Studies indicate that more students are opposing the use of invasive procedures on animals. When students are forced to use animals in ways that they view as harmful, painful, stressful or lethal to the animals, several reactions may occur. Such students may suffer psychological trauma as the result of seeing themselves or others engaged in behaviour that they find ethically objectionable. Their cognitive abilities may become impaired, resulting in less learning. They may withdraw and lose interest in science when not given the option to conscientiously object. Students — even those who believe they are willing participants — can become desensitised and may develop a utilitarian view of animals, thereby diminishing their capacity for compassion and ethical decision-making. Qualified, compassionate people — especially women — often decide to end their career in science rather than compromise their values. This loss contributes to the gender gap in science and to individuals feeling disappointed and derailed in their career aspirations. The psychological consequences to individuals combined with social, environmental, educational and scientific consequences present a compelling argument for the 100% replacement of the harmful use of animals in education.
PlousS. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychological Science7, 352–358.
TyhurstJ.S. (1951). Individual reactions to community disaster. American Journal of Psychiatry10, 746–769.
7.
KellyJ.A. (1985). Alternatives to aversive procedures with animals in the psychological teaching setting. Quoted in Cunningham (4).
8.
ThomasM.H., HortonR.W., LippencourtE.C., & DrabmanR.S. (1977). Desensitization to real-life aggression as a function of exposure to television violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology350, 450. Quoted in Cunningham (4).
9.
PaulE.S., & PodberscekA.L. (2000). Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record146, 269–272.
APA (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, IV., pp. 219, 424. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychiatric Press.
12.
AdamsC., & DonavanJ. (1995). Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
13.
AscioneF.R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos1, 226–247; (1996). Domestic violence and cruelty to animals. Latham Letter17, 1–16.
14.
ArlukeA., & HaffertyF. (1996). From apprehension to fascination with “dog lab”: The use of absolutions by medical students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography25, 201–225.
15.
GoffmanE. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Quoted in Arluke & Hafferty (14).
16.
SmithA.C.III, & KleinmanS. (1989). Managing emotions in medical school: Students’ contacts with the living and the dead. Social Psychology Quarterly52, 56–69.
17.
OrlansF.B. (1988). Debating dissection. The Science Teacher, 55, 36–40. Quoted in Akpan (3). Issues associated with inserting computer simulations into biology instruction: A review of the literature. Web site http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/akpan.html.
HerzogH.A.Jr., VoreT.L., & NewJ.C.Jr. (2001). Conversations with veterinary students: Attitudes, ethics, and animals. Anthrozoos3, 181–188.
21.
HaasJ., & ShaffirW. (1977). The professionalization of medical students: Developing competence and a cloak of competence. Symbolic Interaction1, 71–88. Quoted in Smith & Kleinman (16).
American Association of University Women. (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings of Girls and Education.Washington, DC, USA: American Association of University Women.
28.
HerzogH.A., BetchartN.S., & PittmanR.B. (1991). Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes towards animals. Anthrozoos4, 184–191. Quoted in Pifer et al. (2).
29.
CramerM.J. (2001). Testimony in support of passage of HB 1360, “An act relative to dissection choice.” Submitted to the Education Committee of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
30.
OrlansF.B. (2000). An ethical rationale for why students should not be permitted to harm or kill animals. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1323–1331. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
31.
BalcombeJ. (2000). A global overview of law and policy concerning animal use in education. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1343–1350Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
