Alternatives to the Use of Animals in Higher Education The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 331,2

Full text

Preface
This is the report of the thirty-third of a
series of workshops organised by the Euro-
pean Centre for the Validation of Alternative
Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM’s main goal, as
defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory
Committee, is to promote the scientific and
regulatory acceptance of alternative methods
which are of importance to the biosciences
and which reduce, refine or replace the use of
laboratory animals. One of the first priorities
set by ECVAM was the implementation of
procedures which would enable it to become
well-informed about the state-of-the-art of
non-animal test development and validation,
and the potential for the possible incorpora-
tion of alternative tests into regulatory pro-
cedures. It was decided that this would be
best achieved by the organisation of ECVAM
workshops on specific topics, at which small
groups of invited experts would review the
current status of various types of in vitro
tests and their potential uses, and make rec-
ommendations about the best ways forward
(1). In addition, other topics relevant to the
Three Rs concept of alternatives to animal
experiments have been considered in several
ECVAM workshops.
The workshop on Alternatives to the Use
of Animals in Higher Education was held at
the Conference Centre of the Mediterranean
Alternatives to the Use of Animals in Higher
Education
The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 331,2
Jan van der Valk,3David Dewhurst,4Ian Hughes,5Jeffrey Atkinson,6
Jonathan Balcombe,7Hans Braun,8Karin Gabrielson,9Franz Gruber,10
Jeremy Miles,11 Jan Nab,12 Jason Nardi,13 Henk van Wilgenburg,14 Ursula
Zinko15 and Joanne Zurlo16
3Netherlands Centre Alternatives to Animal Use, Yalelaan 17, 3584 CL Utrecht, The
Netherlands; 4School of Health Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, Calverley Street,
Leeds LS1 3HE, UK; 5Department of Pharmacology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT,
UK; 6Pharmacy Faculty, Nancy University, 5 rue Albert Lebrun, 54000 Nancy, France;
7Animal Research Issues, HSUS, 2100 L Street NW, 20037 Washington, DC, USA; 8Institute
of Physiology, Deutschlandstrasse 2, 35033 Marburg, Germany; 9Swedish Fund for Research
Without Animal Experiments, Gamla Huddingevagen 437, 125 42 Alvsjo, Sweden; 10FFVFF,
Biberlinstrasse 5, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland; 11Media Development Centre, University of
Portsmouth, The Rotunda, Museum Road, Portsmouth PO1 2QQ, UK; 12IVLOS, Afdeling
Onderwijszaken, PO Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands; 13MOUSE, Borgo
Allegri 27r, 50100 Firenze, Italy; 14Department of Pharmacology, AMC, Meibergdreef 15,
1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 15EuroNICHE, V. Myrbäck 108, 905 88 Umea,
Sweden; 16School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Suite 840, 111
Market Place, Baltimore, MD 21202–2179, USA
ATLA 27, 39–52, 1999 39
Address for correspondence: Jan van der Valk, Netherlands Centre Alternatives to Animal Use, Yalelaan 17, 3584
CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Address for reprints: ECVAM, TP 580, JRC Institute for Health & Consumer Protection, 21020 Ispra (VA), Italy.
1ECVAM — European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. 2This document represents the agreed
report of the participants as individual scientists.

Agronomic Institute of Chania, Crete,
Greece, on 8–10 May 1998, under the chair-
manship of Jan van der Valk (Netherlands
Centre Alternatives to Animal Use [NCA],
Utrecht, The Netherlands). It was organised
by Jan van der Valk, David Dewhurst (Leeds
Metropolitan University, UK) and Ian
Hughes (University of Leeds, UK), as an ini-
tiative of the NCA Working Group on Educa-
tion. Fifteen participants from eight
countries attended the workshop, which was
the first official meeting of experts involved
in developing, using and evaluating animal-
free models for educational purposes and
promoting the use of these alternatives.
The overall aim of the workshop was to
identify areas in which action should be
taken to reduce the number of animals used
in higher education. The issues reviewed and
discussed included: a) the current use of ani-
mals in higher education; b) the range of
alternatives currently available; c) the
advantages and disadvantages of using alter-
natives in education; d) methods of dissemi-
nating information about alternatives to
those involved in education systems, for
example, students and academic teachers;
and e) strategies for evaluating the educa-
tional effectiveness of alternatives.
All the data contained in this report refer
to the European Union (EU) unless indi-
cated otherwise.
Introduction
Higher education courses in the biomedical
sciences typically use a variety of teaching
and learning approaches, for example, lec-
tures, seminars, tutorials, self-directed study
and laboratory practical classes. In some
subjects, for example, pharmacology, physi-
ology and anatomy, many laboratory classes
involve the use of animals and animal tissue.
The objectives of such classes are often
poorly defined, but may include: a) learning
and practising laboratory skills, including
generic skills, animal handling skills, and
surgical/dissecting skills; b) acquiring new
factual knowledge and reinforcing existing
factual knowledge; c) learning and practising
data-handling skills (taking measurements,
recording, data presentation, analysis and
interpretation skills); d) learning and prac-
tising oral and written communication skills;
and e) developing responsible attitudes
toward animal experimentation. Clearly,
these objectives are important, and any
alternative should fulfil these objectives at
least as well as the traditional approach.
The number of animals used for educa-
tional purposes in Europe is small compared
to the total number of animals used in
research and testing, but it is significant,
because several hundred thousand animals
are used across the EU each year.
In article 25 of the European Convention
for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used
for Experimental and Other Scientific Pur-
poses (2), the Council of Europe states that,
“procedures carried out for the purpose of
education, training or further training of
professionals . . . shall be restricted to those
absolutely necessary for the purpose of the
education or training concerned and shall be
permitted only if their objective cannot be
achieved by comparably effective audio-
visual or any other suitable method.” The
use of animals in education has a major
impact on the total use of animals in science,
since animals are used to prepare students
for research careers (3).
In this report, education is defined as the
transfer of existing knowledge to improve
the understanding of the anatomy, physiol-
ogy and pharmacology of living systems.
Training is defined as the learning and prac-
tising of skills.
Five separate groups have been identified,
for whom education and/or training in ani-
mal use and alternatives are necessary,
namely: animal technicians; scientists,
including laboratory animal veterinarians;
directors of animal facilities and animal wel-
fare officers; national and regional inspec-
tors; and members of ethics committees or
institutional animal care and use committees
(IACUCs; 4). This workshop report focuses
mainly on the education and training of stu-
dents in degree courses in biomedical sci-
ences. As part of this education and training,
animals are also used for dissection and to
study anatomy, as sources of organs or tis-
sues for physiological, pharmacological and
surgical studies, for observation of animal
behaviour, and to teach animal handling.
Students, animal welfare organisations,
some teachers and others have frequently
questioned the use of animals for the pur-
poses mentioned above. The use of animals
in teaching is often opposed on moral
grounds and from an educational and practi-
40 J. van der Valk et al.

cal standpoint. Due to these considerations,
more attention is now paid to approaches
that reduce, refine or replace animal use in
education.
The following groups of alternatives have
been identified (5):
1. models, mannequins and mechanical
simulators;
2. films and interactive videos;
3. computer simulations and virtual reality
systems;
4. self-experimentation and human stud-
ies;
5. plant experiments;
6. observational and field studies;
7. waste materials from slaughterhouses
and fisheries;
8. in vitro studies on cell lines;
9. dead animals from a humane and ethical
source (for example, animals which have
died naturally or which have been killed
humanely after scientific procedures);
and
10. clinical practise.
Many alternatives have been developed for
educational purposes. However, their impact
on animal use can only be determined when
reliable data are available which report the
numbers and species of animals being used,
and the purpose of their use. This informa-
tion would permit more-effective targeting of
resources for developing alternatives where
they will have the greatest impact.
In an earlier workshop, it was recom-
mended that everyone involved in education
and training, and especially lecturers and
students, should have access to comprehen-
sive information about alternatives (6). Ide-
ally, this information should not only contain
descriptions of the available alternatives, but
also evidence of their educational benefits.
Developers of alternatives should be encour-
aged to evaluate their models in order to pro-
vide objective information about them.
The Current Status of the Use of
Animals in Education
Several countries publish data on animal
use, although the amount of detail provided
and the method of reporting varies widely
(7). Currently, it is impossible to accurately
determine how many animals are used in
education in the EU. The overall picture that
emerges from analysing the available data is
that approximately 1% of animals used in
science are used for education and training.
This is considered to be an underestimate for
several reasons. Registration procedures for
providing information are not standardised,
even within the EU. For example, the UK
requires only the reporting of animals used
for scientific procedures; the killing of an
animal before use in teaching would not be
registered (7). In some subjects, for example,
pharmacology and anatomy, the majority of
animals used would fall into this category
and so reported numbers would be signifi-
cantly smaller than the number of animals
actually used. In addition, animals used in
behavioural studies are not registered in
national statistics, and not all vertebrates
are registered. The data available from some
EU countries are not up-to-date. In some
countries, the most recent data are at least 6
years old.
From the data currently available, it
appears that the main species being used in
biomedical education are rodents, fish and
amphibians. In general, institutions train-
ing laboratory technicians, and veterinary
and biology students use the largest num-
ber of animals. Laboratory classes studying
anatomy, physiology and pharmacology
were identified as involving the most ani-
mals.
The European Commission (EC) has
decided to take positive steps to make the
number of vertebrate animals used for
experimental purposes available (8), as
stated in Directive 86/609/EEC articles 13
and 26 (9). Unfortunately, the EC will only
require information on animals used in the
procedures, and not the total numbers of ani-
mals used.
In order to define a policy to reduce or
replace the use of animals in biomedical edu-
cation, and to evaluate the effects of such a
policy, reliable and comprehensive data on
animal use are required. These data are also
needed to determine whether the use of non-
animal alternatives has any impact on the
numbers of animals used.
It is recommended that a standardised
report form should be introduced by the EC,
which records total animal use, including
ECVAM Workshop 33: alternatives in higher education 41

animals killed without prior procedures.
Reporting should be annual.
The Use of Alternatives in Education
Learning objectives
It is important to distinguish between ani-
mal use where the primary purpose is teach-
ing (for example, in laboratory classes) and
where the primary purpose is research (for
example, student research projects), where
the concurrent teaching and learning are
incidental. It is recognised that a substantial
proportion of animal use, which results in
teaching and learning, falls into this second
category where students learn “on the job”.
It is difficult to see how restrictions can be
imposed in this situation, other than those
which control the research component, since
the teaching is simply a spin-off and the ani-
mal use might have taken place even if stu-
dents were absent.
Before animals are used in experiments
which fall into the first category, i.e. where
the primary purpose is teaching, tutors
should be asked a number of key questions,
as follows.
1. Are the teaching objectives of the experi-
ment appropriate for this particular
course?
2. Are the teaching objectives of the experi-
ment appropriate for this particular
group of students?
3. Are the teaching objectives of the experi-
ment appropriate for all of the students
in the group?
4. Is the use of animals the only way to
achieve those teaching objectives?
5. Is the use of animals the “best” way to
achieve those objectives?
It is questionable whether all tutors are suf-
ficiently experienced and/or sufficiently
unbiased to make a proper judgement on
these questions. An independent body, at
either a local or a national level, with care-
fully selected members, would be more
appropriate. In most countries, an animal
ethics committee or IACUC assesses animal
use in research and education. In countries
where this is not the case, similar bodies
should be installed at a local or a national
level.
Learning objectives of classes in which
animals are used
The undergraduate curricula for a wide
range of biological, medical and health-
related courses in which physiology and
pharmacology feature prominently, tradi-
tionally include laboratory experiments that
reflect the practical nature of these subjects.
These often involve the use of animals or ani-
mal tissue, sometimes unnecessarily.
The learning objectives of these classes can
be summarised as (3):
1. teaching factual knowledge;
2. demonstrating the dynamic processes of
life;
3. demonstrating the integration of complex
systems;
4. teaching methods of scientific research;
5. developing problem-solving capabilities
in the experimental environment;
6. stimulating independent working;
7. training in technical and manual skills;
and
8. developing attitudes toward animal
experimentation.
Animals used in teaching should not be
regarded as dispensable tools. If students are
regularly confronted with animal use during
their studies, they might not be able to
develop a balanced attitude toward the use of
animals in research. Giving students the
choice in the early stages of their study
between using animals or animal-free learn-
ing methods to gain knowledge also helps
them to develop an appropriate attitude
toward the use of animals. Ideally, students
should always be offered alternatives, and
should be offered the opportunity to decide
whether or not to attend an animal labora-
tory class. However, it is recognised that
many students may be poorly equipped to
make such a choice. Should students decide
that the experience offered by an animal
experiment is essential, they should be
required to justify their decision. In all cases,
students who will be confronted with ani-
mals during laboratory classes should at
least have had ethical training to make them
aware of issues surrounding the use of ani-
mals and the application of the Three Rs
concept.
42 J. van der Valk et al.

One view is that the use of animals in edu-
cation and training is only acceptable when:
a) animals are observed in their natural set-
ting or during brief periods of captivity; b)
animals are obtained from an ethical source,
for example, dissection of animals that have
died naturally or those which have been
humanely killed for other reasons; c) learn-
ing occurs in the clinical setting, where only
animals in need of veterinary medical assis-
tance are subjected to invasive procedures;
or d) learning occurs by closely supervised
apprenticeship in the research laboratory
(specifically for students entering fields
where they will need to use laboratory ani-
mals).
Training
Animal use for training purposes, particu-
larly those experiments that involve suffer-
ing, should be delayed until a student
decides to pursue a research career which
involves animal experimentation (10). It
may be obvious that non-animal models
such as computer and audio-visual models
are not able to teach or allow students to
practice certain laboratory and surgical
skills, and that when these skills are
required in a future profession, non-animal
alternatives might be unsuitable. Some
training courses in laboratory animal sci-
ence might be sufficient, in terms of knowl-
edge and handling skills, for those going on
to perform animal experiments in a future
profession (11). In addition, such courses
may foster a caring attitude to animals and
promote a more critical approach to judging
whether particular experimental protocols
which involve animal use are really neces-
sary, or how they might be refined to reduce
numbers or suffering (12). In every situa-
tion, alternatives should be given full con-
sideration.
Advantages of alternatives
Depending on the learning objectives, ani-
mal-free models have several advantages
over animal experiments. In cases where stu-
dents are not well-prepared for work with
animals, the emotions aroused by being con-
fronted with a dead or live animal might
detract from the actual learning experience.
Non-animal models can be developed in such
a way as to achieve the learning objectives
more effectively. For example:
1. a specific animal experiment might only
be offered once, whereas an alternative
model can often be used over and over
again without constraints on time and
place of study;
2. alternative models can offer unambigu-
ous and complete data, and so can avoid
the negative learning experience of an
“unsuccessful experiment”;
3. an alternative can have built-in self-
assessment to allow students to gauge
whether staged learning objectives have
been achieved; and
4. alternatives which make use of modern
audio-visual techniques offer the possibil-
ity of demonstrating phenomena that are
normally unobservable in the equivalent
animal experiment, such as animations of
organ and cell functions and “fly-
throughs” of organ systems.
Although in some cases the development of
an alternative model can be expensive, it can
often be used repeatedly. Overall, the alter-
native model is cheaper than purchasing and
caring for large groups of animals. The use of
an alternative can also often save time for
both the tutor and the students (13).
Animal-free alternatives
There are a wide range of animal-free models
available for use in life sciences education
today; all of them have strengths as well as
limitations. The key to the successful inte-
gration of any alternative into a teaching and
learning environment is the closeness of fit
between the educational requirement, the
context in which the alternative is to be
used, and the choice of the medium (for
example, computer or video).
The workshop participants identified vari-
ous available formats in learning technology
for the development of animal-free models,
examined the strengths and weaknesses of
each, and discussed the issues associated
with the widespread implementation of
alternatives from a technological perspec-
tive.
Screen-based models
When screen-based alternatives are being
introduced in education, the governing fac-
tors are the learning objectives desired and
the context in which they are to be achieved.
ECVAM Workshop 33: alternatives in higher education 43

The medium by which the material is deliv-
ered must be secondary to these considera-
tions. If the introduction of screen-based
alternatives is technology-led, there will be a
greater risk of failure. However, technology-
related issues such as desired functionality,
mechanism of distribution to end-users,
copyright and financial restriction must also
be taken into account.
The oldest screen-based model, video, is an
analogue medium, either on tape or on laser
disc. VHS is ubiquitous and can still be very
effective. The videodisc is now being replaced
by digital video standards.
Computer-mediated alternatives can
involve digital video, multimedia, computer-
assisted learning (CAL), simulations or self-
testing models. These computer-mediated
models can be either stand-alone versions, or
distributed on local networks, or on the
Internet. Often, site licences can be obtained
for simultaneous use on multiple computers.
Trends are visible toward the use of multi-
media and network distribution. Progress in
learning technology influences the develop-
ment of computer-mediated alternatives.
The development of applications is often dri-
ven by the available technology, which some-
times offers new possibilities for alternatives
in education (for example, computer simula-
tions). On the other hand, some models are
no longer available, because of hardware and
software trends. It is also likely that inap-
propriate technology will be used if the
learning objectives and context are not ini-
tially clearly identified.
Key factors in the development of com-
puter-mediated alternatives are the use of
the correct development tools, and collabora-
tion. Several authoring tools exist for the
production of CAL and multimedia, but the
effective use of these tools requires spe-
cialised skills. Often the developer is the sub-
ject specialist, who also acts as programmer,
instructional designer and graphic artist. It
is preferable to have a team of professionals
for the production of multimedia for educa-
tional purposes. Collaboration reduces dupli-
cation of effort, increases access to
specialists, and raises the overall quality.
With the introduction of computer-medi-
ated alternatives, the context of its use might
also have to be adapted. The course or cur-
riculum might need to be reorganised, or
timetables changed. The correct and mean-
ingful incorporation of CAL into a problem-
based learning environment is of paramount
importance.
Human volunteers
Human experimentation could, in some
cases, be a good alternative in education.
Human volunteers have many experimental
possibilities, and for many study pro-
grammes (medicine, pharmacy and medical
biology) are the ultimate model to study. In
Marburg, Germany, two-thirds of all physiol-
ogy experiments in education are performed
by the students on each other.
Although human experiments have possi-
bilities as alternatives for animal experimen-
tation, they are not an option under some
circumstances. In Leeds, UK, experiments
on students in education are restricted by
the fact that high insurance costs have to be
paid. The faculty has full responsibility for
the health of the students and the risks that
they take.
Three-dimensional models
In addition to computer-mediated alterna-
tives, several other learning alternatives
could reduce, refine or replace animal exper-
iments in education. Three-dimensional
models, for example, can contribute signifi-
cantly. In addition to the many plastic
anatomy models now available for more than
a dozen commonly dissected animal species
and for the human body, there are also mod-
els and mannequins for more-specialised
training. The rat and rabbit models devel-
oped by Koken, Tokyo, Japan, allow labora-
tory technicians and veterinary students to
refine their skills in handling, dosing, draw-
ing blood and intubation, before they use live
animals (5).
Demonstration of alternatives
In many European countries, a great need
exists for demonstration of the alternatives.
This would assist groups who are trying to
convince teachers in higher education.
However, demonstrations are often limited,
since they do not show the full range of
functions of the real program. Plans exist
for the production of a CD-ROM or a video
with a compilation of different types of
alternatives, to promote their use in educa-
tion. In the UK, a resource centre has been
set up for promoting CAL in the field of
pharmacology. Demonstrations of alterna-
44 J. van der Valk et al.

tives on the Internet can be very effective,
and there are several sites now available for
this purpose.
Distribution also seems to be an important
issue in the implementation of alternatives.
Existing alternatives should be readily avail-
able for teachers all over Europe, but often
this is not the case. Teachers who develop
programs often organise their distribution
themselves, which is usually inadequate as
they lack the necessary facilities.
Alternatives on view at the workshop
Several alternatives were demonstrated dur-
ing the workshop.
Anatomy of the Rat
The learning objectives of this linear video
programme are to aid the identification and
orientation of tissues and structures, to
improve understanding of the functional
relationship between organ systems within a
mammal, and to improve dissection tech-
niques. The target audience is high school
pupils and first-year undergraduate stu-
dents. It is currently being converted to a
multimedia format, with the addition of sec-
tions to cover physiology and histology.
Microlabs
Microlabs consists of a series of computer
programs in pharmacology education, devel-
oped with the support of grants from the EC
and industry. This version can still be used
on computers with a 286 processor, which is
an advantage in Third World countries,
where many animals are used for educa-
tional purposes. In addition, a Windows ver-
sion of Microlabs is available. Distribution is
free or on a collaborative basis. All programs
are simulations without tutoring, so they can
easily be changed and implemented in a spe-
cific learning situation.
The primary aim of Microlabs is to replace
animal use in education by simulating the
effects of drugs on isolated tissues in vitro
and the effects on whole animals in vivo.
Data obtained from the simulations can be
analysed in a program for calculating quanti-
tative structure-activity relationships. In
this way, students become aware that many
animal experiments can be excluded on theo-
retical grounds. The simulations can also be
used for the design of experiments; variabil-
ity in response, based on real experimental
data, provides the opportunity to obtain
skills for careful planning before beginning
an experiment.
Sciatic Nerve Tibialis Muscle Preparation
This computer program simulates a pharma-
cological animal preparation for studying the
action of drugs at the neuromuscular junc-
tion. There are no predefined experiments,
which allows the teacher to decide how to
apply it. The teacher has the freedom to
study the effects of certain drugs, or to let
students perform their own experiments.
The user can set the dose, time and other
parameters. The program can be used for
many purposes, even for learning statistics.
This program is one of a set of several simu-
lations of pharmacological preparations and
is now in use in 200 universities worldwide,
for undergraduate and postgraduate stu-
dents.
Nerve Physiology
The stimulus to develop this program was
that a decision had to be made either to
replace old physiological equipment, or to
use a computer simulation. The program is a
simulation of a practical experiment tradi-
tionally carried out on frogs. All aspects of
the experiment can be studied with this pro-
gram. It is not based on a mathematical
model, but contains data from real experi-
ments.
Rat Blood Pressure
Rat Blood Pressure presents data from a
series of experiments designed to illustrate
the action of drugs on the cardiovascular sys-
tem (heart rate and blood pressure). The pro-
gram provides extensive information about
the experimental apparatus, the animal
preparation and the protocol, and includes
student exercises with feedback and self-
assessment questions, for example, multiple-
choice questions.
Anaesthesia of Rats
This CD-ROM includes a simulation of anaes-
thesia in the rat based on a mathematical
model, but also contains a tutorial and some
chapters on anaesthetic procedures. The CD-
ROM teaches the student how to: determine
the phase of anaesthesia by means of observa-
tion of the reflexes of the animal; identify the
characteristics of the different classes of
anaesthetic drugs; and apply procedures for
anaesthesia by injection, inhalation, or a com-
ECVAM Workshop 33: alternatives in higher education 45

bination of both, and to distinguish factors
influencing the effectiveness of anaesthesia.
Moving video is an essential part of this CD-
ROM. The first version was on video disc, but
after several years of application in education,
it was converted to CD-ROM. A publisher was
involved in this development, and it will be
interesting to see whether this commercial
approach is successful in making alternatives
widely available.
SimMuscle
This is one program in a series of five, which
are distributed by Thieme Publishers. Sim-
Muscle is an interactive CD-ROM, which
focuses on the physiology of the striated
muscle; all the virtual experiments are car-
ried out on the leg muscle of a frog. The pro-
gram includes video fragments and a natural
interface. All the equipment required in a
practical course is simulated, and students
are expected to perform tasks similar to
whose in the real experiment. The series of
programs have been evaluated extensively
with positive results.
Problems Related to the Introduction
of Alternatives
Although alternatives are now widely avail-
able, the number of animals being used in
education only seems to be decreasing
slowly. The introduction and subsequent use
of alternatives in education is not straight-
forward, for several reasons.
1. Some teachers are resistant to change
and need to be convinced of the benefits
of using alternatives.
2. The integration of an alternative into a
course usually involves an initial invest-
ment of time and money.
3. Information about potential alternatives
is not widely disseminated.
4. The quality of the material available
varies considerably.
5. There may be financial, technical and
other factors which restrict the use of
alternatives (14).
Attitudes of teachers
Teachers with a positive attitude toward
using alternatives to animal experiments,
particularly those which they have developed
themselves, know, in general, how to solve
the problems outlined above. Other teachers
resent being told what to do in the classroom
by other scientists. Their attitude to replac-
ing animal experiments is that they prefer
the “traditional” way; they consider alterna-
tives to be inferior, and the introduction of
technology-based learning methods to be a
retrograde step (15). Often, they are not
interested in the ethics of using animals.
Textbooks, laboratories and equipment are
still oriented toward animal experimenta-
tion. Convincing these teachers of the advan-
tages and ethics of using alternatives is
difficult, the situation being very much
polarised. Incorporating the principles of the
Three Rs into teachers’ initial training and
post-qualification professional development
would help to overcome some of these diffi-
culties.
Choice of medium
Learning objectives and context should
always be the guiding principles in the devel-
opment of alternatives in education. From
this, the appropriate choice of medium can
more easily be determined.
Rapid changes in the technological infra-
structure of higher education institutions
(for example, the move from DOS to Win-
dows NT in the space of only a few years)
make it difficult to obtain the correct soft-
ware. On the one hand, developers prefer to
use new technologies to improve the presen-
tational and interactive features of their
computer programs. On the other hand, end-
users are not always able to keep up with the
pace of technological developments and
might be unable to run the latest software.
Therefore, financial restrictions on the intro-
duction of alternatives are a problem, and
funding for the development of alternatives
is scarce. Being involved in these develop-
ments may even have negative consequences
within a science career structure, which gen-
erally depends on excellence in basic
research.
To overcome some of these problems, the
EC should be encouraged to make funding
available for the development, implementa-
tion and dissemination of alternatives. Fur-
thermore, the essential collaboration of
experts in the production of computer-medi-
ated alternatives, and the mechanisms for
the widespread distribution of alternatives,
46 J. van der Valk et al.

should be improved. Progress in technology
(hardware and software) must be followed,
but should not drive the development of
alternatives.
Curriculum issues
Integrating alternatives into curricula may
be difficult. The introduction of currently
available material often means bringing new
technologies into the classroom as educa-
tional tools. Simply replacing an animal
experiment with a non-animal model is often
not possible, since the new model may
require a different level of support and the
adoption of new learning styles. The applica-
tion of these technologies can dramatically
redefine the teacher–learner relationship
and could have major consequences for the
curriculum. Learning objectives should be
redefined and the requirements for the
learning environment, the system and the
software, must be investigated. Failure to
successfully introduce alternatives often
results from software that does not meet the
needs, hardware that does not properly fit
into the training environment, and insuffi-
cient technical support.
Resource centres
If teachers are to be persuaded to use alter-
natives, their advantages must be demon-
strated. In order to evaluate new materials,
teachers must be provided with adequate
information, including full descriptions of
the alternative, the hardware requirements
(if appropriate), independent reviews, details
of cost and availability, and evidence of edu-
cational effectiveness. Information should be
made available via electronic databases and
Web sites, via discipline-based national and
international scientific meetings, and via
published articles about alternatives (see
below).
One way of accomplishing this is via the
establishment of a dedicated local or national
centralised unit (resource centre), to provide
a comprehensive electronic database of alter-
natives, and to collate examples of a wide
range of alternatives which could be evalu-
ated by students and teachers, either
through visits to the centre, or by the cen-
tre’s presence at appropriate discipline-
based scientific meetings.
The resource centre could also act as the
coordinating centre for developing new alter-
natives, for stimulating discussions on teach-
ing objectives, for exchange of ideas and for
providing advice on the implementation of
alternatives.
Information Sources on Alternatives
Information about alternatives is dissemi-
nated in various ways, although to date there
has been no concerted effort to unify the
resources in one place. University teachers
find out about alternatives from several
sources, including: their own efforts in devel-
oping alternatives; other teachers; students
who choose not to participate in animal
experiments, and who themselves find alter-
native exercises; conferences and trade fairs;
educational material marketing resources;
databases, for example, NORINA, AVAR;
outreach tours (for example, EuroNICHE)
and publications; and computer program
loan schemes from various institutions and
organisations.
Databases
The most comprehensive current resource
for alternatives in education is the
NORINA database (16). This database is
available through the Internet
(http://oslovet.veths.no/norina/), and con-
tains information about alternative models
developed for classes from junior high
school to university undergraduate level.
The site contains a search engine for easy
data retrieval.
AVAR (Association of Veterinarians for
Animal Rights) provides the Alternatives in
Education Database (Alt-Ed), which gives a
short description of most models. The data-
base is updated monthly and has a built-in
search engine. It can be downloaded from the
Internet at http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/
avar/alted_db.htm.
The Biology Education Software Task-
force of the University of Washington has
an Internet site where information can be
found on biology education software
(http://www.zoology.washington.edu/biosoft/).
This site also contains reviews and com-
ments. Although the comments are rather
biased, they demonstrate the value of
including more information on the models
in current databases. It is important that
these databases are regularly updated, pro-
vide uniform key word searches, and,
ECVAM Workshop 33: alternatives in higher education 47

preferably, can be accessed free of charge
(6).
In addition to searchable electronic data-
bases, some printed information is available.
EuroNICHE has compiled an extensive
overview of currently available alternatives,
grouped by subject and medium used (5).
The German Akademie für Tierschutz has
established a bibliographic database on alter-
natives. Its printed version, the Gelbe Liste
also contains information on alternatives in
education (17).
Although most of the currently available
information on alternatives in education is
free, it appears that the future of these ser-
vices is insecure, due to a lack of funding.
It is therefore very important that the
future of information providers should be
secured.
Improving information supply
It is clear that, despite the currently avail-
able information resources, many teachers
and students remain unaware of the exis-
tence of alternatives (18). Efforts should be
focused on these groups to improve informa-
tion flow. Activities that could be undertaken
include:
1. linking with educational material mar-
keting networks, for example, by working
with textbook publishers who could
advertise information on alternatives;
2. setting up a dedicated Web site or using
an existing site such as Altweb
(http://www.sph.jhu.edu/~altweb/) to
present multimedia demonstrations of
various alternatives;
3. using a dedicated Web site, other Web
sites and e-mail list servers as a support
mechanism for students who object to the
harmful use of animals in the classroom;
4. establishing a standard or e-mail list to
disseminate information to teachers and
student organisations;
5. maintaining contact with various teach-
ers’ organisations and discipline-based
societies, and making presentations at
their national meetings to emphasise the
educational value of methods that do not
involve animals; and
6. developing guidelines for establishing an
“alternatives committee” at universities,
to review the use of animals in the class-
room and to provide suggestions for suit-
able alternatives.
If established, the resource centre could
carry out some of the activities mentioned
above. Thus, the Centre could have a com-
prehensive loan system of alternatives like
that of EuroNICHE (5) and the Humane
Society of the United States (http://
www.hsus.org/alternat.html). Experience
suggests that some lecturers are not
inclined to make use of these facilities, and
a better solution might be to take the cen-
tre to the teachers at discipline-based sci-
entific meetings. A resource centre for
pharmacology/physiology teaching materi-
als, which carries out some of these activi-
ties, has been successfully established in
the UK (as part of the pharma-CAL-ogy
project: http://www.bphs.org.uk).
Furthermore, there is a need for demon-
stration materials related to existing alterna-
tives to be made available in several
countries. The production of a CD-ROM or
video for promoting alternatives, preferably
available in different languages, is necessary.
Evaluating Alternatives
Preferably, before any new model is adver-
tised, reliable and standardised data on
learning objectives, hardware require-
ments, costs and use should be available,
although these may depend on how the
alternative is employed. Like any other new
model in science, the non-animal educa-
tional tool has to be evaluated. In particu-
lar, educational models need to be evaluated
as a way of withstanding deep-rooted preju-
dices such as: the models do not meet edu-
cational objectives; students learn better
when confronted with live or dead animals;
non-animal models are too expensive; for
some animal classes, such as dissection,
there is no ethical problem; and introduc-
tion of such models would lead to loss of
academic freedom.
Furthermore, a proper evaluation might
yield data which could be used to improve
the model. Format and media, content,
level of interactivity, cost and time invest-
ment, and quality of teaching, are all crite-
ria that need to be assessed during an
evaluation. A carefully planned study will
yield data which could lead to a better prod-
uct and convince animal users of the educa-
48 J. van der Valk et al.

tional quality and potential benefits of
alternatives.
One way to evaluate a non-animal model is
to compare it with the animal model that it
replaces. Criteria that should be taken into
account include: whether the alternative can
provide equivalent short-term and long-term
learning gains; whether it meets the learning
objectives; how much it costs to develop and
implement the alternative; the time invest-
ment it demands of both staff and students;
how user-friendly it is; and how available it
is.
Several alternatives have been evaluated
(13, 19–25). In general, students who used
the non-animal models performed as well as
those who used the animal model, or even
better. One drawback of these evaluations
was that only short-term learning gain was
measured. Future studies should also
attempt to measure the long-term learning
prospects, though this may be very difficult
to accomplish.
It might not be possible to validate each
model individually, since both the animal
model and the alternative are often not used
in isolated classes, but as part of a course.
The success of a practical class also depends
on other factors, for example, the way it is
being applied, whether it is for self-study or
a tutored class, and the level of involvement
of the tutor in introducing and summarising
the findings (debriefing). Also, the attitude
of the lecturer often determines the success
of a practical class. When an alternative
model is introduced with a lot of scepticism,
the success rate of the model tends to be low,
whereas if the lecturer is positive and enthu-
siastic, the chance of success is much greater.
When an alternative is already being used,
lecturers and universities might have reser-
vations about cooperating in the validation
study, since they need to reintroduce the ani-
mal experiment to perform a proper compar-
ison. In some countries, the law might even
prohibit the performance of an animal exper-
iment when an alternative model is avail-
able.
It is recommended that a group of experts
with experience of evaluating alternatives
should meet, possibly via another ECVAM
workshop, to design a validation study for
assessing the use of alternatives in higher
education. This group should discuss the
study protocol (what to measure and which
evaluation tools to use), which universities
and student groups should be involved,
which alternatives should be validated, and
what sources of funding might be available
to support the study.
Conclusions
Current status of the use of animals in
education
1. Official statistics from several countries
in Europe suggest that approximately
1% of animals used in science are used
for education and training. This is con-
sidered to be an underestimate, since
there is no standardised data collection
process and reporting procedure.
2. The trend seems to be toward fewer
animals being used, although no hard
data are available to support this con-
tention.
3. Most of the animals used in higher edu-
cation are rodents and amphibians,
which are mainly used in undergraduate
classes in pharmacology, physiology and
anatomy.
The use of alternatives in education
4. A wide range of alternatives exist to
reduce or replace the use of animals in
higher education.
5. Teachers have an important role to play
in defining the teaching and learning
objectives of classes which use animals.
They should be aware of potential alter-
natives and should be required to justify
their continued use of animals.
6. Many alternatives have positive educa-
tional benefits and these should be pro-
moted.
7. Several factors contribute to the limited
use of currently available alternatives:
lack of information about alternatives;
lack of rigorous studies to evaluate alter-
natives; lack of time to introduce alter-
natives into the curriculum; resistance
of teachers to change; and lack of multi-
ple-language versions.
Information sources on alternatives
8. Several electronic and printed databases
of alternatives exist, but the current
ECVAM Workshop 33: alternatives in higher education 49

impact of these on educational practice
leaves much to be desired.
Evaluating alternatives
9. There have been relatively few studies in
which the educational effectiveness of
alternatives has been evaluated.
10. Most of these studies have demonstrated
that alternative models can achieve
many teaching and learning objectives.
Some alternative models are more effec-
tive than animal models. However, few
alternatives can be used to teach labora-
tory animal handling skills.
Recommendations
Current status of the use of animals in
education
1. A standardised report form should be
introduced by the EC. Total animal use
should be recorded and reported annu-
ally.
The use of alternatives in education
2. The principles of the Three Rs should be
incorporated into teachers’ initial train-
ing and post-qualification professional
development. This would help to over-
come the factors that contribute to the
rather limited use of the currently avail-
able alternatives.
3. The EC should make funding available
for the development, implementation
and dissemination of alternatives for use
in education.
4. Where it is felt that the use of animals is
indispensable to the learning objectives
(for example, for the acquisition of prac-
tical skills), every effort should be made
to reduce the numbers of animals used
and to keep the potential for animal suf-
fering to an absolute minimum.
5. Animal use for educational purposes
should only be allowed after examina-
tion of the proposal and its approval by
an ethical committee or via another
appropriate independent review process.
Ethics committees should include indi-
viduals with the competence to evaluate
teaching methods that include animal
use.
6. Students should have the right to use
alternatives if animal experiments are
not considered to be an essential part of
their education. Students wishing to
participate in exercises that use animals
should be required to opt in, rather than
the current opt out system for students
wishing to use alternatives.
7. The EC should provide funding to sup-
port the establishment of a dedicated
international and centralised unit
(resource centre), to provide a compre-
hensive electronic database of alterna-
tives and to hold examples of a wide
range of alternatives. Teachers and
students could evaluate the alterna-
tives either through visits to the Cen-
tre or via the demonstration of the
Centre at appropriate discipline-orien-
tated scientific meetings. The Centre
could also act as the coordinating cen-
tre for developing new alternatives,
facilitating the development of differ-
ent language versions, stimulating dis-
cussions on teaching objectives,
exchanging ideas, and providing advice
on the implementation of alternatives.
Ideally, the Centre should be located at
ECVAM.
Information sources on alternatives
8. Databases should contain more-com-
prehensive information, for example,
description, contact details, availabil-
ity, advice on use, target audience, and
an independent evaluation of the mate-
rial.
9. To reach professionals who have no affil-
iation with organisations dealing with
alternatives, demonstrations should be
encouraged at scientific meetings and at
national meetings of science and biology
teachers.
10. Resource centres, including the EC Cen-
tre, should be used to coordinate data-
base information and to disseminate it
more widely.
11. Professional journals should be encour-
aged to accept papers on new educa-
tional methods.
12. The future of some of the free informa-
tion services on alternatives in education
is insecure. The continuation of these
50 J. van der Valk et al.

services should be secured by the provi-
sion of the necessary funding.
Evaluating alternatives
13. A group of experts with experience in
evaluating alternatives should meet via
another ECVAM workshop, to design a
European-wide validation study of the
use of alternatives in higher education.
This group would define an appropriate
study protocol (what to measure, which
evaluation tools to use), decide which
universities and student groups should
be involved, and which alternatives
should be validated, and would suggest
possible sources of funding.
References
1. Anon. (1994). ECVAM News & Views. ATLA 22,
7–11.
2. Council of Europe (1986). European Convention for
the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Exper-
imental and Other Scientific Purposes, ETS No. 123.
Web site http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/123e.htm.
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
3. Nab, J. (1990). Reduction of animal experiments
in education in The Netherlands. ATLA 18,
57–63.
4. Balls, M., Goldberg, A.M., Fentem, J.H., Broad-
head, C.L., Burch, R.L., Festing, M.F.W., Frazier,
J.M., Hendriksen, C.F.M., Jennings, M., van der
Kamp, M.D.O., Morton, D.B., Rowan, A.N., Rus-
sell, C., Russell, W.M.S., Spielmann, H.,
Stephens, M.L., Stokes, W.S., Straughan, D.W.,
Yager, J.D., Zurlo, J. & van Zutphen, B.F.M.
(1995). The Three Rs: the way forward. The
report and recommendations of ECVAM work-
shop 11. ATLA 23, 838–866.
5. Zinko, U., Jukes, N. & Gericke, C. (1997). From
Guinea-pig to Computer Mouse: Alternative Meth-
ods for a Humane Education, 229 pp. Leicester,
UK: EuroNICHE.
6. Janusch, A., van der Kamp, M.D.O., Bottrill, K.,
Grune, B., Anderson, D.C., Ekwall, B., Howald,
M., Kolar, R., Kuiper, H.J.D., Larson, J.,
Loprieno, G., Sauer, U.G., Smith, A.J. & van der
Valk, J.B.F. (1997). Current status and future
developments of databases on alternative meth-
ods. The report and recommendations of ECVAM
workshop 25. ATLA 25, 411–422.
7. Straughan, D.W. (1994). First European Commis-
sion report on the statistics of animal use. ATLA
24, 289–292.
8. EC (1998). Decision No. 2179/98/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 24 Sep-
tember 1998 on the review of the European
Community programme of policy and action in
relation to the environment and sustainable
development “Towards Sustainability”. Official
Journal of the European Communities L275,
1–13.
9. EC (1986). Council Directive of 24 November
1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member
States regarding the protection of animals used
for experimental and other scientific purposes.
Official Journal of the European Communities
L358, 1–29.
10. Rowan, A.N. (1984). The use of animals in educa-
tion: a failure to deal with contradictory values.
In Of Mice, Models and Men: A Critical Evalua-
tion of Animal Research (ed. A.N. Rowan), pp.
93–108. Albany, NY, USA: State University of
New York Press.
11. van Zutphen, B.F.M. & van der Valk, J.B.F.
(1995). Education and training: a basis for the
introduction of the Three Rs alternatives into ani-
mal research. ATLA 23, 123–127.
12. van Zutphen, B.F.M. (1991). Education and ani-
mal experimentation. In Replacement, Reduction
and Refinement: Present Possibilities and Future
Prospects (ed. C.F.M. Hendriksen & H.B.W.M.
Koëter), pp. 119–125. Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands: Elsevier.
13. Dewhurst, D. & Jenkinson, L. (1995). The impact
of computer-based alternatives on the use of ani-
mals in undergraduate teaching: a pilot study.
ATLA 23, 521–530.
14. Balcombe, J.P. (1997). Alternatives in education:
overcoming barriers to acceptance. In Animal
Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. L.F.M. van
Zutphen & M. Balls), pp. 441–444. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier
15. Balcombe, J.P. (1997). Student/teacher conflict
regarding animal dissection. The American Biol-
ogy Teacher 59, 22–25
16. Smith, A.J. & Smith, K. (1997). The NORINA
database of audiovisual alternatives. In Animal
Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. L.F.M. van
Zutphen & M. Balls), pp. 511–515. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier.
17. Rusche, B. & Sauer U. (1994). A reviewed litera-
ture databank for alternatives to animal experi-
ments — Gelbe Liste. In Alternatives to Animal
Testing: New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences,
Trends and Progress (ed. C. Reinhardt), pp.
85–88. Weinheim, Germany: VCH.
18. Uhl, R. & Gruber, F.P. (1992). Ersatz von
Ganztiermodellen in der biomedizinischen Aus-
bildung. In Tierschutz durch Alternativen; Ersatz-
und Ergänzungsmethoden zum Tierversuch (ed.
Livaditis & Vogt), pp. 286–290. Berlin, Germany:
Verlag Gesundheit.
19. Dewhurst, D.G., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P.T.
& Stuart, E. (1994). Comparison of a computer
simulation program with a traditional laboratory
practical class for teaching the principles of
intestinal absorption. American Journal of Physi-
ology — Advances in Physiology Education 267,
S95–S103.
20. Leathard, H.L. & Dewhurst, D.G. (1995). Com-
parison of the cost-effectiveness of a computer
assisted learning program with a tutored demon-
stration to teach intestinal motility to medical
students. Association for Learning Technology 3,
118–125.
21. Van Wilgenburg, H. (1997). Computer simula-
tions in education. In Animal Alternatives, Wel-
fare and Ethics ed. L.F.M. van Zutphen & M.
Balls), pp. 469–475. Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands: Elsevier.
22. Gruber, F.P. & Spielmann, H. (1996). Der Myo-
graph im Physiologie-Unterricht: praktische Vali-
ECVAM Workshop 33: alternatives in higher education 51

dierung in Deutschland. ALTEX 13, 190–194.
23. Lilienfeld, L. & Broering, N. (1994). Computers as
teachers: learning from animations. American
Journal of Physiology — Advances in Physiology
Education 267, S47–S54.
24. Guy, J. & Frisby, A. (1992). Using interactice
videodiscs to teach gross anatomy to undergradu-
ates at the Ohio State University. Academic Med-
icine 67, 132–133.
25. Balcombe, J.P. (1996). Comparative Studies of
Dissection and Other Animal Uses in Education,
2pp. Washington, DC, USA: HSUS.
52 J. van der Valk et al.