User:Slatere4/sandbox

Dissection, in terms of biology, can be defined as the separating or dismembering of a body (whether it be an animal, plant, or human) in order to study its internal anatomical structure or function.  It can be found as extremely important in areas of pathology and forensic medicine in the processes done during autopsy to determine the cause of death in humans. It is, more commonly, a process usually demonstrated by biology or anatomy students, either in intermediate level courses (e.g. high school) or advanced courses (e.g. college or medical school). The less advanced courses typically focus on smaller subjects, such as small formaldehyde-preserved animals, while the more advanced courses normally use cadavers as a training tool to reinforce the information.  Dissection has been a process that began hundreds of years ago and has advanced greatly throughout various places and religions. However, due to emotion towards this tool, new understanding, and new technology, there has shown to be advances in the training tools used to demonstrate dissection, which overall opens alternatives to using dead, preserved bodies as a tool. From clay methods, to computer software methods and a table virtual dissection alternative, to even the use of modern day IPads as a 3-dimensional tool, the process of dissection can viewed as constantly evolving, and will continue to evolve in future generations.

There have been debates on advantages and disadvantages of using dissection as a way of teaching anatomy and biology. The advantageous sides taken are mostly due to knowledge, skill, and attitudes, and the disadvantageous sides taken are due to practicality, cost, and health and safety the process. There have also been some issues with unknown vivisection of animals during the process of dissection, which has caused major opposition to the use of this method in schools courses and research.

History

In The United States

Dissections of non-human animals have also been used for educational purposes, often in general science education where the use of human cadavers would not be justified. In the United States, dissection of frogs became common in college biology classes from the 1920s, and gradually began to be introduced at earlier stages of education. By 1988 an estimated 75 to 80 percent of American high school biology students were participating in a frog dissection, with a trend towards introduction in elementary schools. The dissected frogs are most commonly from the Rana genus. Other popular animals for high-school dissection at the time of that survey were, among vertebrates, fetal pigs, perch, and cats; and among invertebrates, earthworms, grasshoppers, crayfish, and starfish.^[31]

There are an estimation of about six million animals dissected in per year in the United States high schools alone, not counting medical training and research, and there has been a very serious question that has arisen over the years about whether or not the dissection of these animals follows basic ethical principles or not. Most of the time, these animals are purchased from slaughterhouses, farms, the wild, and sometimes even illegally from buyers, and when purchased, they are completely dead. However, a number of these animals suffer through painful and lethal procedures when they are still alive, in the process of animal procurement for dissection. These findings have caused some controversies between people and schools who utilize the use of real animals for dissection.  

Controversy over dissection in U.S. high schools became prominent in 1987, when a California student, Jenifer Graham, sued to require her school to let her complete an alternate project. The court ruled that mandatory dissections were permissible, but that Graham could ask to dissect a frog that had died of natural causes rather than one that was killed for the purposes of dissection; the practical impossibility of procuring a frog that had died of natural causes in effect let Graham opt out of the required dissection. The suit also gave considerable publicity to anti-dissection advocates. Graham appeared in a 1987 Apple Computer commercial for the virtual-dissection software Operation Frog.^[32][33] The state of California passed a Student's Rights Bill in 1988 requiring that objecting students be allowed to complete alternative projects.^[34] The trend towards students opting out of dissection increased through the 1990s.^[35] Now there are several types of alternatives that can be offered to students who feel in a more sensitive way about dissecting real, once-living animals.

Dissection Alternatives

The United States is definitely expanding in the subjects of technology to open alternatives to dissection for students in school and upper level education. Some of these alternatives could possibly present educational advantages over the use of the once-living animals, while eliminating the problematic ethical issues. These alternatives include examples such as computer programs, lectures, three dimensional models, films, and other forms of technology. Concern for animal welfare is often at the root of most students’ objections to animal dissection.^[38] Studies show that some students reluctantly participate in animal dissection out of fear of real or perceived punishment or ostracism from their teachers and peers, and many do not speak up about their ethical objections.^[39][40]

The most basic type of alternative that is offered are the animal free types of teaching, including lectures, basic book learning, and educational films. These could, in fact increase the teaching efficiency and lower the educational costs due to the reuse of tools and repeatability and customizability of the method. However, this method can lose the attention of the learner very easily compared to the other, more hands-on, teaching methods. It has been shown through experiments that hands-on learning compared to lecture learning leads to increased comprehension of concepts.

Another more advanced method being considered is a virtual anatomy method, which uses a computer- controlled virtual cadaver that is projected onto a screen. Students are given three dimensional glasses, which brings them closer into the action. “Using a computer to control the stereoscopic view, they swooped through the virtual body, its sections as brightly colored as living tissue.” This method of teaching anatomy seems “as dynamic as Imax”, according to research assistants at New York University.  

A third, even more technologically advanced, alternative teaching method is using computer software. The options for this type of teaching can be as simple as a downloaded program on a desktop computer, to more complex styles, including a life-sized, IPad-like table. For this method, “the traditional praxis for teaching anatomy is teamed up with 21st Century technology, and could become a new, hybrid educational model. It takes advantage of 20th-century technological advancements in imaging, such as X-rays, ultrasound and MRIs, and combines them for use in a 7-foot by 2.5-foot screen.” This alternative is being tested at Stanford University to enhance the old method of teaching with human cadavers and animals." Using this tool could potentially provide the benefits of being able to reach places that cannot normally be reached, or are difficult to reach, with the original dissection process. This alternative is being tested at Stanford University to enhance the old method of teaching with human cadavers and animals. Although this $60,000 educational tool is extremely expensive for schools with a budget, this could be an improvement on any current methods of dissection.

Although these methods may never replace cadavers, they are definitely an improved blend of old and new technology when it comes to dissection.