To Dissect, or not to Dissect...
To Dissect or Not to Dissect?
That is the question being debated across North America by students, parents and teachers and in the media. In this article we will examine both sides of the debate, as well as research on the use of virtual frog dissection programs, then let you be the judge.
Proponents of wet labs in K-12 schools maintain that students cannot learn anatomy and physiology without the tactile experience of cutting up a lab specimen, usually a preserved frog. They feel that the only way to comprehend the true positioning and feel of the organs is to handle the specimen. They believe that, when managed by a sensitive and caring teacher, dissection can be used to teach respect for all living things. They maintain that students who plan to become doctors or veterinarians, or pursue a career in medical research will need dissection skills. I have even heard one diehard biology teacher assert that students who do not dissect will not be able to deal with dirty diapers!
However, when we ask people how they remember dissection they usually shudder and recollect the smell of formaldehyde and dodging well-aimed body parts; but very little of the anatomy and physiology. They would have undoubtedly welcomed a virtual frog dissection program.
Opponents of dissection offer a number of arguments ranging from the questionable pedagogical value to concern for the animals that are needlessly, and often inhumanely, killed in the name of education.
Whatever your feelings about animal rights, there is no doubt that clumsy technique can impose unnecessary suffering. Bob Johnson, a respected herpetologist at the Metro Toronto Zoo writes, "My lasting recollection of frog dissection involved the use of a live, pithed frog (a process which mashes the brain so that the frog is brain-dead, but its heart and nervous system still function). Without going into details, not one of our university students effectively pithed the frog or avoided inflicting unnecessary pain on those helpless animals."
Frogs are the most widely used creatures in dissection labs; there is no doubt that frog numbers are dwindling due to loss of wetlands, to pollution and other factors. Approximately 10 million frogs are dissected in North America every year, many of them plucked from the wild.
It is also true that wet labs require careful management and are expensive. Biology teachers put a lot of effort into ensuring that wet labs are safe and effective, but the focus is often on the dissection, at the expense of anatomy and physiology. The purchase and disposal of preserved frogs (which should be treated as biohazardous waste due to the potential carcinogenic nature of the preservatives) is becoming increasingly expensive.
While early virtual frog dissection programs were fairly primitive, the newer alternative s are much more useful, and extremely effective; they include full color photographs, excellent video and detailed animations (including 3D) that can explain complicated concepts extremely well.
A recent Ph.D. study compared the effectiveness of wet labs to the use of a virtual frog dissection program. The conclusion was that not only was the virtual frog dissection program more effective, but the learning was accomplished in 44% less time.
There are many other advantagesof virtual frog dissection. especially if a site license is purchased. Unless the virtual frog dissection is subscription-based, the software is a one-time fee and can be used throughout the school again and again. The Digital Frog 2.5 Building Site License also allows for up to twenty copies that can be loaned out to students who miss class or need a little extra time. The integrated dictionary and the pronunciations on significant also ensure that students learn the correct vocabulary.
Interestingly, many doctors are also opposed to dissection in schools. Nancy Harrison, a practicing pathologist in California asserts that cutting up preserved frogs bears little relation to cutting human flesh and is therefore of no educational value for aspiring doctors. She has researched all the current alternatives and recommends a well-known virtual frog dissection program, The Digital Frog 2.5.
The Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine is so opposed to the use of animals in education that, for a limited time, they were offering free virtual frog dissection programs to anyone wishing to avoid dissection.
Currently, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, Virginia, Oregon, and New Jersey have laws that give students the right to choose an alternative to dissection. Similar legislation is pending in other states. In these states, teachers must offer alternatives such as virtual frog dissection programs. Regardless of legislation in your state, if you teach biology, consider these options:
* use a virtual frog dissection program as the main teaching tool for every student (it will save you both time and money). * dissect just one demonstration frog, if you must, offering the tactile experience to those students who choose to participate. * use computerized alternatives in the lower grades and make dissection an option only for serious biology students. * don't lose sight of the reason for dissection; to teach anatomy and physiology :)
Celia is the president of Digital Frog International, Inc , publishers of the virtual frog dissection program The Digital Frog 2.5 (deemed the best dissection alternative by eSchool News readers). DemoWare is available at http://www.digitalfrog.com/demo .
