Dissection

Amber Pickett
October 27, 2015
6th period
Anatomy and Physiology
Mrs. Giannou

A debate that has riled up millions of people, and caused lawsuits: you would
probably think it to be something really huge that is hurting people in this country. This
debate is whether or not students should be dissecting in classroom. There has been room
to believe that dissection is inhumane, harms animals, and shows that animal life is not
important.
The first known case being against animal dissection actually began in
California. In 1987, 15-year-old Jennifer Graham refused to cut into a dead frog, calling
the practice inhumane (Shine). Jennifer wanted another option to dissection. At the time
there was none other than actually dissecting the animal. So instead of not being able to
participate and possibly hurt her own grade from not participating, she decided to sue the
school for a choice other than dissection; state lawmakers ultimately passed legislation
upholding a students right to opt out for moral reasons (Shine). Jennifers reasons
behind her actions showed that maybe there was something wrong with dissection.
Dissection harms animals. It takes an animal that was just living its life to kill it
and send it to a school, so children can cut them open all across the country. It is
estimated that [m]illions of vertebrate animals are dissected yearly in U.S. high schools
alone (Downey). Not to mention the number in middle schools, elementary and college!
Thats one animal per student, lets say there is an average of 3,000 students per school,
and there is probably around ten of each different leveled schools in a large area of a city.
So imagine that many animals having to be killed for that specific purpose. Not for the
purpose of feeding our population or because they died naturally; no these animals were
killed for the sole purpose of being dismembered. This tactic begins to show that animals
are expendable.

There is a big problem with wastefulness in this country, and one solution that
helped this was Recycling. And in a way dissection is a large waste of a mass of animal
life. Teachers that do not offer another option alongside dissection are missing out on a
valuable opportunity to teach their students about humane education and are not
implementing the 3Rs principlereduction, refinement, and replacementregarding the
use of animals (NAVS). Dissection is made okay in this society but is depleting the
populations of animals in some countries, where these animals have to be shipped from
other places because there is not enough to supply. This mindset of there is always
enough is showing that animals are expendable.
There is another side to this argument. Dissection is a great learning experience; it
allows a student to see what they are learning in a real life thing. It is asserting the
importance of a hands-on experience (NAVS). This has a larger effect on learning by a
tremendous factor. It allows you to use a different sense than you normally do. It adds on
to the others already being used allowing you to absorb the material easier.
Dissection should be taken into consideration by each student on whether they
want to participate in it. It is an option that is inhumane, harms animals, and shows that
animal life is not important. You always have an option in life. If you dont see the one
you want, you can always make that option. Take the lives into your own hands.

Work Cited:
Shine, Nicole. The Battle Over High School Animal Dissection. Pacific Standard.
(15)Oct 2015:1. Web. < http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/battle-highschool-animal-dissection-92391>.
Dissection in the Classroom. NAVS. Web. <http://www.navs.org/education/dissectionin-the-classroom>.
Downey, Maureen. Should students dissect animals or should schools move to virtual
dissections? AJC. (25) June 2013: 1. Web <http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/getschooled/2013/jun/25/should-students-dissect-animals-or-should-schools-/>.