Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Date
2002
Abstract
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 educational goals, especially higher order goals (concept learning and problem solving). He demonstrated that no sound defense of dissection has been given.
Recommended Citation
Nobis, N. (2002). Animal dissection and evidence-based life-science and health-professions education. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5(2), 157-161.
Included in
Educational Methods Commons, Humane Education Commons, Science and Mathematics Education Commons
Comments
In compliance with the publisher’s copyright and archiving policies, this is a post-print version of the document. Post-print materials contain the same content as their final edited versions, but are not formatted according to the layout of the published book or journal.
RESPONSE COMMENTARIES ABOUT:
Balcombe, J. P. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: Problems: Alternatives and recommendations. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press. (Available at http://www.hsus.org/ace/13059)
Balcombe, J. P. (2001). Dissection: The scientific case for alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 118–126.