Find out where animals that will be dissected come from.
See the pain and suffering they endure.
Watch " Classroom Cut-Ups" at Petatv.com.

Students who have moral and religious objections to animal dissection have successfully brought lawsuits against Ohio State University, the U. of Pennsylvania, the U. Colorado, and SUNY Stonybrook for attempting to force them to dissect against their religious and moral views.  Trulie Nobis has done the same, i.e., be allowed to learn Human Anatomy and pursue a career in the health professions at Monroe Community College, Rochester NY (part of the SUNY system) and have her religious beliefs respected, but without a lawsuit. MCC attempted to violate her legal rights, but she fought back and won. Hopefully, future students will have the strength to stand up for their rights, and for a humane and educationally superior learning experience them in the future and this page will help them do so. If you are an MCC student (and even if you are a student in the health professions, including nursing) who is an a biology course where animal dissection is said to be a "requirement" and you object to animal dissection and do not wish to participate, MCC might be working on an explicit policy to address your educational and academic needs, respect your moral and religious beliefs, and respect the law. Please contact them for details.  (6/26/01) People have recently contacted us expressing dissatisfaction and puzzlement with MCC's recently stated view that animal 'dissection [is] a requirement critical to a true understanding of the complex subject matter' of human anatomy' and have wanted to know who to contact about this. Here is a link to that information and e-mail contacts to relevant people at MCC and SUNY.

While the topic of animal dissection and student choice does concern animals, it is primarily not an "animal rights" issue.  "Animal rights" groups tend to support students who campaign for the use of alternatives to animal dissection, but the legal basis for these types of cases are founded on the the fact that law requires that students not be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Religious discrimination includes being forced to do something that is inconsistent with one's religious beliefs.  To require animal dissection in a human anatomy course is to force students with religious views about the sanctity of life and the wrongfulness of killing to violate their religous beliefs.  The law does recognize beliefs like these as "religious" beliefs: a consistently held "pro-life" or "reverence for life" view is considered a religious belief by the law.  To learn about how the law construes religious beliefs (religious beliefs concern matters of one's "ultimate concern"), the best place to look are cases about conscientous objection to war.  The principles for conscientous objectors to war apply equally to conscientous objectors to animal dissection, as the history of these cases show.

Below are some links about Ms. Nobis's case, as well as links to legal and educational resources on dissection.  It is clear that there is no need for any student to dissect, not even students in the sciences or health professions.  It is undeniable there there are viable alternatives to dissection: in fact, there is a wealth of educational research that shows that students that use alternatives learn as well, or better, than students who dissect. Furthermore, there are no accreditating or licensing requirements that any student dissect animals.

There are studies that show that students who are most likely to object to dissection are women and girls.  In not allowing alternatives to dissection, it might be that schools are discouraging interested women and girls from entering the sciences.

If you have an questions or need any assistance on this issue, please contact Trulie Nobis ( truliea@hotmail.com) or Nathan Nobis (nobs@mail.rochester.edu) (see Nathan's web page at http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs).

View the Guestbook
Sign the Guestbook
 

These people do not respect students' legal rights, discourage students' moral development, advocate the needless killing and torture of animals, are unably to scientifically defend their "feelings" about dissection [science isn't about feelings, is it?], are wrapped up in silly MCC politics, and waste your tax money providing demonstrably inferior science and health-professions education:

Richard Connett,  MCC Biology Chair

Janet Glocker, MCC VP,  former Dean of Sciences

Jeffrey Bartkovich, MCC VP

Rachel Simons Former MCC instructror; now at Nazareth College, perhaps due to the lack of support MCC gave her and for forcing her to try to abuse students' rights also.

• MCC PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FORUM -- When Religious Freedom and Academic Necessity [?] Clash, How Should The College Respond? MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002
• Update from Diane Cecero, MCC attorney, 1/11/2002.
• A letter from Tom Flynn, MCC President, regarding MCC's future plans concerning this issue (7/12/01).
• An letter to MCC President Tom Flynn regarding  MCC's future plans to respect ALL future students rights on this issue [and avoid lawsuits and other trouble], report of difficulties with MCC faculty and staff, etc.
• Dean/VP Janet Glocker's "close this chapter" letter to MCC faculty and staff (distributed by e-mail [6/29/01])
• In this letter, she claims that through this ordeal the "faculty and staff excelled," that they demonstrated "resolute fairness and [a] sober approach," "integrity, patience and determination," and "professionalism" through "careful discourse."  Anyone who is familiar with the events of this case knows that Ms. Glocker's claims are about as far from the truth as they could be.  Note the tensions between what she says in this letter and her previous statements about the case. One should wonder what factors explain the changes in her view.
• MCC General Counsel Diane Cecero's letter on the Resolution of Animal Dissection Matter" (6/21/01) and Supplement and Correction (6/25/01)
• Grade Reports (3!) for BIO 290 "Independent Study in Human Anatomy -- No Dissection"
• Joint Resolution Statement by MCC and Trulie Nobis (6/10/2001, to be submitted to the Democrat and Chronicle newspaper and published in MCC student newspaper in the Fall 2001.  Also distributed by MCC via email to MCC faculty and staff [6/29/01].)
• Memo to BIO 142, Human Anatomy Students, RE: Update on Animal Dissection Academic Grievance (4/25/2001)
• "MCC student fights for right not to dissect", By Amy Baughman, University of Rochester Campus Times, (4/5/01)
• Letter to the Editor (4/5/01), SUNY Geneseo The Lamron student newspaper, "Is Dissection Necessary?" by Joel Freeman.
• VP Jeff Bartkovich's and "Academic Grievance Committee's" Decision on the Academic Grievance (3/26/01)
• Complaint regarding systematically unfair and incompetently administered "Academic Grievance Hearing" (not online)
• Democrat and Chronicle Editorial (3/13/01) and Letters to the Editor
• "Debate Over Dissection," by Matthew Daneman, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Newpaper, (3/10/01)
• Statement from Monroe Community College Public Affairs Department (referred to in Democrat & Chronicle Article above).  [Note: if you have trouble viewing PDF/Adobe Acrobat Files, here's what might help: instead of trying to view it directly, click on your (probably) right mouse button, save the file to your desktop, and then click on that icon to open it.]
• Rebuttal of MCC's statement
• Simplified Grievance Statement (and basis for appeal of VP Janet Glocker's decision)
• "MCC DISCRIMINATES ON BASIS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, STUDENT CLAIMS." Article from Monroe Community College's "The Monroe Doctrine" student newspaper.  Week of 3/4/01, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p. 3.
• Dean (now VP) Janet Glocker's Decision on Academic Grievance (2/12/01) (for a response to her decision, see the Appeal above):
• Dean Janet Glocker's and MCC Attorney Diane Cecero's Initial Response (1/26/01) to the request for non-animal Alternatives to Dissection
• Glocker states that she suspects Ms. Nobis "represents an outside group attempting to seek attention to a cause."  Is this "cause" exposing MCC faculty and administrators who attempt to illegally discriminate against students on the basis of their religious beliefs?  (Ms. Cecero later admitted that her own initial response to the case was not so good.)
• Informational Release (Feb. 19)
• Ms. Nobis's letters, emails and correspondence with MCC

• NY State Licensing Requirement for Nursing, Dental, & Dietetics Programs (Note: there are NO STATE LICENSING OR NATIONAL OR STATE ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS for animal dissection in any health degree or certificate program offered at MCC-- if anyone tells you you MUST dissect animals if you are in a health professions program, he or she is either uninformed [as some MCC biology and nursing faculty have been] or just lying to you).
• Other colleges that allow alternatives to animal dissection:
• "Learning to heal without causing harm", Marc Bekoff, Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder 

  ---

The most well-known legal scholar on this issue is Gary Francione, Esq., at Rutgers Law School-Newark.  He and Anna Charlton run the Rutgers Animal Law Center.  See Gary L. Francione & Anna E. Charlton, Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection, (The American Anti - Vivisection Society, 1992) for arguments that student conscientous objection cases are religious discrimination cases and that students' rights to non-animal alternatives are protected by the US Constitution.  Professor Francione has fought many anti-dissection cases for students in colleges, medical schools, and veterinary schools and, as far as I know, he always wins. "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for Conscientous Objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."--Conscientious Objection and Alternative Service

New Article, by Nathan Nobis, from the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science: "Animal Dissection and Evidence-Based Life-Science & Health-Professions Education: A Response to Jonathan Balcombe’s Commentators" (This also has a link to Jonathan Balcombe's. (2001) article, "Dissection: The Scientific Case for Alternatives", Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 118-126. This article summarizes his book The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, & Recommendations)

http://www.dissectionalternatives.org/

Animals in Higher Education Problems, Alternatives & Recommendations (2000, HSUS) by Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., is an excellent book (available free in PDF and HTML) the provides comprehensive information on the educational aspects concerning animal dissection, a thorough review of the educational literature about testing non-animal alternatives, as well as provides information about where dissected animals come from.  This book is simply excellent.  It provides a wealth of good information.      Conscientious Objection in the Classroom:  Colleges and Universities

NAVS Dissection Hotline.  Jodie at NAVS can provide lots of helpful information and guidance for conscientous objectors.

AnimalLaw.com  American Anti-Vivisection Society's Animallearn and Science Bankproject.

ESEC Responds: Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Reports the "Debate Over Dissection" Animal Legal Defense League

PETA's Dissection Page

The Dissection Choice Campaign at University of Illinois (http://dissectionchoice.org/).  Students at their vet school are allowed non-animal-based learning tools; this is a campaign to get alternatives for undergraduates. NEWS STORY about new animal-friendly educational technology from University of Buffalo: Living Anatomy Program" Simulator Aims to Revolutionize Surgical Training -- Physical/virtual "organs" will feel, smell and respond like living tissue(Thursday, August 8, 2002) Researchers at the University at Buffalo are combining 21st century materials and computerized sensors to create a simulator for surgical training with "organs" that feel, smell, and respond like living tissue in the human body. The work is being led by David Fineberg, a clinical assistant professor of surgery and oral and maxillofacial surgery in the UB School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, who wants to change the way surgeons train. In the process, he also wants to change the way content is delivered across many industries and disciplines, including the teaching of mathematics and science.   http://www.animalearn.org/ Froguts is the first true virtual online frog dissection.

Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights  Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) -- Educational Resources Facts About Religious Discrimination
http://www.religious-freedom.org/	Medical educational software based on the National Library of Medicine's Visible Human Project. Software by Gold Standard  Multimedia and Research Systems Inc.

"Student challenges universities' animal rights policy"--
Freshman Jared Milrad says that students should be able to use non-animal alternatives in classes that require animal practicals.
January 23, 2003 (NCSU student paper)

A student at SUNY Buffalo has been trying to get an alternative to dissection for over two years. Read about his case.

---

This page was created 2.27.2001.  Last updated 1.20.2003.
http://mail.rochester.edu/~nobs/dissection/

  Since (3/20/2001, 8:10 AM EST) there have been visitors to this page.