инициативная группа студентов «За гуманное образование»

Dear mr. Sadovnichiy,

I have read reports about ongoing harmful live animal use within the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University (MSU). I have considerable personal experience with these issues, and in 2007 I published the most extensive review to date of studies of student learning outcomes achieved by humane teaching methods in comparison to traditional harmful animal use. I would like to offer my perspective, and also, inquire as to the precise position of MSU on these issues.

No students require the use of animals more than veterinary students. Nevertheless, I successfully completed my veterinary education within Australia from 1997-2001, without participating in any harmful animal use, and am a competent practicing veterinary surgeon today, in London. As a student, I gained my surgical and anesthetic experience by assisting with beneficial procedures in private veterinary clinics and animal shelters. I gained five times the experience of my conventionally trained peers, and also experienced the realism of the diagnostic workups and pre- and postoperative management associated with every surgical case.

Prior to that, I learnt anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology using a variety of humane teaching methods, such as computer simulations, high quality videos, ethically-sourced cadavers such as from animals that have died naturally, in accidents, or been euthanized for medical reasons; preserved specimens, models and surgical simulators, non-invasive self-experimentation, and supervised clinical experiences.

A recent paper by Patronek & Rauch (JAVMA, 2007) systematically reviewed learning outcomes achieved via humane teaching methods in comparison to those achieved by terminal live animal use. Seventeen studies were retrieved, of which five examined veterinary students, three examined medical students, six examined other undergraduate students and three examined high school biology students. Of the five veterinary student studies, two resulted in superior surgical skill acquisition when alternatives to terminal live animal use were employed, and three resulted in equivalent learning outcomes when alternatives to harmful animal use were employed in surgical and physiology courses. Consequently, Patronek & Rauch concluded that “alternatives are a viable method of instruction in the field of biomedical education.” They encouraged “biomedical educators to consider how adopting alternative teaching methods could be of benefit to their teaching programs, students, and faculty members.”

I recently conducted a more comprehensive systematic review of student learning outcomes achieved via humane teaching methods, in comparison to those achieved by harmful animal use (freely available at http://www.humanelearning.info/assets/resources/Papers/Comparative%20studies%202007%20Knight%20ALTEX.pdf). Of eleven veterinary student studies published from 1989 to 2006, nine assessed surgical training—historically the discipline involving greatest harmful animal use. 45.5% (5/11) demonstrated superior learning outcomes using more humane alternatives. Another 45.5% (5/11) demonstrated equivalent learning outcomes and 9.1% (1/11) demonstrated inferior learning outcomes. Twenty one studies of non-veterinary students in related academic disciplines were also published from 1968 to 2004, including undergraduate biology, medical, nursing, pharmacology, physiology and psychology students. 38.1% (8/21) demonstrated superior, 52.4% (11/21) demonstrated equivalent, and 9.5% (2/21) demonstrated inferior learning outcomes using humane alternatives. Twenty nine papers in which comparison with harmful animal use did not occur illustrated additional benefits of humane teaching methods in biomedical education, including: time and cost savings, enhanced potential for customisation and repeatability of the learning exercise, increased student confidence and satisfaction, increased compliance with animal use legislation, elimination of objections to the use of purpose-killed animals, and integration of clinical perspectives and ethics early in the curriculum.

The published educational evidence clearly indicates that well designed humane alternatives generally perform at least as well as methods that rely upon harmful animal use, in some cases achieving superior learning outcomes. Time and cost savings, and other advantages, frequently result, and have contributed to the introduction of humane teaching methods within growing numbers of biomedical faculties in Australasia, Europe, the US, and elsewhere. May I therefore ask you to consider replacing the remaining harmful animal use at MSU with humane teaching methods? Detailed published information about the use of humane teaching methods within all academic disciplines is provided at www.HumaneLearning.info.

I was further concerned to learn of MSU’s decision to remove a bioethics course from its curriculum. Within veterinary education, it has been shown that inadequate curricular attention to animal welfare science, the human-animal bond and the development of critical reasoning ability and ethics (Self et al., 1994; Williams et al., 1999), as well as the harmful use of animals during veterinary education, may result in the decreased likeliness of students to view animals as sentient, a decreased empathy towards animals, a decreased propensity to administer surgical pain-killers, and the impedance of normal development of moral reasoning ability (Self et al., 1991, 1996; Hellyer et al., 1999; Paul and Podberscek, 2000; Levine et al., 2005). It is essential for the proper development of critical reasoning ability, and knowledge of social controversies associated with animal use, that students receive adequate bioethics training.

Finally, I was most concerned to read that a student - Roman Belousoff – was apparently expelled from MSU in late 2007, for seeking to introduce humane teaching methods. Surely this cannot be true? It would, of course, constitute a violation of basic ethical standards and civil liberties.

Thank you for considering my words. I would be grateful for your response, so that I could learn more about the humane teaching programs and animal use offered by MSU, and about your policy with respect to students like Roman Belousoff.

With regards,

Andrew Knight BSc, BVMS, CertAW, MRCVS

London, UK

info@animalconsultants.org