Live Animals for the Biology ClassroomAuthor(s): Thurman S. GraftonSource: The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, No. 7 (Oct., 1979), pp. 410-412Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Association of BiologyTeachersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4446675 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 20:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

University of California Press and National Association of Biology Teachers are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The American Biology Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:14:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Live Animals for the Biology Classroom

Thurman S. Grafton

LIVE ANIMALS ATTRACT and hold the attention of people, especially children. We all have an affinity for animals that stimulates our curiosity. Such curiosity in students can be easily channeled into an academic inter- est in animals that serves as an important impetus to further study of the biological sciences.

Live animals in the classroom and laboratory serve a variety of functions. Through observations of animals, students become witnesses to the miracles of life; biologi- cal facts on nutrition, behavior, and reproduction are easier to understand and more exciting. In caring for laboratory animals, students learn important lessons of individual responsibility, especially when they under- stand that the animals are totally dependent on them for care.

Research projects foster critical and creative thinking. In performing research, students learn to draw conclu- sions from experimental data. Through more sophisti- cated experiments, they become better equipped to state and test hypotheses. The student who wishes to satisfy his/her curiosity about living things should be given opportunities to work with animals using the idea- testing experimental methods of biology.

Why Not Use Live Animals? Animal lovers have always criticized the use of animals

in biomedical research and teaching. Emotional antivivi- sectionists will never be satisfied until all use of animals in either research or teaching is prohibited. At the opposite

end of the spectrum of animal lovers are both scientists and laypeople who recognize the necessity of using ani- mals in both research and teaching; they are dedicated to ensuring that animals are treated humanely. A great number of people hold positions somewhere between these two extremes.

The appropriateness of using live animals at the secondary school level has been questioned by indivi- duals from all segments of the spectrum. Though federal, state, and local laws both prohibit cruelty to animals and set minimum standards for their welfare, scientists are being challenged to answer to even higher authority. I refer to ethicists, ethologists, and other social scientists who are generating pressures for the recognition of "animal rights." This movement traces its lineage from the civil rights efforts of the early sixties through women's rights to human rights (Grafton 1978).

Those opposing the use of animals in biomedical research in any context are, of course, most adamant that they not be used in secondary schools. On the other hand, many individuals, like myself, feel that given proper preparation and supervision, secondary school students can benefit tremendously from working with live animals.

Serious criticisms by well-informed individuals deserve our attention. Chauncey Leake (1977) states that school children should not start experimenting with animals until they have a reasonable background in understanding animal anatomy and physiology. Others, including Michael Fox (1977), feel that high school science projects using live animals should be limited to behavioral studies.

An over-reaction to such pressures is reflected in the 1971 change in the rules of the Westinghouse Science Talent Search that state:

No projects involving live vertebrate animal experimenta- tion will be eligible. Projects involving human beings, and those on behavioral observations of animals in their natural habitat are excluded from this ruling and are eligible.

At the last exhibit of the forty winners of the Science Talent Search, there were exhibits from two outstanding students whose biographical data indicated that they aspired to professional education in medicine; one sub- mitted a project in physics, the other, a project in theo- retical mathematics. I consider this a shame.

A new and popular theme of those who would like to

Thurman S. Grafton is Executive Director of the National Society for Medical Research, 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. He received his D.V.M. degree from Michigan State University in 1947 and is a Diplomate of the _ American College of Laboratory Animal Science for the Health Science Center of the State Univer- sity of New York at Buffalo from 1966 through 1976; he received the Distinguished Faculty Award from SUNY's School of Health Related Professions in 1976. He has worked with young people on animal projects as an adult leader of both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and served as chairman of the Animal Experimentation Committee for the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF). Grafton has recently been focusing his efforts on informing the public regarding the contributions to the betterment of humanity accomplished through the appropriate and humane treatment of animals in research and education. This article is based on remarks he presented to the National Association of Biology Teachers Convention held in Chicago in October 1978.

410 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 41, NO. 7, OCTOBER 1979

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:14:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

see the number of animals used in research reduced is the promotion of "alternatives to animal experiments" (Smyth 1978). This is an unfortunate misnomer, because though it refers to such useful techniques as tissue cul- ture, mathematical and computer models, and the use of lower forms of animal life, the word alternative suggests a total replacement for animals. It is also misleading. Though some of these new techniques are valuable adjuncts to early feasibility studies and reflect the direc- tion of future research, it will be a long time before they are sophisticated enough to provide for all the interac- tions in an intact animal including complex hormone, enzyme, and other physiological functions. Further, many students cannot at this stage in their educations understand the connection between a theoretical model and an intact organism.

A valid criticism of the use of animals in secondary schools is that many schoolsl lack the proper physical facilities to house the animals. Some schools cannot maintain a favorable environment for the animals; others cannot prevent the circulation of air from the animal area into other areas of the school. Lack of appropriate physi- cal facilities poses not only a public health hazard, but also a situation that is aesthetically undesirable.

Laboratory animals need daily care. Thus, teachers and school administrat6rs must make arrangements to maintain animals during vacation periods-an extra burden for people who have already committed more than forty hours a week to their jobs.

My experience indicates that a surprisingly large number of high school biology teachers may have had laboratory training in the dissection of preserved speci- mens; but they lack hands-on experience with live ani- mals. Thus, their qualifications as supervisors of student projects with live animals are dubious.

I need not describe the broad range of imagination of secondary school students. Channeling this imagination into constructive lines and confining it within reasonable parameters is critical to the sucess of any program that uses animals to help students learn. This challenge must be recognized and met by teachers.

So we see that the negative side of the question con- tains both practical and philosophical elements.

How Do We Improve the Situation? We are already improving the situation by improving

teacher preparation. We need to look more closly at the academic preparation of biology teachers entering the secondary school systems. Individuals who graduated from institutions primarily engaged in teacher education and majored in biology probably had hands-on experien- ces with live animals. However, the biology major from an arts and science curriculum and baccalaureate gradu- ate who majored in physics or chemistry with only a minor in biology may not be as well prepared.

One promising solution is to set up continuing educa-

tion seminars for secondary school teachers specifically addressing the subject of live animal use. Such efforts have been successful in some areas, and they should be expanded. Guidance for developing such programs is as close as the laboratory animal veterinarian at your near- est medical school. Training aids are available from the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Use- ful literature is also available from the National Society for Medical Research.

After preparing teachers, we can direct our efforts to training students. One of the principal desired learning outcomes of any animal project should be, in the words of Albert Schweitzer (1949), "a reverence for life." Teachers should strive constantly to instill such respect in students. We must immediately react to any sign that a student is developing a callous attitude toward living things. It has been suggested that improperly supervised use of animals by students may produce insensitivity in students; by fostering these attitudes, we destroy one of the strongest motivations for pursuing a scientific career (Grafton 1977).

Before beginning any project, even the simple mainte- nance of live animals, students should receive hands-on instruction in proper techniques for handling and re- straining the animals involved. Both the specifics neces- sary for the humane treatment of the animal's comfort and the techniques necessary to protect the student from bites and scratches should be covered.

Students must also learn the specific techniques of any scientific protocol they will be using in individual science projects. If the techniques are beyond the teacher's experience, qualified scientists should provide the instruction. It is vitally important that the student clearly understand the limits on the procedures s/he is to per- form. The best guidelines for the teacher in this area are contained in the current Rules for the International Science and Engineering Fair (1978) drafted by the Animal Experimentation Committee and adopted by Science Service, Inc., which sponsors the fair. Examples include the following:

No experiment may be undertaken that involves anesthet- ics, drugs, thermal procedures, physical stress, organisms pathogenic to man (sic) or other vertebrates, ionizing radia- tion, carcinogens, or surgical procedures, unless these procedures are performed under the direct supervision of an experienced and qualified biomedical scientist or desig- nated adult supervisor. (Italics mine.)

These rules define the biomedical scientist as "one who possesses an earned doctoral degree in science or medicine and who has a working knowledge of the tech- niques to be used by the student in this research pro- tocol." This definition has been tightened up to avoid situations such as a microbiologist assuming a role of supervision over a project involving surgical procedures.

Obviously the most difficult task for secondary science teachers is finding a scientist with the necessary

LIVE ANIMALS 411

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:14:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

expertise. Even more difficult is finding someone who has the time and is willing to help motivate and encour- age a student's interest in biomedical science. Medical schools are possible places to seek such individuals. However, one might also ask for assistance from labora- tories, including industrial research and development laboratories, and practicing veterinarians.

It is imperative that any student project requiring the assistance of a biomedical scientist should be completely reviewed at the proposal stage. The scientist can deter- mine whether the activity is appropriate for the student, whether the provisions for the care and handling of the animals involved are adequate, and whether the student understands the techniques s/he will be using. It is vital that this supervision continues throughout the life of the project. A project is not adequately supervised if the scientist, after intitally reviewing the project, has nothing to do with the program until the results are evaluated. Continuous monitoring ensures that the project is going according to plan.

One further tip: be sure to check with your local pharmacist or other appropriate authority to ensure that the student does not get into trouble with drug enforce- ment authorities for using any controlled drugs.

The AVMA Panel on Euthanasia has just published a very concise report that applies to cases where the only appropriate final disposition is euthanasia (American Veterinary Medical Association 1978). As a general rule, the Animal Experimentation Committee strongly sug- gests that euthanasia should be performed by an adult rather than a student. For many students, this could be the first personal experience with death, and they require a careful and sensitive explanation and under- standing to cope with their feelings.

The statement of the use of live animals in the class- room laboratory adopted by the NABT Board of Direc- tors in 1960 is still an appropriate document. The proper use of live animals has a place in high school biology teaching. We all acknowledge the need to improve in this important area, but there are ample resources available to help us do so.

The development of future generations of scientists is a responsibility shared by teachers and members of the scientific and health professions. It is an undertaking that will determine the quality of life for future generations (Grafton 1977).

Not Everything Causes Cancer: Present Food Safety Laws Sound

To answer common questions about saccha- rin, nitrites, and food safety policy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has published a booklet entitled "Does Everything Cause Cancer? A Food Safety Primer."

The booklet points out that, contrary to many people's beliefs, few chemicals cause cancer and that we need to substitute safe alternatives for the few chemicals that do. In addition, the report counters the food industry's arguments for weakening existing food safety laws. The re- port is especially timely, according to its authors, because Congress is now considering legislation on saccharin and nitrites and will soon begin considering revision of the food safety laws.

The booklet, written by Greta Bunin and Michael Jacobson, is available for $1.00 per copy ($ .50 per copy for orders of 10 or more) from CSPI, 1755 S St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009.

CSPI is a non-profit organization that has focused on food and nutrition issues. It is funded by memberships, donations, and publications' sales.

References AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.

1978. Report of the AVMA Panel on Ethanasia. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 173:1.

FOX, M. W. and WARD, M.A. 1977. Are science fairs fair to animals? The Science Teacher 44(6):31.

GRAFTON, T.S. 1977. More on the use of animals. The Sci- ence Teacher 44(4):33.

1978a. Impact of legal controls upon animal re- search. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Laboratory

Animal Medicine Conference (CONMED), University of Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1978.

1978b. Letter to the Association of American Medi- cal Colleges Task Force on Minority Student Opportunities in Medicine, 4 August 1978.

GREENBERG, R. N. 1978. An argument for research in the medical school curriculum. Jburnal of the American Medi- cal Association 239(12):1163.

KINGMAN, H.E. 1977. Animal experimentation in primary, secondary classrooms. American Humane, p. 15 (June 1977).

LEAKE, C.E. 1977. Animal experimentation in primary, secondary classrooms, American Humane, p. 14 (June 1977).

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS. 1966. Statement on the use of live animals in high school teaching. NABT News & Views, February 1966.

SCIENCE SERVICE, INC. 1978. Rules of the Westinghouse Science Talent Search. Science Service, Inc., 1719 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

. 1978. Rules of the 30th International Science and Engineering Fair. Science Service, Inc., 1719 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

SCHWEITZER, A. 1972. Out of my life and thought. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

SMYTH, D.H. 1978. Alternatives to animal experimentation. London: Scolar Press.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. 1978. Guide for the care of laboratory animals. DHEW Publication Number (NIH) 78-23. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

412 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 41, NO. 7, OCTOBER 1979

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:14:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions