Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Perceptions of undergraduate students on the use of animals in practical classes
2016; American Physical Society; Volume: 40; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1152/advan.00019.2016
ISSN1522-1229
AutoresAna Beatriz F. A. Rochelle, Sônia Regina Pasian, Ricardo Henrique Alves da Silva, Maria José Alves Rocha,
Tópico(s)Animal testing and alternatives
ResumoIlluminationsPerceptions of undergraduate students on the use of animals in practical classesAna Beatriz F. A. Rochelle, Sonia R. Pasian, Ricardo Henrique A. Silva, and Maria José A. RochaAna Beatriz F. A. RochelleDepartment of Morphology, Physiology and Basic Pathology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil; , Sonia R. PasianDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil, Ricardo Henrique A. SilvaDepartment of Stomatology, Public Health and Forensic Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil; and , and Maria José A. RochaDepartment of Morphology, Physiology and Basic Pathology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil; Published Online:08 Aug 2016https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00019.2016MoreSectionsPDF (176 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat animals have been used for years in practical classes of health and natural sciences to teach physiological or pathophysiological phenomena, observe effects of drug administration, acquire knowledge of internal anatomy, and develop technical skills for surgical procedures. A growing number of universities are, however, changing their policies and replace the use of animals with pedagogically sound alternatives (6, 10, 11).Several studies have reported in the past on benefits that the use of animals can have for education, with some teachers claiming that they preferred to teach using this practice (14, 16, 20). They believed, for example, that through dissection, students could better gain insights into the complexity of an organism besides promoting the development of manual/surgical skills. For these authors, dissection would be the only way to give significance to teaching and learning anatomy and physiology in health sciences. According to Morrison (14), observations of internal structures and the function of these structures would only be possible through dissection, that is, through "direct science," as students would need to use their eyes, hands, and brain.Nonetheless, it is nowadays a worldwide trend among educators to reevaluate the use of animals in teaching and to take a careful view on other alternative educational methods (18). Among the issues at stake are the morality and instructional effectiveness of the use of the animals, mainly mammals, for teaching. It is frequently argued that these practices are contrary to the purpose of developing a respect for life and that it is necessary to reassess teaching methodologies, as there is now growing evidence that knowledge can be effectively obtained through other sources that respect animal life and can teach ethical values to the students (2, 5, 7, 19).In our institution, where we teach physiology for pharmacy and dentistry, it is not rare to meet students that refuse to participate in practical classes, where live animals are used in teaching. Moreover, some colleagues claim that pharmacy students are more prone to justify the use of animals than dentistry students. On the other hand, there are also students who wish to have the experience with live animals and there are teachers highly committed to offer this opportunity to them. The present study aimed to assess the perceptions of undergraduate students of pharmacy and dentistry at our university campus about the use of animals in practical classes. Knowing the perceptions of two groups of students on this issue, it was considered important for us to decide whether we should offer alternatives to them.METHODSThe project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Dentistry and the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry Sciences of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (process no. 2011.1.198.58.0). The research subjects were undergraduate students in the Dentistry (n = 100) and Pharmacy (n = 100) courses of these faculties. The inclusion criterion was that the students of both groups had already concluded the same Physiology and Pharmacology disciplines that use live animals, sedated (for invasive procedures) or not (for noninvasive procedures), for teaching in practical classes. Students were asked to fill out a questionnaire (validated by three colleagues) containing seven discursive and objective questions. Students were allowed to participate if they had shown adequate understanding when asked about the purpose and methodology used and had provided a signed statement of consent. The data were tabulated with percentages represented in the columns.RESULTSMost students of the two courses agreed that they had a good achievement (learned physiology) in practical classes with animals (question A) and that their use was important for learning (question B), as shown in Fig. 1. However, the majority of the students expressed mild to average discomfort when animals were used (Fig. 1C). When asked if anyone refused to stay in such practical classes (question A) or questioned professors or other student colleagues about the use of live animals in the classroom (question B), the responses were different when dentistry and pharmacy students were compared. While >50% of pharmacy students answered "yes" for both questions, this was less than the percentage of 40% for dentistry students (Fig. 2, A and B). Most students of the two courses furthermore agreed that there was a need for a discipline that contemplates bioethics issues on animal use (Fig. 3A). Nonetheless, when asked if they think the use of animals should be replaced by alternative methods, 58% of pharmacy students responded "yes," whereas this was only 44% for dentistry students (Fig. 3B).Fig. 1.Percentages of dentistry and pharmacy students choosing answers to the following questions: "How was your achievement in the practical classes with animals?" (A), "Evaluate the importance of practical classes for your learning" (B), and "Assess the level of discomfort during practical classes with animals" (C).Download figureDownload PowerPointFig. 2.Percentages of dentistry and pharmacy students answering the following questions: "Would you or a colleague have refused to remain in the class when experimenting with animals?" (A) and "At some point, did you discuss with or question a teacher or colleague about the use of animals in practical classes?" (B).Download figureDownload PowerPointFig. 3.Percentages of dentistry and pharmacy students answering the following questions: "Do you believe that there should be a class that contemplates bioethical issues in animal use in the curriculum of your course? (A) and "Do you believe that the use of animals for teaching in practical classes should be replaced by alternative methods?" (B).Download figureDownload PowerPointDISCUSSIONThe results of the present study showed that most students of both groups considered that the use of animals was important for their learning despite the fact that they experienced mild to average discomfort when using them. However, when asked if the use of animals should be replaced by alternative methods, in contrast to what was previously thought by some teachers, the majority of dentistry students responded "no" and pharmacy students responded "yes." Although is not clear why the pharmacy students felt diff1111111111111erently than the dentistry students and what significance this observation might have, overall the results showed that in both courses, some students refused to stay in the classroom and questioned the use of the animals for learning to professors or other students. Although we do not have data on the portions of students that may hold religious or generation-specific views that may a have large influence on their view about animal use, such discussions were thought to be initiated by students who are forced to commit acts that went against their principles (17).According to some investigators, the majority of students, even though not comfortable with practical classes with live animals, would still take part in these activities. Most of them, however, expressed worries about the number of animals used for research or teaching or about their pain and suffering (7). We also noted that during the practical classes, our students would not talk about their thoughts spontaneously to the teachers, although they would do so with other students, their colleagues. Therefore, we can conclude that using animals for observations or the acquisition of knowledge can lead to contradictory attitudes for some students (4).These attitudes show the necessity of more research to find out the educational effects of the use of animals in practical classes and if ethical reflections can come alight through conflicting situations like this. Ethical conflicts in this area are unavoidable but can be minimized if teachers or researchers can convincingly show that they cannot replace animals and if they can emphasize the importance of the knowledge generated with their use.Allchin (1) considered that ethical and philosophical issues should be integrated in biological courses and are important for student training, and he described how to deal with discussions about these issues in the classroom and how to address students in a respectful way, not authoritarian. Accordingly, we teachers should act as stimulators of discussions on ethical issues so as to enable students to formulate their own position, but keep some "neutrality" and respect the debate, and ensure that positions in favor or against the use of animals are honestly represented (1).In fact, most of our students who participated in this survey agreed that there was a need for a discipline that contemplates animal ethics issues in their courses. However, despite the importance of such disciplines, a recent survey showed that there is a paucity of ethical issues teaching in the university curricula all around the world (9). Our country is no exception to this, since it is rare to find in our universities a class in the physiology curricula that offers the possibility of discussion on animal ethics. Nevertheless, the use of animals for teaching and research has started to be nationally regulated by the National Board of the Animal Experimentation Control (15), and our universities are now trying through their animal ethics committees to restrict the use of animals, not only for research but also for teaching purposes. This has generated several discussions between educators, with some already implementing alternatives and others refusing to replace the use of live animals or preferring to abolish their use due to the controversy (3, 8, 12, 13, 15). However, it is still rare to find studies about the perception of students on this subject. Therefore, although not object of a consensus yet, with the present study, we aim to contribute to the discussions about the use of live animals in our country.GRANTSA. B. F. A. Rochelle was founded by a scholarship of Graduation Program of São Paulo University.DISCLOSURESNo conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the author(s).AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSA.B.F.R. performed experiments; A.B.F.R., S.R.P., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. analyzed data; A.B.F.R., S.R.P., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. interpreted results of experiments; A.B.F.R., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. prepared figures; A.B.F.R., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. drafted manuscript; A.B.F.R., S.R.P., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. edited and revised manuscript; A.B.F.R., S.R.P., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. approved final version of manuscript; S.R.P., R.H.A.S., and M.J.A.R. conception and design of research.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors thank the students who participated in this study as well as Marcia Mendes Ruíz Cantano for the pedagogical service of Faculty of Pharmacy Sciences of Ribeirão Preto.REFERENCES1. Allchin D. Values in science: an educational perspective. In: Science Education and Culture, edited by Bevilacqua F, Giannetto E, Matthews MR. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2001, p. 185–196.Crossref | Google Scholar2. Balcombe J. The Use of Animals in Higher Education. Problems, Alternatives and Recommendations. Washington: Humane Society, 2000.Google Scholar3. Basso PB, Tazinafo LF, Silva MJS, Rocha MJ. An alternative to the use of animals to teach diabetes mellitus. Adv Physiol Educ 38: 235–238, 2014.Link | ISI | Google Scholar4. Capaldo T. The psychological effects on students of using animals in ways that they see as ethically, morally or religiously wrong. Atla 32: 525–531, 2004.Google Scholar5. Diniz R, Duarte AL, Oliveira CA, Romiti M. Animais em aulas práticas: podemos substituí-los com a mesma qualidade de ensino? Revista Brasileira Educ Med 33: 31–41, 2006.Crossref | Google Scholar6. Ducceschi L, Green N, Miller-Spiegel C. Dying to learn: the supply and use of companion animals in U.S. colleges and universities. Altex 27: 304–308, 2010.Crossref | Google Scholar7. Feijó AG, Sanders A, Centurião AD, Rodrigues GS, Schwanke CH. Análise de indicadores éticos do uso de animais na investigação cientifica e no ensino em uma amostra universitária da área da Saúde e das Ciências Biológicas. Scientia Medica 18: 10–19, 2008.Google Scholar8. Fidalgo Neto AA, Alberto AV, Bonavita AG, Bezerra RJ, Berçot FF, Lopes RM, Alves LA. PHARMAVIRTUA: educacional software for teaching and learning basic pharmacology. Adv Physiol Educ 38: 368–371, 2014.Link | ISI | Google Scholar9. Goswami N, Batzel JJ, Hinghofer-Szalkay H. Assessing formal teaching of ethics in physiology: an empirical survey, patterns, and recommendations. Adv Physiol Educ 36: 188–191, 2012.Link | ISI | Google Scholar10. Gruber FP, Dewhurst DG. Alternatives of animal experimentation in biomedical education. Alternativen Tiereexperimenten 21: 33–48, 2004.Google Scholar11. Jukes N. Russia: update on animal experiments and alternatives in education. Altex 25: 56–62, 2008.Crossref | Google Scholar12. Lelis-Santos C, Giannocco G, Nunes MT. The case of thyroid hormones: how to learn physiology by solving a detective case. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 219–226, 2011.Link | ISI | Google Scholar13. Montrezor LH. The synaptic challenge. Adv Physiol Educ 38: 187–190, 2014.Link | ISI | Google Scholar14. Morrison AR. Letters to the editor. Am Biol Teacher 54: 135–136, 1992.Google Scholar15. Oliveira LN, Rodrigues GS, Gualdi CB, Feijó AG. Arouca act and the use of animals in teaching and research according to a group of teachers. Revista Bioethikos 7: 139–149, 2013.Google Scholar16. Pancoast M. Keep dissection in class. Teacher Magazine: 61, 1991.Google Scholar17. Pinto MC, Rimoli AO. Vivência dos estudantes das áreas biológicas, agrárias e da saúde da Universidade Católica Dom Bosco quanto ao uso de animais em aulas práticas. Biotemas 18: 193–215, 2005.Google Scholar18. Rodrigues GS, Sanders A, Feijó AG. Estudo exploratório acerca da utilização de métodos alternativos em substituição aos animais não humanos. Rev Bioética 19: 577–596, 2011.Google Scholar19. Reis PC, Trèz TA. Animal experimentation at the Federal University of Goiás: elements for a critical approach. Contrapontos 9: 77–89, 2009.Google Scholar20. Wheeler A. Justifying the dissection of animals in biology teaching. Austr Sci Teach J 36: 46–49, 1993.Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: M. J. A. Rocha, Dept. of Morphology, Physiology and Basic Pathology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, Univ. of São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre 14040-904, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil (e-mail: [email protected]usp.br). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Cited ByStudents' perception of animal or virtual laboratory in physiology practical classes in PBL medical hybrid curriculumMarina de Toledo Durand, Carolina Baraldi Araujo Restini, Amora C. D. Wolff, Milton Faria Jr., Lucélio Bernardes Couto, and Reinaldo Bulgarelli Bestetti28 August 2019 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 43, No. 4Status of research on physiology education in BrazilRui Seabra Machado and Pâmela Billig Mello-Carpes7 September 2018 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 42, No. 4Animal use in pharmacy undergraduate pharmacology laboratories: Students' perceptions and need assessmentsSaudi Pharmaceutical Journal More from this issue > Volume 40Issue 3September 2016Pages 422-424 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2016 The American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00019.2016PubMed27503904History Received 3 February 2016 Accepted 11 July 2016 Published online 8 August 2016 Published in print 1 September 2016 Metrics
Referência(s)