Animal dissection and evidence-based life-science and health-professions education.
Cambridge mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford (1879/1999) con-cluded his famous essay, "The Ethics of Belief" with the bold claim that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (p.77). Clifford's enthusiasm for evidentialism-the principle that one should proportion one's belief to the strength of the evidence-may have been overzealous, but a plausible interpretation of his view is this: Because beliefs of-ten have serious moral consequences, one should base one's beliefs on the evi-dence, and it is intellectually and morally irresponsible not to do so. This per-spective motivates recent so-called "evidence-based" methods in the fields of medicine and education. Balcombe's (2000, 2001) case for replacing learning methods that require pain, suffering, and death for animals with methods that do not (computer-assisted learning, three-dimensional models, videotapes, and other alternatives) can be seen as motivated by this evidentialist perspective. Balcombe provided a wealth of empirical evidence from educational studies to show that in most contexts animal dissection is not necessary-and even counterproductive-to achieve valid educa-tional goals, especially higher order goals (concept learning and problem solving). He demonstrated that no sound defense of dissection has been given. Can we learn as effectively without hurting or killing another being? If so, why do we not try? Many of the studies Balcombe cites have supported sufficiently the adequacy and, often, superiority of learning methods that do not harm animals or students. The first of the aforementioned questions is being answered; we can learn effectively with these non-detrimental methods. Those who seek to educate (and accept the prin-ciple of "do no harm") must seize the second question because they see, in the big pic-ture, the benefit for themselves, their students, their society, and other sentient beings. (p. 132)
Philosophy Department, University of Rochester, NY 14627, USA. nobs@mail.rochester.edu
Nathan
N
Nobis
D032761:Animal Experimentation; D023401:Animal Use Alternatives; D000818:Animals; D004210:Dissection / Q000662:veterinary*; D004520:Education, Veterinary / Q000379:methods; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006281:Health Occupations / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning