Have you ever cut a frog open? It may be an embarrassing question, but you will nod from the memory of having dissection practice in school. Dissecting a frog may be a trivial thing for some, or an unforgettable nightmare for others. In 2018, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced a revision to the law on animal dissection lessons in consideration of animal rights and students' psychological effects. Under the Animal Protection Act, which took effect on March 21st of this year, minors under the age of 19 are not allowed to dissect animals. Violation of this law will result in a fine up to 1 million won. Particularly controversial thing is the exception rule. The government's revised enforcement rules stipulate that dissection classes can be conducted in schools if it passes the deliberation by the ethics committee. Critics say that the law exists perfunctorily and is not a real ban. On the other hand, some say that the ban for all student violates their right to study. The CAH will introduce the opinions of both sides in this article.
In June 2014, a first-year high school girl in Jincheon committed suicide due to trauma over an animal experiment she conducted in her club. This unfortunate case is not alone, as many people have vivid memories of dissection of animals in classes. In addition, animal testing has always been a hot topic due to various problems occuring before or after the experiment. For example, in March, there was an unauthorized dumping of a tested animal carcass at Jeju National University. Therefore, through the implementation of the revised ‘Animal Protection Act’, animal dissection practices by minors should be restricted without exception. Let's look at the reasons based on the animals which are the objects, the students who are the subjects, and the existence of alternatives.
First, dissection practice is not ethical treatment of animals. Currently, under domestic law, animal testing can only be done by a professional. Article 23 of the Animal Protection Act stipulates that Animal testing shall be conducted only by a person who has knowledge and experience in the ethical management and scientific use of animals used for testing, and the minimum number of animals shall be used. However, most students, who are generally minors, cannot meet these requirements. In other words, from an animal's point of view, it had to leave its body to a scientist whose qualifications are not met. Moreover, there are already too many animals that have died from experiments. According to the "Status of Elementary, Middle and High School Vivisection” from 17 city and provincial education offices, 115,324 animals were victimized from 2012 to 2015. Then, how about animal dissection of animal carcasses? This is also a big problem. Most of the animals found in class are already dead, as they are provided for practice. However, unnatural deaths are likely to be accompanied by pain. From the perspective of modern society, this cannot be seen as ethical treatment for animals.
Second, dissection poses a mental and physical threat to immature students. Most students are legally minors, and a minor is a person of limited legal capacity. That is, students need protection as they lack the ability to make sound judgements. In this context, society needs to protect students' safety and emotions. Education for students should be conducted on an ethical and humanitarian level. However, animal testing can give the perception that animals can be simply consumed by humans. They underestimate the right to life. Or students may suffer from a great sense of guilt, as mentioned above. This is because the grotesque image of animal dissection can be traumatic for students with severe emotional changes. In addition, it can pose a threat to students' physical safety. For example, in September last year, a carp sample was dissected at a middle school in Andong, and the toxin formalin contained in it leaked out. Fortunately, no student was seriously injured, but 59 students and two teachers complained of nausea and a sore throat due to the accident. Therefore, dissecting practices should be banned for the sake of physical and emotional protection of students.
Third, there are alternatives to dissection. Some oppose a ban on dissection for every student because of students' right to learn. However, there are alternatives that can satisfy students' intellectual curiosity without needing to dissect animals directly. Yoo Young-jae, CEO of the Beagle Rescue Network, said, "Alternative means such as using animal models or using VR (virtual reality) are already widely used." He also explained, "There is a study ‘Comparison of V-Frog and Physical Frog Dissection’ in which students who studied with alternative models and computer software actually had better learning effects than those who participated in dissection." There are already cases in which animal dissection is conducted using models. In the U.S., online simulation data is available through ‘The Science Bank’. We should avoid conducting dissection as the alternative educational measures exist.
As technology advances, ethical standards should also develop. This includes ethical standards for animals. Especially for minors, dissecting practices should be defined without exception for their physical and emotional safety as well as respect for the right to life of the animals. In modern society, the development of technology can guarantee students' right to study through simulation or VR without any practical experiment. Therefore, it is time for real improvement rather than nominal legal sanctions. The dissection classes by minors should be prohibited for the sake of animals and minors through the use of sufficient alternatives.