In the NEWS
Students Lobby for Policy Reform
by Olivia Provost - Spectrum Staff Writer
A few steps away from calling in the lawyers, certain animal rights groups
seek to sway university policy mandating participation in dissection for
biology courses.
Two weeks ago, members of the Buffalo Animal Rights Coalition and the
People for Ethical Science and Education presented a resolution to the
Student Association Assembly regarding UB's dissection policy.
The Department of Biological Sciences requires that students "take two or
more semesters of lab course work including experiences in dissection of
euthanized animals."
Shawn DeLeo, co-president of BARC and associate director of PESE, thins
this policy is unfair. An environmental studies major, he is in danger of
not graduating because of the biology deparment's policy.
"Some students object to the fact that these animals are being taken out of
their natural habitat. Some of these animals continue to be used by
dissection suppliers despite the fact that their population is on the
decline," he said.
DeLeo also said some students may have ethical objections to dissections.
He said some suppliers either suffocate their animals during transport or
embalm them alive by injecting them with formaldehyde.
The biology department considers its stance on student participation in
dissections: "No student is obligated to euthanize animals, but no student
is excused from participating in the established laboratory exercises and
experiments."
According to Sai Li, a junior biology major and president of the
Undergraduate Biology Association, the biology department's are
reasonable.
"Students understand that it's part of being a bio major. UB isn't the
only school that requires this of its students," Li said.
DeLeo agrees, but said that still other major universities offer
alternatives to dissection.
His resolution asks the university to provide "truly fair student choice"
for students "opposed to dissection because of religious or ethical
reasons."
"We have nothing against learning the material. The fact is there are
other methods of learning ... and we want to have the choice," Deleo
said.
One such alternative DeLeo's organization suggests is using computer
software that stimulates dissection. For students not satisfied with the
alternative of software, DeLeo said the department could explore other
options.
"There are other methods, such as models, such as diagrams, such as
high-tech CD-ROMS that use 3-D models and not photographs," DeLeo said.
Li disagrees, "There is no better substitute for animal experimentation,"
he maintained.
The SA has yet to make a decision on DeLeo's resolution.
According to SA Vice President Monica Monyo, student government is still
reviewing the information that DeLeo presented.
DeLeo said his organizations will use both the resolution and petitions as
a tool in their efforts to change university policy for every department
that requires animal dissection in class.
DeLeo said he has talked to Dr. Peter Nickerson, chair of the Faculty
Senate, about his organizations next step.
"As far as I know, the Faculty Senate has the power to change academic
policy and that is our goal," DeLeo said.
However, DeLeo said his organization is considering last resorts.
"If there is no budge on ( the university's ) end, we are going to seek
legal action again the university."
Associate Director Questions Biology Department's 'Sensitivity'
The Spectrum - December 01, 1999 - Feedback
To The Editor:
I am writing in response to Mary Bisson's input on the biology department's
stand and handling of dissection in the Nov. 19 issue of The Spectrum.
First, though BIO 119/120 and BIO 200 may be designed for biology majors,
there are a number of other departments that have these courses as
requirements. The majority of these departments are ones in which students
will never have a need to perform dissections in their future field of
work.
As for her claim to the sensitivity, that statement is quite humorous. If
there was any sensitivity among biology faculty members, they would not
force students to participate in dissections and would offer alternatives
as a means of learning.
Instead, they tell students to either paritcipate, drop the course or
fail. Even those who choose not to do the cutting and only observe and
assist others -- which is the only option now -- suffer.
A professor told me that not a single student who has chosen the current
"alternative" has been able to receive an A. As a result of this
ultimatum, many students are forced into other careers.
The current policy is completely unacceptable. Learning is not a problem.
Many students have to learn things that may oppose their beliefs. It's
when you cross the line of forcing students to participate in an act that
is against their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs that a problem
surfaces.
Would you think it is right to force an Orthodox Jew to participate in a
Catholic Mass? Or a pro-life woman to learn about the development of
children using an aborted fetus? Those are a couple of questions Bisson
and the rest of the biology department should ponder before making claims
as to how truly "sensitive" they are.
Shawn DeLeo
People for Ethical Science and Education Associate
Director