ArticlePDF Available

Regulated animal dissections in Indian curricula as a measure to control invasive species

Authors:

Abstract

Recent restrictions and regulations put on the animal dissections in academic curricula of life sciences at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels have met with a lot of criticism from researchers and university/college teachers. Substitution of invasive species for regulated dissections in the present curriculum can be a good strategy for both alleviating the pest problem and not compromising on quality of life sciences education.
CORRESPONDENCE
CURRENT SCIEN CE, VOL. 110, NO. 2 , 25 JANUARY 2016 129
Regulated animal dissections in Indian curricula as a measure to
control invasive species
Recent restrictions and regulations put
on the animal dissections in academic
curricula of life sciences at the under-
graduate and postgraduate levels have
met with a lot of criticism from research-
ers and university/college teachers1.
Basic life sciences subject like Zoology
have always depended on dissections for
studying various aspects of animal mor-
phology, anatomy and physiology. Such
a ban will most certainly affect the qua-
lity of teaching, learning and research in
these fields2.
Invasive species are a serious threat to
the nati ve biodiversity and can lead to
species extinctions and subsequent alte-
ration in ecosystem function3. USA has
already incurred a loss of about 120 bil-
lion dollars/year and nearly 42% of the
threatened or endangered species are at
risk due to such exotic species4. Strat e-
gies using biocontrol agents to curb inva-
sive species involve risk of undesired
impacts on non-target (including native)
species populati ons, and their case stud-
ies have been debated5. To be on the
safer side with regard to the environ-
ment, the simple logic that periodic and
mass physical removal of any unwanted
organism will control outbreak as well as
its side effects. This action does not sug-
gest halting any other control measures
for invasive species; the advantage being
that their side effects (if any) will be
minimized and quantifiable.
India has its share of such invasive
species, of which many were intr oduced
as an alternative food source. Species
like Giant African snail Lissachatina fu-
lica, Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus,
Common carp Cyprinus carpio and the
Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis are
widely distributed in India. In the global
context, these feature in the top 100
invasive species of the world6. Some
CORRESPONDENCE
CURRENT SCIEN CE, VOL. 110, NO. 2 , 25 JANUARY 2016 130
literature is available on controlling a
few of these species as well7, 8. The fact
that they still position in the top 100, re-
flects the urgency to bring their popula-
tions under control. The species listed
above are easily identifiable and substan-
tial literature exists on various aspects of
their biology.
Given this information, we suggest
regulated use of these invasive organisms
for animal dissections in different zoo-
logical research and study curricula.
Such a substitution adheres to almost all
of the Uni versity Grant Commission
(UGC) recommendations (under Section
B – Objective/Aim to be achieved). Dis-
section of invasive animals partly ad-
heres to recommendation B.1.1, as none
of the suggested animals comes under
the Wildlife Protection Act currently
enforced in India. This substitution does
not affect B.1.2, since dissecti ons of
these ani mals would also be regulated.
B.1.3 could be modified by substituting
‘invasive species’ in place of the native
animal species. Due to this, the onus of
mass captive rearing, especiall y in
smaller colleges with limited facilities,
will be lessened to an extent. B.1.4 could
be modified on the lines of B.1.3. For
recommendation B.1.5, a species selec-
ted for dissections in postgraduate cur-
riculum could in itself be an invasive
species. The syllabus could be amended
accordingly, as there is a lot of literature
on all biological aspects of these ani-
mals. Using the invasive species for dis-
section would not directly affect any
long-term recommendations given by the
UGC.
Public dissemination of such knowl-
edge will definitely help governmental
bodies to modify the regulations as is
already being considered by the Ministry
of Environment and Forests9,10. Use of
such species will not only aid the stu-
dents and researchers, but also help in
controlling the damage caused by them
on the native flora and fauna.
We completely agree that ra mpant use
of ani mals caught in the wild for vivise c-
tion, especially the scheduled species11,
should be avoided at all costs. Substitu-
tion of exotic species for regulated dis-
sections in the present curriculum can be
a good strategy for both alleviating the
pest problem and not compromising on
quality of life sciences education.
1. Subhedar, N. K., Curr . Sci ., 2015,
108(9), 1577–1 578.
2. Dha rmapalan, B., Cur r. Sc i., 2012,
102(10), 1245– 1246.
3. Raghuba nshi, A. S., Rai, L. C., Gaur, J.
P. and Singh, J. S., Curr. Sci., 2012,
88(4), 539–540 .
4. Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. and Morrison,
D., Ecol. Econ ., 2005, 52(3), 2 73–288.
5. Messing, R. H . and Wright, M. G.,
Fron t. Ecol. Environ., 2006, 4, 132–140.
6. http://ww w.issg.org/pdf/publications/
worst_ 100 /engli sh_100_wor st.pd f (ac-
cessed on 2 5 October 201 5).
7. Fakrudin, B., Prakash, S. H. , Krishna-
reddy, K. B., Prasa d, P. B., Patil, B. V.
and Kuruvina shetti, M. S., Curr . Sci.,
2004 , 87 , 1657 .
8. Copsey, J. A., Shelbourne, G., Grice, R.
and Goder, M., Manage. Biol. Invas .,
2011 , 2, 39–45.
9. Vengayil, D. T., Curr. Sci., 2015, 109 (3),
397.
10. http://articles.eco nomictimes.indiatimes.
com/2015-05-01 /news/61723751_ 1_ani-
maldi ssection-animal-experimentation-
environment -ministry (access ed on 25
October 20 15) .
11. Vasudeva n, K. and Supri ya, K., Curr .
Sci., 2011, 100(6 ), 818.
SAMEE R PADHYE 1,3
SIDDHARTH KULK ARNI 2,*
1Wildlif e Information Liaison
Development Society,
Coimbatore 641 035, India
2Biome Conservation Foundation,
18, Silver Moon Apts,
1/2A/2, Bavdhan Kh.,
Pune 411 021, India
3Post Graduate Department and
Research Centre of Zoology,
Prof. Ramkrishna More Arts, Commerce
and Science College, Akurdi,
Pune 411 044, India
*e-mail: sskspider@gmail.com
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Data
Full-text available
Abstract The giant African land snail (Achatina fulica) is one of the world’s worst invasive species, out‐competing endemic snails, consuming native vegetation and potentially altering nutrient cycles. Attempts to eradicate the snail from islands have only been successful with incipient populations. We present correlative evidence that native island predators may act as an effective control agent for the snail. In 2000 a population of between 37,300 and 45,100 African land snails was estimated on the 26ha nature reserve island of Ile aux Aigrette, Mauritius. Between 2006 and 2007, 260 endemic Telfair’s skink Leiolopisma telfairii were reintroduced to the reserve. Snail population surveys in 2008 and 2009 showed that the introduced snail population had declined to 5,569 (±3,630) and 6,871 (±5,379), respectively. Previous studies showed that the introduced snails were selective over other invertebrate prey items. We suggest that predation by the endemic skink has been an important causal factor behind the snail population decline.
Article
Biological control of invasive species using co-evolved natural enemies has long been considered a safe, cost effective, and environmentally benign tool for pest management. However, recent work has questioned the extent to which these imported natural enemies have negative impacts on populations of non-target species. The result has been a vociferous debate about the safety and proper role of biological control, often without convincing evidence on either side. The issues are particularly well focused in Hawaii, with its high numbers of both endemics and invasive pest species. We review the data concerning environmental impacts from past biocontrol projects, discuss the patterns and generalizations that emerge from retrospective analyses, and con- sider some new techniques for risk assessment. We then emphasize the need for a federal regulatory framework that is rational, efficient, transparent, and ecologically meaningful.
Article
Invading alien species in the United States cause major environmental damages and losses adding up to almost $120 billion per year. There are approximately 50,000 foreign species and the number is increasing. About 42% of the species on the Threatened or Endangered species lists are at risk primarily because of alien-invasive species.
  • N K Subhedar
Subhedar, N. K., Curr. Sci., 2015, 108(9), 1577-1578.
  • A S Raghubanshi
  • L C Rai
  • J P Gaur
  • J S Singh
Raghubanshi, A. S., Rai, L. C., Gaur, J. P. and Singh, J. S., Curr. Sci., 2012, 88(4), 539-540.
  • D Pimentel
  • R Zuniga
  • D Morrison
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. and Morrison, D., Ecol. Econ., 2005, 52(3), 273–288.
  • R H Messing
  • M G Wright
Messing, R. H. and Wright, M. G., Front. Ecol. Environ., 2006, 4, 132–140. 6. http://www.issg.org/pdf/publications/ worst_100/english_100_worst.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2015).
  • J A Copsey
  • G Shelbourne
  • R Grice
  • M Goder
Copsey, J. A., Shelbourne, G., Grice, R. and Goder, M., Manage. Biol. Invas., 2011, 2, 39-45.
  • D T Vengayil
Vengayil, D. T., Curr. Sci., 2015, 109(3), 397.