Slashdot Mirror
India To Cut Out Animal Dissection
ananyo writes "Squeamish science students in India might not have to grapple with cutting up rats or frogs for much longer. The University Grants Commission (UGC), the national body in New Delhi that funds and governs Indian universities, announced new rules earlier this month that would phase out almost all animal dissection and replace it with teaching using computer simulations and models."
Bad enough my doctor's English is for shit, now the last words I get to hear before the anesthesia kicks in is "What the hell is THAT?!?" in a thick accent.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Biologists: Have computer simulations and models advanced to a point where they can replace physical cadavers for studies and training?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Automobile students, squeamish about getting grease on their fingers, are clamoring to have their hands-on experience replaced by computer simulations. Heaven help us when the airplane industry does the same.
Well the more important part is human disection. Can a doctor still practice on a cadaver?
...is to weed out the squeamish.
Where will that leave us? A bunch of queasy folks standing around waiting for someone with a stronger disposition to step up?
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
Please, before responding with an idiotic "But how will my doctor know what they are doing?!?!", think about this for more than 2 seconds. The vast majority of students in undergraduate biology classes will never in their lives have to cut open and dissect another animal of any kind, and the knowledge they gain from it could easily be gained by simulation. For the very small minority of students who will require surgical or dissection skills (doctors at vets), there is ample time to get them that specialized experience in their respective graduate programs. This is a good change to focus resources where they will be the most useful.
My other sig is clever.
While I do believe that some careers should probably dissect animals (surgeons, veterinarians) I don't see the point in requiring this for everyone. I am just fine with my pharmacist not having cut open dead animals.
Who said anything about surgeons, where on earth did you get that from??
If you RTFA you'll see no mention of medical schools. I would hope my surgeon has more experience than having dissected a rat, but that's besides the point.
Thedecision is worrying because it applies to university science students in biology, zoology etc., who should definitely not be squeamish about dissections. However, it has nothing to do with doctors or surgeons or medical schools.
i am an indian and i presently attend college. at school, when i was in 8th class, i was extremely eager to go to 9th class because they had all sorts of frog and cockroach dissection and i was very interested. the fuckers (idiotic peta type people) abolished dissection in middle/high school from that very year :( i never got my chance to do interesting dissections and lost all interest in biology. now i am studying electronics :(
looks like they will make even medical school bland and uninteresting.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Most students who take an anatomy class at the level that requires animal dissection fall into two categories: those who are interested in an allied health profession (e.g., nursing, physical therapy) and those who are either interested in becoming professional biologists or medical doctors. I think you could make a pretty good case that in both cases, real dissections are an essential part of the students' training. Your average college student is not masochistic enough to take what is typically a course much tougher than a garden variety general education class. I don't know how the education system works in India, but I think the vast majority of biology departments in the US would not be willing to use models exclusive of real dissection. That being said, we do use models to supplement instruction, but these are physical models, not computer-based. Unless 3D displays become radically better and give tactile feedback, I don't see computer dissecting simulations displacing physical models either.
NO CARRIER
Speaking as a medical school student, I'd say it depends on what you want to study and train the student to do afterwards.
If you are teaching the student using virtual methods, and then measure the student's performance using models and drawings afterwards -- you will probably find that the student's performance is actually higher than that of using real-life cadavers (not surprisingly, because you are training in the same manner as you are testing).
Their ability to regurgitate names for everything everything will probably be better, too. Because all the pieces are nice and discrete. Easy to memorize.
Now, real world bodies are different. In a preserved cadaver, everything is rendered in a few shades of brown/yellow/gray that blur together, (one exception: the gallbladder is a beautiful shade of green). If dissecting something not preserved and alive (or recently alive), smear red over everything (That's how you get stories about surgeons leaving sponges and stuff in bodies. Stuff ends up looking like red blobs sitting among a collection of red blobs).
It's very difficult to learn from a cadaver; A bunch of different structures in the book might just look like one big chunk in the body (cause maybe they're all enveloped and held together by connective tissue). Unlike a piece of designed equipment that needed to be assembled, everything space is stuffed and crammed with something or another, because it probably grew there. Except when it didn't grow there, it grew somewhere else and migrated. And because it was grown and not made, often it's not quite the shape or location that the book says.
As a result, learning to navigate around a body and recognize it's components is a special skill that goes far beyond memorizing those components themselves. There's a lot of reasoning and tracing connections and relationships. You don't just learn things from a cadaver, you learn skills.
Every science student, and certainly every biology student, needs to dissect animals. They should do it in high school. Or sooner.
One of the main skills of a scientist is looking at nature. It's not the same as reading about it in a book (which is what you get in a computer). The lesson is that you're looking at the actual real world. Science teaches you how to look at the real world.
If your book says it should be one way, and your specimen is another way, then your book has a lot of explaining to do.
The other thing is you get a lot of "Oh, now I understand" moments.
For example, I dissected a cow's eye (a popular lab). The thing that impressed me about it was how thin the retina was -- it looked like an oil slick. Now I can appreciate how difficult it is to do retinal surgery, and I can appreciate the tricks eye surgeons figured to be able to do it. I read a lot of anatomy books (Netter has great drawings of the eye) but real life was different.
I can't explain how it was different. You'll just have to dissect an eye and see for yourself.