Animals In Medical Education Research Articles

History and development of laboratory animal science in Sri Lanka.

The Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo (UCFM), is the forerunner in the laboratory animal science (LAS) field in Sri Lanka. Here laboratory animals such as rats, frogs and rabbits were used in medical education to demonstrate physiological principles in the early 1950s. The establishment of the first animal house in 1969 at UCFM better facilitated the use of laboratory animals in medical education and research. By 2006, lack of ethical guide lines was an issue and a set of ethical guidelines was developed and published in 2009, which today are followed by researchers and reviewers in many universities and research institutions in the country. With this development, there was a need for an organized system of education for the LAS discipline. This was fulfilled by conducting the first certificate course on LAS in the Asian region in 2011 in collaboration with the Utrecht University, Netherlands. The Sri Lanka Association for LAS has continued LAS education since its establishment in 2012 at UCFM by conducting workshops and short courses.

A Subjective Assessment of Medical Student Perceptions on Animal Models in Medical Education

There remains increasing societal pressure to limit the use of animals in medical education. The purpose of this study was to explore the subjective perceptions that medical students exposed to an animal model curriculum feel about the laboratory and its continued use. A 6-month prospective study was performed during the medical college core surgical clerkship. Medical students participated in both a trainer-based simulation workshop (dry laboratory) and a live-tissue animal laboratory (wet laboratory) in addition to their operative experience. Students completed a 23-question Likert survey at the end of the surgical clerkship. Data were compared using the chi-square test. More students reported increased subjective stress levels in the wet laboratory (32.4%) compared with the dry laboratory (5.4%, p < 0.001). In addition, more students felt the wet laboratory (vs dry laboratory) prepared them for the anxiety (55.4% vs 24.3%, p < 0.001) and technical demands (67.6% vs 44.6%, p = 0.005) of the operating room. The majority of medical students (>90%) felt the wet laboratory was an important experience and should be continued. The results of this study show a subjective benefit perceived by medical students when it comes to participation in an animal laboratory during their surgical clerkship. As such, over 90% of participating medical students feel the animal laboratory is important in medical education and should be continued in their surgical curriculum.

Animal Experiments and Pharmacology Teaching at Medical Schools in India: A Student's Eye View

Animal experiments are an integral part of the pharmacology teaching at medical schools in India. Various medical schools in India, and rest of the world, have either introduced alternatives to these experiments or are debating the issue. There have been very few studies that have tried to define the relevance of these experiments and report the attitude of the medical students towards them. This survey aims to assess the attitude of undergraduate medical students towards animal experiments and alternatives to these experiments, in the process trying to explore the issues pertaining to their relevance. A questionnaire based survey was conducted amongst second professional medical students at Government Medical College, Amritsar, India. Questions explored various aspects of animal experiments in pharmacology teaching and provided a platform for expressing views on alternatives to animal experiments. Majority of the students understood the importance of animal experiments in pharmacology but did not favour the use of animals in medical education. There was a strong opinion against the sacrifice of animals for these experiments. There was a strong wave in favour of reducing the number of animals involved in experiments apart from the various other alternatives suggested.

Animal Laboratory Exercises in Medical School Curricula

The use of laboratory exercises involving animals in medical education is a subject of ongoing interest. Updated information is not often available, however, on the prevalence of such exercises or of alternatives to their use. In May 1994, a questionnaire on the use of animal laboratory exercises and suitable alternatives was sent to the chairpersons of the physiology, pharmacology and surgery departments of each of the 126 US medical schools. In comparison with earlier surveys, the information returned showed that the number of medical schools reporting the use of laboratory animals in physiology appears to have declined from over 50% to 41%, the number of schools reporting the use of laboratory animals in pharmacology courses appears to have declined from 25% to 16%, and the number of schools that reported the use of laboratory animals in surgery courses increased from around 20% to 30%. For the 53 schools that returned information from all three disciplines, 49% reported having no laboratory exercises involving animals in any of these disciplines. Computer programs and films were the most commonly used non-animal alternatives offered in physiology and pharmacology, while operating room experience was the most common alternative offered in surgery courses.

The Use of Animals in Medical Education-Reply

In Reply. —Dr Kaufman's criticism of the use of animals in medical education is not surprising, for it reflects the views of the chairman of a self-professed animal rights group. Contrary to the views stated by Dr Kaufman, the AMA supports the responsible use of animals in medical research and teaching in much the same way as it supports the appropriate use of technology in medicine: after rigorous and carefully thought-out analysis of benefit, risk, and cost. Certainly fellow students, surrogate patients, and even patients represent important learning tools. However, as stated in Ms Foreman's article, most expert opinion recognizes the necessity for the use of animals in medical education and research. It is a bit ironic that Dr Kaufman alludes to a taxpayer's right to demonstrate against a particular biomedical research activity that he or she feels objectionable. Quite often monies collected by animal rights organizations are used to

Use of Animals in Medical Education-Reply

In Reply. —While testimony against use of animals in medical education contained in these letters may lead readers to believe that such attitudes are commonplace, facts speak otherwise. First, president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has orchestrated a letter-writing campaign toJAMAdesigned to promote idea that physicians believe the use of animals in medical education is unnecessary. On contrary, in a recent national survey of over 1500 physicians on attitudes toward use of animals in medical research and education, more than 91% maintained that use of animals was important for their own training, and more than 93% advocated continued use of animals for medical education.1 It is correct that about 25% of medical schools no longer use animal laboratories as part of basic science curriculum; however, many of these schools report that basis for this decision

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To the Editor. — I am writing in response to the Council on Scientific Affairs' Use of Animals in Medical Education article. 1 The authors would have us believe that the only people opposed to the use of animals in medical education are those who break into laboratories, deface them with graffiti, and deal out death threats. Not so: thousands of physicians, many of them AMA members, are opposed to such use. I recall from my medical school days watching a guinea pig, strategically placed on the professor's desk, die from anaphylactic shock when challenged with an allergen. It is hard to imagine that I could not have learned this equally well by reading about it or watching a computer simulation. I tried to learn about the use of epinephrine on cat muscle while repressing my horror at watching a live cat used in the demonstration. I have often thought

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To Editor. —The AMA Council's report on Use of Animals in Medical Education 1 reports on opportunity for students to develop expertise in a given technique before procedure on a human being. Probably less than 5% of medical students will ever perform any of procedures they practice on animals. Even those who do will not have opportunity for years after they have left laboratory. I challenge anyone to perform any mechanical procedure a single time and then profess to have developed any degree of expertise that they can then apply several years later. The statement is made that the use of animals gives student a direct understanding of how living systems work. Nothing could be farther from truth. More can be learned about how living systems work from a 1-hour public television presentation than hours in a laboratory performing singular

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To the Editor. —The report Use of Animals in Medical Education from the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs 1 contained a number of illogical and unscientific statements. A major justification given for the continued use of animals was that they have been used... for centuries. This is an anachronism in a profession that otherwise prides itself on incorporating new ideas and technologies. It is not a surprising one, however, given the medical establishment's unwillingness to accept other reforms. When I entered medical school in 1973, there were not a few professors who openly verbalized their disappointment at the growing numbers of female medical students and who put women's into the same quotation marks as this article now puts animal rights. The Council's report went on to list the many activities perpetrated by animal rights activists against medical schools and further alluded to the American Medical Student Association's objections, as

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To the Editor. —I take great exception to the Council's report 1 regarding the use of animals in medical education. Animal dissection and/or has no place in modern medical education. We treat people, not animals. Animal anatomy is very different from human anatomy, and the study of it is of minimal use to a practicing physician. It would seem more appropriate to learn anatomy from human cadavers, models, and learning aides. Physiology is best learned in the classroom. As a medical student, I was forced to take part in a dog laboratory, where we systematically injected potassium chloride into intubated dogs to watch their hearts stop. No medical knowledge was learned from this execution. The only thing this type of thing teaches is that life is cheap. It is easy to progress from animal abuse to human abuse. Even now, our profession is under fire for indifference to patient

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To Editor. —I read with dismay AMA Council Report on use of animals in medical education. 1 I find it more than a little odd that prestigious medical schools, such as Yale, have a policy that obviously conflicts with your opinion that, the use of animals in general education of physicians is essential. In fact, according to a 1988 survey of 127 medical schools published in Journal of Medical Education , 2 only three US medical schools did not allow students an alternative to participation, and one of those three schools has since closed. Your article refers to one of original three still open, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. As an attorney and an adjunct professor of law, I have no hesitation in stating that if Galveston Medical Branch denies admission to students based on their moral objections to use

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To the Editor. —The AMA Council's report on use of animals 1 and the survey that preceded it 2 are examples of a pragmatic approach that extinguishes the moral issue that prompted the report. Majority opinions are presented from a survey of what is without reference to what ought to be. The article discussed cost factors and student compliance apart from personal preference or moral imperatives. Reporting or surveying out of moral context is a tried, but not necessarily true, way to solve issues that intrude on professional prerogatives. I first met this complacent myopia as a first-year medical student in 1945. There was a woman in our class! Most of us made a pragmatic conclusion: no patient will have confidence in a female physician, so why is she here? Ten years later I found a similar factual approach in literature I used for a course on medical ethics in

Use of Animals in Medical Education

To the Editor. —There is serious doubt as to whether animal laboratories are truly essential to teach physiology and pharmacology in medical schools, despite a recent American Medical Association (AMA) report stating that they are. 1 Essential is defined as of the utmost importance, indispensable, or necessary . If basic science animal laboratories were truly essential, one would expect all medical schools to use and require them. However, a 1988 survey revealed a widely disparate pattern of both animal use and alternative substitution in basic science laboratories. 2 A recent communication from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) revealed that approximately 25% of medical schools no longer use animal laboratories for medical students (D. E. Kelly, PhD, associate vice president for biomedical research, AAMC, Washington, DC, written commmunication, March 21-22,1991), and it may be that only a small percentage of those US medical schools that do offer animal laboratories continue to

Use of animals in medical education

Use of animals in medical education

Use of animals in medical education. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association

The use of animals in general medical education is essential. Although several adjuncts to the use of animals are available, none can completely replace the limited use of animals in the medical curriculum. Students should be made aware of an institution's policy on animal use in the curriculum before matriculation, and faculty should make clear to all students the learning objectives of any educational exercise that uses animals. The Council on Scientific Affairs recognizes the necessity for the responsible and humane treatment of animals and urges all medical school faculty members to discuss this moral and ethical imperative with their students.

Use of Animals in Medical Education

The use of animals in general medical education is essential. Although several adjuncts to the use of animals are available, none can completely replace the limited use of animals in the medical curriculum. Students should be made aware of an institution's policy on animal use in the curriculum before matriculation, and faculty should make clear to all students the learning objectives of any educational exercise that uses animals. The Council on Scientific Affairs recognizes the necessity for the responsible and humane treatment of animals and urges all medical school faculty members to discuss this moral and ethical imperative with their students. ( JAMA . 1991;266:836-837)

Ethical problems with the use of animals in medical research and education: an introduction.

It is well to remember that the issue of the use of animals in medical research and training is fought with highly emotional appeals. One needs to assess clearly the moral status of animals and the benefits that medical science produces. It is not enough and will not resolve the issues, to show pictures of animals going through a research procedure or to endlessly parade individuals who have been ‘saved’ by animal research. Only a clear understanding of the issues and careful reasoning will help resolve problems posed by the use of animals in medical research and education. The articles in this issue ofTheoretical Medicine advance the understanding of the moral problems with using animals in medical education, the role of IACUC's in resolving their problems, and the problems of assessing scientific and educational merit of animal use.

The use of animals in medical education: a question of necessity vs. desirability.

An issue in current animal welfare ethics is the use of animals in medical education. At stake is the conflict of pain and suffering of the animals vs. the benefit to the students. The educator's role is to balance these two concepts. If the animals do suffer, this has to be justified by clearly establishing the necessity of their use. Neither this justification nor the methods for making the decision are clear. Addressed in this discussion are the arguments for and against animal use, alternatives, and proposals for the resolution of the controversy.

The use of animals in medical education and research.

After noting why the issue of the use of animals in medical education and research needs to be addressed, this article briefly reviews the historical positions on the role of animals in society and describes in more detail the current positions in the wide spectrum of positions regarding the role of animals in society. The spectrum ranges from the extremes of the animal exploitation position to the animal liberation position with several more moderate positions in between these two extremes. Then the philosophical issue of the moral agency of animals is discussed in terms of an explication of the concept of rights and the concept of personhood. Further research is suggested concerning institutional policies regarding medical students who refuse to do physiology dog labs or other assignments which involve the suffering and/or death of animals.

Using animals for the training of physicians and surgeons.

It is argued that cultural attitudes of a speciesist nature are background to the current practice of animal use in teaching medical students and residents. The scope of this activity is estimated, and educational theory is enlisted to suggest that many assumptions about the effectiveness of the practice are not valid. An assessment of one course used for ob-gyn training is presented. Since it is clear that animal suffering should be avoided when possible, the case is made that alternatives to animals may be used to replace animal use in much of current medical education. Medical educators should routinely question and offer adequate justification for any use of animals in medical education.