{"id":1130,"date":"2019-09-11T11:06:41","date_gmt":"2019-09-11T15:06:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zoocheck.com\/podcast\/?p=1130"},"modified":"2020-11-30T14:45:02","modified_gmt":"2020-11-30T19:45:02","slug":"classroom-dissection-elisabeth-ormandy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zoocheck.com\/podcast\/classroom-dissection-elisabeth-ormandy\/","title":{"rendered":"Dissection Part 2: Classroom Dissection – Non-Animal Alternatives as Superior Teaching Tools with Dr. Elisabeth Ormandy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. Ormandy reports that 79% of teachers in British Columbia, considered one of Canada\u2019s most progressive provinces, still perform dissections in their classrooms. Throughout Canada, dissections are performed in grades 5 through 12, and typically use a wide range of animals or animal parts provided by biological supply companies. Dr. Ormandy points out however, that in AISPI\u2019s surveys, the majority of teachers still expressed that they would be very willing to switch to non-animal alternatives, if they could overcome the barrier of lack of time to research those alternatives \u2013 something with which her organization helps.<\/p>\n

There are different ways in which non-animal alternatives are superior to dissections. The main one Dr. Ormandy emphasizes is that students do indeed learn better from simulation or other digital tools, as shown by numerous empirical studies. She explains that furthermore, non-animal alternatives are cheaper for schools, they are the greener option, and are safer and more inclusive for students, allowing everyone to participate.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are 3 guiding principles to the ethical use of animals in science. They\u2019re called the 3 R\u2019s principles: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. And replacement simply says that if you can meet your scientific or educational goals without using animals, it\u2019s our ethical obligation as scientists in the world to not use animals. So the data about the educational merit of non-animal methods shows us that replacement is an ethical obligation in this case.\u201d – Dr. Elisabeth Ormandy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nowadays, students are able to pass science class without having to do dissections, but there are still some challenges. Teachers say that anywhere from up to 25% of students are asking to opt out of dissections, but that leads us to believe that a lot more students witness dissections passively, or feel very pressured to perform them involuntarily in order to continue on with their studies. Dr. Ormandy believes that all schools should have a student choice policy to empower students to take their own decisions and preserve their innate sense of compassion and empathy for animals.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t

Be part of the change!<\/h3>\n