6

Photos taken during workshop: practical work

7

Photos taken during workshop: practical work

8

Questionnaire

At the end of Project:

we gather data bymails and telephone interviews.

9

Croatia, Bosna $ Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, GreeceSerbian

41.2%

58.8%

40.9%

59.1%

Project participants

Sept. 2006: n=22 13 Serbian Institutes 9 non-Serbian Institutes.

Sept. 2007: n=34 20 Serbian Institutes 14 non-Serbian Institutes

10

September 2006.

1.1. The use of animals in education

RESULTS

11

Data from the questionnaire + telephone interview (Institutes, n =29)

For 6 of the Institutes we surveyed we received pre-2006 data but not post-2006 data and so eliminated these from the study (Institutes, n=23)

3 Institutes (Physiology - Belgrade, Pharmacology – Belgrade, Pharmacology – Nis) reduced animals use even before LDF – workshop. Their data have also been removed from the study (Institutes, n=20) *

* Important for evaluation of reduction in animal use attributed to LDF - workshop

Animals used rat mouse guinea pig rabbit cat dog frog2006 1216 1018 70 108 7 46 3825

Animals used rat mouse guinea pig rabbit cat dog frog2006 726 748 32 96 7 30 3825

Animals used rat mouse guinea pig rabbit cat dog frogBefore workshop (2006) 486 738 32 86 2 0 3225

For 5 additional Institutes we gathered data about use of alternatives, but no data for animal use.

12

1.1. The use of animals in education

Number of Institutes using different animal species in teaching

Use of animals no yesrat 10 (45.5%) 12 (54.5%)mouse 17 (77.3%) 5 (22.7%)guinea pig 16 (72.7%) 6 (27.3%)frog 16 (72.7%) 6 (27.3%)rabbit 16 (72.7%) 6 (27.3%)cat 20 (90.9%) 2 ( 9.1%)dog 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%)

13

Use of different tissue preparations in practical classes

A high proportion (19) of the 22 participants reported that they used tissue preparations. Isolated nerve, muscle and heart preparations are most common.

Tissue/preparationNerve, Muscle, Ileum Other tisuee Endoc. glands Total

HeartInstitute number 7 4 7 1 19

14

1.2. Awareness of e-learning initiatives

Most teachers in this study were unaware of e-learning initiatives such as:• the Global Learning Consortium (36%) or • the Open Knowledge Initiative (32%), and

none of the institutes were actively using course management tools such as virtual/managed learning environments.

15

Institutes who were aware of information sources about the use of alternatives in education

no yesNORINA 20 (90.9%) 2 (9.1%)AVAR 21(95.5%) 1 (4.5%)InterNICHE 21(95.5%) 1 (4.5%)EURECA 20 (90.9%) 2 (9.1%)

16

1.3. Use of alternatives A large majority felt:

1. that computer-assisted learning (CAL) offers distinct advantages over traditional teaching methods,

2. that alternatives could achieve many of the learning objectives of practical classes – good method for students, and

3. that their use would lead to improvements in teaching methods – good method for professors.

17

1.3. Use of alternatives

4. CAL offers possibility of demonstrating phenomena that are normally unobservable in the equivalent animal experiment such as animation of dynamic physiological processes and anatomical “fly-throughs” of organ systems.

5. use of alternatives can avoid the negative learning experience of an “unsuccessful experiment”.

6. Animal-free models have several advantages over animal experiments: a specific animal experiment might only be offered once, whereas an alternative model can often be use over and over again, without constraints on time and place of study.

18

1.4. Reasons for not using alternatives in teaching

Statement Highest rank Lowest rank(%) (%)

There are no suitable alternatives available 40.9 27.3I don’t know how to find available alternatives 22.7 40.9Alternatives are unable to achive the appropriate/learning teaching objectives 13.6 31.8The institution is not able to afford the cost of alternatives 40.9 18.2Colleagues are opposed to use of alternatives 18.2 45.5Students are opposed to use of alternatives 9.1 68.2The facilites needed to use (computer based) alternatives are not availble 27.3 4.5The use of alternatives does not meet the requirements of the professional body 9.1 45.5The university procedures to change course content are too complicated 9.1 45.5The time for staff to make changes in course content is not available 9.1 18.2It is against department policy to decrease the amount of laboratory work 9.1 59.1The government controls the curriculum content so it is not possible to change 13.6 63.6The head of unit is opposed to replacing animal practical classes with altern. 13.6 59.1Alternatives are to difficult to integrate into my teaching 13.6 45.5There is no evidence that alternatives are effective 4.5 50.0

19

September 2007. Impact of the Project

Following workshop, one year later …

RESULTS

20

Reduction in animal use attributed to LDF – workshop (Institutes, n=20)

Animals used rat mouse guinea pig rabbit cat dog frogBefore workshop (2006) 486 738 32 86 2 0 3225Following workshop 150 60 0 28 0 0 635Replaced (%) 69 92 100 67 100 0 80

21

Alternative used in 34 Balkan’s Universities Institutes

YesNoNo data

58.8%

17.7% 23.5%

22

Alternative use in 34 Balkan’s Universities Institutes

YES (n=20) NO (n=6) No data (n=8)Bgd/Med/Physiol Bgd/Med/Pathophysiol Banja Luka/Med/PhysiolBgd/Med/Pharmacol Bgd/Veterinary/Physiol Banja Luka/Med/PharmacolBgd/Dental/Pharmacol Bgd/Veterinary/Physiol Nis/Med/BiochemistryBgd/Pharmacy/Physiol Nis/Med/Pathophysiol Mostar/Med/PhysiolBgd/Pharmacy/Pharma KM/Med/Physiol Split/Med/PharmacolBgd/Biology/Physiol Thessaloniki/Med/Physiol Rijeka/Med/PhysiolBgd/USA Med/Physiol Rijeka/Med/PharmacplNS/Biology/Physiol Athens/Med/PharmacolKgd/Med/PhysiolKgd/Med/PharmacolNis/Med/PhysiolNis/Med/PharmacolNis/Sport/PhysiolNis/Pharmacy/PharmacolFoca/Med/PhysiolPodgorica/Med/PhysiolPodgorica/Med/PharmacolSkoplje/Med/PhysiolAthens/Med/PhysiolThessaloniki/Med/Pharmacol

n -number of Institute

23

Summary

… thank you.

• Significant reduction in animal use across Balkan Universities has been achieved.• …how much of the reduction is directly attributable to the workshop?• Besides SBP programs many other programmes (alternatives) have been implemented. • Some universities – still have bad facilities for using alternatives.

• Most of the universities for their practical classes practiced both methods, alternatives and life animal experiments.

24

25

RATbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Bgd/Med/Pharmacol. 30 0 100 yesBgd/Dental/Pharmacol 60 20 33 yesBgd/Med/Physiol. 200 0 100 yesNis/Med/Physiol 30 30 0 yesNis/Med/Pharmacol 10 0 100 yesNis/Med/Pathophysiol 96 0 100 noThess/Med/Pharmacol 200 0 100 yesThess/Med/Physiol 100 100 0 nototal use for Balkan 726 150 79

MOUSEbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Bgd/Dental/Pharmacol 120 60 50 yesBgd/Pharmacy/Pharma 18 0 100 yesBgd/USA Med/Physiol 100 0 100 yesNis/Med/Pharmacol 10 0 100 yesThess/Med/Pharmacol 500 0 100 yestotal use for Balkan 748 60 92

26

FROGbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Bgd/Med/Physiol. 600 0 100 yesBgd/Veterinary/Physiol 150 150 0 noBgd/Pharmacy/Physiol 500 0 100 yesBgd/Biology/Physiol 200 0 100 yesBgd/USA Med/Physiol 60 0 100 yesNS/Med/Physiol 120 60 50 yesNis/Med/Physiol 500 0 100 yesBanja Luka/Med/Phys 200 30 15 no dataFoca/Med/Physiol 75 25 33 yesKM/Med/Physiol 90 90 0 noPodgorica/Med/Physiol 130 130 0 yesSkoplje/Med/Physiol 400 0 100 yesAthens/Med/Physiol 300 150 50 yesThess/Med/Pharmacol 500 0 100 yestotal use for Balkan 3825 635 83

27

RABBITbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Nis/Med/Physiol 10 5 50 yesNis/Med/Pharmacol 10 0 100 yesNis/Med/Pathophysiol 16 0 100 noKM/Med/Physiol 3 3 0 noPodgorica/Med/Physiol 4 0 100 yesPodgorica/Med/Pharm 2 0 100 yesSkoplje/Med/Physiol 1 0 100 yesThess/Med/Pharmacol 30 0 100 yesThess/Med/Physiol 20 20 0 nototal use for Balkan 96 28 92

*

28

GUINIA PIGbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Nis/Med/Pathophysiol 32 0 100 nototal use for Balkan 32 0 100

DOGbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Nis/Med/Pharmacol 30 0 100 yes total use for Balkan 30 0 100

CATbefore now replaced (%) alternatives

Bgd/Med/Pharmacol. 5 0 100 yesPodgorica/Med/Pharm 2 0 100 yestotal use for Balkan 7 0 100

29

Animals used rat mouse guinea pig rabbit cat dog frog2000-2006 1216 1018 70 108 7 46 3825Following workshop 130 0 0 28 0 0 535Replaced (%) 89.3 100 100 74 100 100 86

Comments: These numbers are not completely correct because for 6 institutes we received pre-2006 data but not post-2006 data and so eliminated these from the study (Institutes, n=23)

. Animals used rat mouse guinea pig rabbit cat dog frog2006 726 748 32 96 7 30 38252007 150 60 0 28 0 0 635Replaced (%) 79 92 100 71 100 100 83

Comments: These numbers are completely correct because for all included institutes real actuale situation has been presented-feedback information have been received.

Total reduction in animal use, not attributed to LDF workshop