When I found out my freshman Biology class would be dissecting a pig, I was appalled. Not only did it sound disgusting, but it contradicted my moral values.
The methods of obtaining animals for dissections are troubling, and the emotional impact on students is too often overlooked. With modern alternatives that are both more effective and cost-efficient, clinging to dissection in high schools is outdated and irresponsible.
Dissections at M-A take place in Biology, AP Biology, and Marine Biology. Specimens come from Carolina Biological, a company that sources animals in a variety of ways, including euthanized cats and fetal pigs from the food industry that would otherwise “be destined for the landfill.” In the 1990s, an ABC investigation found that one of Carolina Biological’s main suppliers was involved in legal troubles for animal mistreatment.
Despite M-A’s decent sourcing, the sourcing of animals for most high school dissections raises ethical and environmental concerns. 99% of dissection animals are taken from the wild, according to estimates by ethologist Dr. Jonathan Balcombe.
Fetal pigs are removed from slaughtered pregnant sows, which many justify with the claim that fetal pigs are a byproduct of the pork industry. Dissections rely on an industry that treats animal life as expendable and has well-documented ethical concerns. “The ethics of slaughtering a pregnant pig can be an alternate discussion over the way our industrial farming practices have evolved,” Biology teacher Mark Helfenberger said.
Even taking species that are plentiful from their natural habitat can be disruptive to surrounding ecosystems and environments. Marine Biology teacher Erika Shepard recently decided to phase out dissections in her classroom for this very reason. “I made this decision based on the fact that humans are negatively impacting the ocean as a whole, and there is no way to tell if the harvesting of plentiful species is not damaging other, more unique species,” she said.
Despite ethical concerns, many teachers believe dissections are an important part of science curricula. “I am aiming for so much more than student retention and repetition of names and functions of internal organs,” Helfenberger said. He explained that the purpose of dissections in his class is also to teach responsibility and empathy. “I am teaching students maturity and responsibility by entrusting them with the care of a specimen and sharp tools,” he said.
“Most importantly to me, I am offering them opportunities they will not have the chance to do again unless they choose to pursue a career in this field later in life,” he continued.
Dissections can also cause emotional distress that can desensitize students to animal harm, reducing empathy toward living creatures. During my freshman year pig dissection, I witnessed people laughing and posting pictures of the pig as online entertainment, which, despite my moral values, I took part in at times because of how normalized the experience was. Students in AP Biology dissected cats and had similar experiences. “People were making fun of the cat, saying it was fat,” junior Millo Skhiri said.
Witnessing violence against animals during childhood may be connected with violent acts of animal cruelty later in life, according to the National Institutes of Health. Dissections can qualify as cruelty against animals for many people. Students that are made to use animals in ways that they perceive as stressful or harmful often suffer trauma or learning loss. This alone proves that high school is not the time for these dissections, as our brains are still developing, and we are very vulnerable to distress and lasting psychological impacts.
Similarly, dissections can violate a student’s moral beliefs. “One of my Muslim students could not dissect because of their religion,” Dr. James Murray, a Biology professor at California State University, East Bay, said.
Some students avoid certain science classes due to their inclusion of dissections. “I’m not taking AP Biology even though I would love to take the class, specifically because I do not want to do the dissection. If the dissection didn’t exist, I would almost definitely be taking it,” sophomore Ava Glass said.
By pushing students away from taking certain science courses, dissections are effectively pushing people away from science as a whole, not just fields that require dissections. And that’s a problem—science drives innovation, shapes public health, and helps us confront global challenges like global warming, disease, and food insecurity. We should be opening doors for more students to enter the field, not scaring them away with outdated practices that don’t reflect the full scope of what science can be.
While dissections may inspire some students, early exposure to anatomy should not come at the cost of animal lives. Murray explained that sometimes he brings in live invertebrates for student observation. “In the minds of a lot of students, it’s not so bad. It’s a bug, it’s a worm,” he said. “I still think the invertebrates are inspirational.”
Still, dissection is not the only way to help students realize their interest in scientific careers.
With modern technology, plenty of high-quality alternatives have emerged. This includes interactive virtual models, paper dissections, and 3-D models. Merge Cube uses a regular device or an optional VR headset that costs under $50 to turn a cube into an interactive 3D model explorable on-screen.
Humane alternatives provide significant savings. “Without a doubt, dissection of animal cadavers is on its way out, if for no other reason than the cost,” UC Davis Population Health and Reproduction professor Lynette Hart told AnimaLearn. Over three years, alternatives could save schools $7,510.05 on cat specimens, $2,197.30 on fetal pigs, and $1,423.60 on bullfrogs. While the study does not specify if this information applies to high schools or colleges, it explains that the costs are based on 45 animals used per year, 135 over the three-year period. With AP Biology using at least 45 cats per year, and about seven pigs used in each freshman biology class—a class required for all freshmen—M-A uses well over 45 animals a year, meaning our savings would be even greater.
These alternatives are also reusable, making them a more sustainable option and saving more money in the long term.
Other options have been proven to be just as effective, if not more so. Studies show that 30% of students learn better with digital and 3D models, while 60% achieve the same results as they would dissecting an animal. Only 10% learn less effectively.
“If you had asked me ten years ago, I’d say real animals are much better. But now, the alternatives are coming up really fast,” Murray said. “These alternatives are adequate for a high school level and possibly for a college level as well.”
Students who aren’t interested in dissections can still have successful scientific careers. “There are so many aspects of biology that do not require looking at the structures and functions within a body. You could study climate change impacts, population dynamics, genetics, ecology, and so much more,” Shepard said. Dissections should be left to medical school, where they will benefit those who are interested and stay away from those who are not.
Why are dissections still done in schools despite ethical concerns, emotional impact, and high costs? The idea that dissections are essential in high schools is outdated. High-tech, cruelty-free educational tools exist and are more sustainable, ethical, and cost-effective than dissections. It’s time for schools to evolve past the practice of sacrificing animals and embrace the future of ethical science education. Let’s open our minds and stop opening animals.
Bravo to Ivy Watrous for her very well researched opinion piece on animal dissection. I am the Director of Animalearn and applaud all of the points that she brings to light about this outdated practice. This very common lab activity has been around for over a century. I echo Ivy’s message, It is time to cut out inhumane animal dissections.
I hope that this op/ed helps to inspire the M-A school community to rethink animal dissections and consider replacing these labs with the innovative new technologies that Ivy mentions – including AR/VR options. I would also like to mention that recently a new dissectible frog model came out called the Kind Frog that can be used as a replacement for frog dissections. There is no need to for any student to cut up animals to learn anatomy with amazing humane alternatives available.
Finally, I also want to mention that CA is one of the states that offers a dissection choice law. If you are a student, like Ivy, who is opposed to dissecting animals you DO NOT have to dissect. It is your legal right to opt out of dissection.
Please feel free to reach out to Animalearn for guidance. We host a free loan program called The Science Bank which gives students and educators the opportunity to borrow dissection alternatives to replace animal specimens for teaching and learning.
Thank you to Ivy for making a difference for animals used in education!
this only works if u also make the argument for going vegan
If people cannot take a science class because they are afraid of a dissection, they should not be pursuing a career in science. Nature is full of uncomfortable things and facing our fears in the classroom or in any space can promote innovation and actually stimulates learning. I was afraid of the cat at first too but after learning its anatomy and truly understanding the animal, you almost feel like you are appreciating their existence more because you understand their nature a bit better.
As Mr. Roisen makes a point to mention every year, we honor the cats lives by dissecting them; they are already dead and in most cases, have been for a while and while sure, the politics of things like kill shelters can be debated, if the specimens are going to waste otherwise, this is the best use we can possibly give them. I completely agree, learning to deal with uncomfortable experiences is part of learning, especially for careers in science and STEM fields. Having hands on experience in a safe environment is paramount to a well rounded education and there is no better specimen than the animal itself, not a 3D model or a virtual program.
This is definitely it. While well-researched, I think this is the ultimate perspective that the article lacked (because it argued the opposite). Saying it detracts students from science or is outdated isn’t really backed up, it’s just slightly supported. Dissections, especially through animal industry byproducts or euthanized shelter cats (both waste in any case, are helpful for the students.
Dissecting a cat does not reduce empathy for animals, that is a huge generalization. For many students, such as myself, I left with a greater appreciation for life and biology, and certainly did not feel desensitized. Students not taking it seriously is a reflection of their immaturity and not an inherent cruelty in the dissection itself. If you want to leave dissections to Medical Schools, should chemistry labs be kept for pharmaceutical companies, and so on? Students should be able to be exposed to and to explore such subjects
I loved this article! I think it really showed a lot of students’s experiences with dissections. And I loved the inclusion of quotes and your own personal touch. Good job
Amazing work, Ivy! My name is Katharine from peta2—PETA’s youth divison— and I was also subjected to animal dissection in high school. Like you, I stood up for myself and chose compassion, and now I’m working on legislation in California to ensure that all students are informed of their right to opt out of animal dissection. I want to personally thank you for your thoughtful, well-researched, and powerful piece.
Your courage to speak up challenges an outdated practice and empowers other students to do the same. Inspiring voices like yours can spark real change. Like you mentioned, today’s technology offers humane alternatives that make cutting up animals completely unnecessary. From virtual reality tools to reusable 3D models, students can now learn anatomy without harming others.
Your voice matters, and you are making a difference for animals and compassionate science education. Keep up the good work!
Interesting perspective and well written, I appreciated your citing your sources. Before you cited your sources, did you verify or follow the links to their sources? I was surprised at the claim that 99% of specimens being sourced from the wild (especially considering what you said is being dissected at MA). When I followed your link, it was a twenty year old article where Dr. Jonathan Balcombe, an associate director of education at the Humane Society of the U.S. said he estimated it at 99%. He gave no indication of how he came up with that number, which animals it referred to, etc, and even if we accept it as given, in two decades, it’s likely changed.
I also noted your comparison of costs was taken from AnimalLearn. When I read their article, it seems that their claims were not well thought out. For example, they said that the VR Cat dissection and model was equal to a cat dissection. Here’s a video promoting the cat dissection software- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga5g7Nm7iV8 If you watch it, you’ll likely realize it’s not as sophisticated as you might think. As a VR program, they neglected to account for the 30 VR sets needed for a class, which would cost at least $300 each for a budget headset. That means you’d have to add another $9000. According to reviews I read, the budget headsets tend to break after a few years (especially if subjected to the abuse of teenagers who don’t own them). This would mean that the non-dissection method would actually not save any money and may wind up being expensive. If you look at the Altay model, it too leaves a lot to be desired with the amount of detail it shows (and appears to not be available for sale).
When you research, it’s always a good idea to check your sources, especially when you agree with them. I think it’s significant that both Animalearn and PETA almost immediately commented on a high school opinion piece. That suggests they are focused on persuasion and not necessarily accuracy of information.