After dissecting various organisms, I was given practical tests, tests that involve real specimens. On the last practical, the practical of the frog, the final question appeared, this question had been pondered by me since the beginning of the dissection period. The question was questioning the ethics of the practice of dissection. The answer I gave was to terminate this practice. This is partly because of the numbers:
For us, one class equals six specimens at six lab tables.
6x5 classes=30 specimens per unit
30x6 7/8 grade units=180 specimens for our school
180x2 middle schools=360 specimens for our town
This doesn't include the high school, or the extra specimens needed for the practical tests.
I have no knowledge on whether these animals were farmed our not, but if they were farmed, I believe it can be less shamed upon. If these animals were taken from the ecosystem, then the practice should stop immediately. Seeing the numbers above, organisms will become extinct very soon. Also, I believe that frogs are now endangered, and the most common organism to dissect is the frog. After the organism is removed from the ecosystem, predators will have to narrow down their food selections, or adapt to different foods, both of which are difficult to do in the short amount of time before starvation. Even if the animals are farmed, they shouldn't be slaughtered for a mature form of "child's play". It would be understandable that they would be killed for food, since we need food, and we consume plants along with animals, balancing out the slaughtering. Dissection after farming still goes against some people's ethics.
Some alternatives to dissection are virtual dissection, photographic documentation, and organism analogs.
Since technology is improving over the past years, I suspect it can be possible to create a virtual frog for dissection. Perhaps the image of the frog can be projected onto an interactive "lab tray" and much like a Smart Board, students can pick up specific dissecting tools and perform on the virtual organism. The con to this is that only the sense of sight is satisfied while virtually dissecting.
There are already plenty of photographs of dissections; students could observe these instead of the real specimen. A con to this is that the pictures are in two dimensions, not three.
Analogues of the organisms can be made, specific organs made of synthetic material to look and feel like the real organ. A student can dissect the analogue just like the regular one, but not get dissecting juices all over them or removing the organisms from the environment. A con would be that mass producing analogues will be costly.
In the end, I believe that dissection should be banned whether the organisms are farmed, or captured in the wild. There are plenty of texts books and photographs. Technology will help improve our experience. If we continue this practice, not much animals will be left on the planet. Likewise, there will be less to study.
A primitive version of my imaginary virtual dissection:
![[PLAY]](http://omegapride.podOmatic.com/img/play_button.gif)
