Trulie Nobis
---
Rochester, NY 14618
---
FAX: 716-273-5331 (c/o NN)
RICHARD J. CONNETT
Chairperson, Biology
Monroe Community College
Building 8, Room 230
1000 East Henrietta Road
Rochester, New York 14623
Phone: 716-292-2729
FAX: 716-292-3866
RACHEL SIMONS
Instructor, Biology
Monroe Community College
Building 8, Room 430
Rochester, New York 14623
Phone: 716-292-2735
FAX: 716-292-3866
January 27, 2001
Dear Professors Connett and Simons:
Due to my respect for the sanctity of life, I have religious and moral objections to animal dissection. I am also enrolled in the Human Anatomy course because it is a prerequisite for a degree in dietetics. The following summarizes our discussions regarding my request to use non-animal alternatives to animal dissection for the Human Anatomy course at Monroe Community College.
On Thursday, January 24, at 1:30 PM I met with my instructor, Rachel Simons, to inform her that (1) I had religious and moral objections to animal dissection, (2) that I was thereby interested in doing an alternative to dissection, (3) that I already had acquired alternatives for cat dissection (Neotek’s “Catlab Cat Dissection Laboratory” 3-Dimensional CD-ROM [www.neotek.com, 412-521-1111] and a life-size plastic model of a dissected cat), (4) that I had an extensive catalogue of other readily-available alternatives to dissection (e.g., computer models, slides, photographs, interactive software, etc.) which I had access to [I gave this catalogue to professor Simons, although all these products are available from regular biological supply houses], and (5) that other colleges, including medical schools, allow alternatives for students who have religious and moral objections to dissection.
Professor Simons replied that she was sensitive to the issue of dissection and that she had wrestled with the issue herself. She said she has thought that dissection shows a lack of respect for life. She said that she would be open to an alternative, although she did express concerns that: (1) dissection is necessary to maintain accreditation for a laboratory course and (2) that an alternative would not provide the hands-on experience that she claimed is anatomy.
Since meeting with Professor Simons, I have researched and determined that: (a) no academic accrediting body requires animal dissection for a course in human anatomy with a laboratory, and, thus, no accrediting body requires that students with religious and moral objections to dissection be discriminated against, denied an education in biology, and denied access to allied-health careers for which biology courses are prerequisites. Likewise, no accrediting body discriminates against students who, due to physical disabilities or medical conditions, are unable to perform animal dissections. Also, if dissection is required for accreditation, then no accredited schools would permit alternatives. But, many do, so dissection has not been determined to be essential for learning human anatomy. So (1) is not a valid concern.
Regarding the concern (2) that an alternative would not provide hands-on experience, since the disabled cannot be discriminated against here, this shows that this hands-on experience is not required to learn human anatomy. Also, the authors of our textbook write that “Anatomy is a visual science” (p. xviii) and discuss how recent developments in computer technology and illustration have improved the teaching and learning of anatomy. They do not say that a student must dissect animals to learn human anatomy. Since other schools allow alternatives and “hands-on” experiences other than dissection, this shows that other educators think that alternatives are educationally adequate (Professor Connett seems to agree, as we’ll see below). So, (2) is not a valid concern either. Furthermore, neurologist David Wiebers, M.D., has said that “From the perspective of a physician involved in clinical practice, education and research, I have come to the conclusion that killing and dissecting animals is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive in the training of physicians and scientists.” Veterinarian Eric Dunayer, V.M.D., has said that “My own experiences as a life sciences student, research assistant, and veterinarian have convinced me that dissection has little relevance to learning about life processes.”
At the conclusion of our meeting, Professor Simons told me that she would have to meet with the department chair, Professor Connett. I met with Professor Connett at 11 A.M. on January 26. Before I met with him, I met with Professor Simons at 10 AM, the same day.
Professor Simons told me that the human anatomy course is like a course where you have to eat meat, so a vegetarian cannot take the course. While this is an analogy and there is no course called “Meat-Eating 101,” no student can be required to eat something that she does not want to in a course (for example, no student who follows Kosher dietary restrictions can be required for a grade to eat non-Kosher foods). Were there such a course, it would be discriminatory. Also, this is a course called “Human anatomy,” not “Cat dissection, cow-heart dissection, and sheep-brain dissection.”
Professor Simons said that she would be able to accommodate a student’s religious objection to dissecting a pig by allowing that student to dissect another animal. This shows that students with this religious objection would not be discriminated against.
Again, she insisted that there is not an alternative to the dissection experience. However, given that other schools allow alternatives and their accreditation and educational quality does not suffer, the widespread availability of alternatives (if there wasn’t a market for them, they wouldn’t be available), and the textbook’s authors making such enthusiastic mention of them, it is highly dubious that animal dissection is necessary, or even important, for learning human anatomy.
Professor Simons suggested a compromise: that I merely watch other students dissect. If this were acceptable, then “hands-on” dissection experience is not educationally necessary and an alternative, e.g., watching a CD-ROM dissection, would be adequate. So, it seems that if Simons will allow my merely watching students dissect, then she should allow me to use a computer-based alternative.
Professor Simons said that, perhaps, in the future there could be alternatives to animal dissection and MCC could implement some of the newer, computer-based learning technologies, if more students were interested. Well, I am a student and I am interested. I am sure other students are interested, but, of course, if they are not given the option to use an alternative and are denied when they request one, very few students will ever express their interests and no students will ever get to experience these learning technologies.
Finally, I met with Professor Connett at 11 A.M. on January 26. He told me that if I do not perform the animal dissections, then I can either (1) drop out of the course, (2), fail the course, and/or (3) find a new career path.
He said that MCC lacks the resources for human cadavers for the Human Anatomy course. He said that alternatives cannot replace the dissection experience. He said that students cannot learn from 3-D computer modeling: he said that touching and feeling dissected animals is necessary to learn human anatomy.
It appears that Profesor Connett is not aware of the educational research that shows that students learn just as well, if not better, with computer models and non-animal alternatives. Profesor Connett objected to this claim, arguing that this research is faulty because it tests students’ learning on the basis of pencil and paper exams. When asked what kind of testing he thinks is required to determine whether students have learned, Profesor Connett said that brain scans are needed to reveal “detailed brain processing.”
Surprisingly, Professor Connett said that he uses a computer model of a frog in a course that he teaches. He uses computer models because frog populations are low, in part because so many frogs have been taken from their natural habitats to be dissected in college classes. However, if Professor Connett believes that using this computer model is educationally inadequate, then he surely would not use it and compromise his students’ learning. But since he does use the computer model, this shows that Professor Connett feels that some alternatives are acceptable, that the dissection experience is not necessary to learn about frogs, and that the “skills” gained in such courses aren’t essential to the content of the course.
Profesor Connett also mentioned that a student has repeated the course for a higher grade but had been allowed to not take the lab. It is doubtful that this would be allowed for a student who wishes to repeat a math course, say, to retake the tests but not complete the homework which is needed to learn the material.
In conclusion, to repeat my position, I have deeply-held religious and moral objections to animal dissection. Human anatomy can be and is successfully taught without animal dissections: there are hundreds of alternatives used in other colleges, medical schools, and veterinary schools. There are educational studies showing that students who use alternatives learn just as well, if not better, than students who dissect. No important educational goal is compromised by allowing me to use an alternative.
Thus, your not allowing me to use alternatives results in you discriminating against me on the basis of my religion. You are violating my Constitutional rights. Your defense of animal dissection could also easily result in similar illegal discrimination based on physical and medical disability. Since the course can easily be taught without animal dissection (there are hundreds of alternatives) available and these do not compromise the educational goal of learning human anatomy (and there is ample evidence that this is so), you are illegally discriminating against me in not accommodating my religious views.
If I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything you said, please let me know so I can make corrections. Please contact me to let me know how you plan to resolve this situation.
Sincerely,
Trulie Nobis