TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hmmm What do you think? Pro-Science Education vs. Pro-Animal Rights Education?

Hmmm What do you think? Pro-Science Education vs. Pro-Animal Rights Education?

New Science Curriculum Aims to Curb 'Animal Rights' Influence
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
October 28, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - A new science-based educational curriculum has been launched to help elementary and middle school students appreciate the role of science in their lives and to counter the animal rights-based curriculum known as humane education.

"Misinformation gets skewed into the spin of those types of [humane] curriculums, and all of a sudden, kids become zealots for a cause that they really don't completely understand, and they have never been given the whole picture," M. Sue Benford, executive director of the Ohio Scientific Education & Research Association (OSERA), told CNSNews.com.

OSERA is a member of the national group, States United for Biomedical Research, which currently has educational affiliates in 20 states.

Benford's group is introducing a science-based curriculum for 4th through 8th graders in 42 Ohio schools this fall. The curriculum, which introduces students to scientific topics such as animal laboratory testing, diseases, health, food safety and the development of vaccines.

"A lot of times, kids don't even think that science relates to them. If you ask them what subject in school has absolutely no connection to real life, many of them will say science," Benford said.

The new science-based curriculum comes at a time when "humane education," which advocates say includes compassion for animals, awareness of environmental problems like so-called global warming and overpopulation, as well as non-violence, is expanding into the U.S. public school system.

Seventeen states now mandate aspects of the humane education curriculum, and two charter schools - one already open in Harmony, Fla., and another planned near Sacramento, Calif. - are devoted entirely to teaching the curriculum.

The humane education curriculum's emphasis on animal rights and welfare has prompted the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to support a new taxpayer-funded Humane Education Learning Charter School, which received approval earlier this month in California's San Juan Unified School District.

The planned charter elementary school in California will encourage students to "examine [their] cultural assumptions regarding the inherent value of different species and nature" and help them to "explore [their] responsibility toward earth and other human and non-human beings," according to the California-based New World Vision Institute, one of the supporters of the school's curriculum.

Benford is eager to challenge the animal rights aspects of humane education.

"There is a difference between us and them. We do not believe that animals have the same rights as humans," Benford said.

OSERA's curriculum advocates for animal laboratory testing and opposes animal rights, placing it at odds with much of what humane education teaches.

"Kids don't understand when they are contacted by animal rights organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) or any of the other groups, for every cause there is an effect," Benford said, referring to what she sees as the great benefits of animal biomedical research.

"They don't understand that if someone goes in and destroys a laboratory where maybe 20 years of research has been underway to cure, let's say, smallpox or anthrax or cancer, somebody may die for that," Benford added.

But PETA fired back and accused Benford's group of "brainwashing kids."

"It's indicative of how desperate the apologists of vivisection have become that they are stooping to this level," said Alka Chandna, manager of PETA's campaign to end animal experimentation.

"They know perfectly well that children have a natural empathy for animals, and they know perfectly well that our message resonates very well with children for that reason," Chandna told CNSNews.com. "These are all things that are motherhood issues, and children understand those things," she added.

Chandna maintains that the benefits of animal medical testing have been greatly exaggerated and accused OSERA of "adding lies to the curriculum and brainwashing kids and obfuscating facts by oversimplifying."

"We are not rats. We are not mice. We are not dogs. We are not cats. We are human beings. We are different," Chandna said.

But Benford disagreed with PETA's contention that animal medical research is unnecessary. "I am one of the oldest childhood cancer survivors, so I learned at a very early age that scientific research and animal research goes into affecting real-life changes," she said.

Benford cited her daughter's 4th grade class as an example of how today's elementary school kids have already been indoctrinated into the animal rights ideology.

When the 4th grade teacher told the class that animals were used in research to produce modern medications, many students in the classroom said, "that's terrible, that's awful," Benford recounted. When the teacher asked, "Can you come up with an alternative - [the students] said, 'yeah, test it on old people,'" Benford said.

The students' reply, Benford said, proves that they lack understanding of the issue. "I think a lot of times, kids are targeted by those [animal rights] groups because they don't have that awareness," she said.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.a...T20031028a.html


Personally I think it's a good thing ... teach them both sides of the story and let them figure it out for themselves.

Well, I'm a little biased when it comes to my medical/scientific background, but the "humane" education is hilarious. It's one thing when animals are used to test shampoo or something trivial however, when animals are used in a humane way (government sanctioned) in order to test drugs that can be life-saving or drastically life-improving, the use of animals is vital. I'd love to see what a PETA or SPCA member would do if a loved one (human) was dying and they learned a potentially life-saving drug had either lost funding or could not be apporved due to insuffecient testing. We can't test new medicines on humans obviously, so animals must fill that niche. Kids should learn not to treat animals in a grossly inhumane matter, however they do need to know that animals can be used in the most humane way of all, and that is to save humans.

wow somebody should make a report entitled the "hippification of ameirca" about this thing. I can't believe 17 states have basically adopted an interest group agenda. IMO this is equivalent to teaching them creationism over evolution in school.

So, I'll just say, I'm for the former one.

Science education should focus on teaching facts not opinions. It's little wonder that our population exhibits such degrees of ignorance when this is the type of education they're receiving. What a complete waste of time. If I had children, they certainly wouldn't be attending public schools as long as this insanity is going on.

Yes, it's good for those future green hippie activists to realize how the world really works before trying to change it. Although I do believe testing products on animals should be reduced to the smallest possible amount.

Without turning this into an animal testing debate Im going to say one thing.

Its a good thing to be teaching children to be humane and compassionate. I dont honestly see why anyone would be against that? From the sound of that article it doesnt sound like anyone is being lied to or brainwashed.

And if you think all children are learning is facts I think you are sadly mistaken. Judging on how the people I have talked to have said they were taught history, I can't really see how that argument can be made.

And as far as the remark of the hippification of America, thats just an incredibly stupid stereotype.

I'm with adagnitio. So long as the material being taught is "accurate", I see nothing wrong with instilling consciensciousness and compassion into the mind-set of younger people. I'd certainly rather leave behind a generation of over-sentimental hippies than a generation of neo-rightist eco-biggots.

This sort of attitude (ennunciated fairly subtly) sickens me:

quote:

"There is a difference between us and them. We do not believe that animals have the same rights as humans," Benford said. [...] "We are not rats. We are not mice. We are not dogs. We are not cats. We are human beings. We are different," Chandna said.

It essentially suggests that merely because animals are less intelligent than us, that their ability to feel pain must necessarily be far lower than our own and that they are not - therefore - deserving of comparable rights. In a sense this view is self-voiding anyway: if these animals are so different from us that we imagine their pain threshold is so radically different from ours that they are not deserving of the same rights, then why are we bothering to test on these animals to begin with? Either they are similar enough to deserve similar rights or they are too different to allow for any meaningful trans-species comparisons - in the form of lab-testing - to work. Which is it?

We must be aware of the fact that we are not the lords and masters of this planet, free to do as we wish with it. The value of non-human life is not determined solely by its utility to the human species.

So I guess, given these views, I strongly oppose vivsection then? Hardly. In English class, back at school a few years ago, we had to write a short opinion piece on vivisection. In a class of 20 or so I was literally the only one who argued in favour it, under the general theme: "if you've got a better alternative, I'd like to hear it". Hopefully at some point in the future there will be a method of testing that doesn't necessitate the use of lab-animals, but until this point, vivisection, as I see it, is a necessary evil. Nonetheless, so long as we are using animals in testing, we need to be quite specific in the sort of testing that is being done and we need to be quite sure that the animals being tested upon are still entitled "basic rights" (i.e. they should be fed properly, sheltered in sanitary conditions and be put out of their misery as soon as possible once it becomes clear they are experiencing extreme pain/irreversibly adverse effects from whatever it is they are being tested with). All it comes down to, really, is limiting the pain inflicted on these animals to a bear minimum.

On the point of being "specific in the sort of testing that is being done" I would say that there are valid reasons to employ animal testing and invalid reasons. Valid reasons would include, among other things, research into curing diseases and ascertaining the safety of potentially dangerous food and drug products released onto the general market. Invalid reasons would be testing of the more frivolous variety, such as experimentation for the sake of experimentation ("I wonder what would happen if we injected half a litre of washing detergent into a rhesus monkey?") and cosmetics testing which, for me, is indicitive of the narcissistic depths the human race is capable of stooping to. That we should feel comfortable inflicting unimaginable pain on feeling animals merely so we can walk around feeling "pretty" strikes me as morally perverse, in every sense of the phrase.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that was on topic or not (was it? ) but that's my two cents for the whole world to see.

But what is wrong with teaching the children the facts of animal testing having correlation with scientific/medical progress? Personally, I don't think the objective is to dissuade kids from having compassion for animals, I think it's a campaign to provide kids with a more balanced perspective on the whole idea of animal rights testing. Right now, you see cases where PETA is actively targeting kids while they're young in an effort to sway them early on.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/2589715/detail.html

So personally I see nothing wrong with this education as long as the facts are taught.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So personally I see nothing wrong with this education as long as the facts are taught.

Agreed. But then, the logistics of medical science are fairly complex - surely you can't expect younger children to appreciate or comprehend them? Regardless of how you try to justify the merits of vivisection to them, as soon as you explain that fluffy little animals are being hurt in the process, then their primordial sense of empathy is naturally going to kick in. With or without PETA having an influence over proceedings, the result is going to be the same as soon as the nature of vivisection is expained. As that PETA person put it:

quote:

"They know perfectly well that children have a natural empathy for animals, and they know perfectly well that our message resonates very well with children for that reason."

Besides, I don't see any evidence (in the above article at least) of "lies" being told, merely the attempt to put a "positive spin" on the concept of animal rights. Weren't you the one who advocated the attempts of an interest groups to introduce a "positive spin" to the US history being taught in schools, mainly by spending less time concentrating on the "bad things"? Is that merely "positive spin" or an obstruction of facts? Is it any different in nature to this PETA issue?

This is a little off-topic, but for my 3rd year physiology course, we had to kill live frogs so we can play around with their muscles. Basically, we took a pith, (kidna like a small icepick) rammed it into their brain and wiggled it around to destroy it, cut off half the head, and jammed the pith down their spine to destroy the nerves.

Well, I couldn't do it, so another guy in my group did, but when he stuck the pith in the frog's brain and moved it around, he didn't do it accurately enough, and the frog was still alive. He just stood there saying "omg, its still alive... omg .." then the TA had to come over and finish the job. Same thing happened with the bullfrogs we pithed a few weeks later.

What bugs me about this is that this isn't really animal "research" since we're not discovering anything new. All we've learned in this lab can easily be learned from a text-book. I really don't see the point in having to take a life just to demonstrate what other scientists already know. But this is what they have us do in school, and it might be a good thing to start moving away from this practice.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Agreed. But then, the logistics of medical science are fairly complex - surely you can't expect younger children to appreciate or comprehend them? Regardless of how you try to justify the merits of vivisection to them, as soon as you explain that fluffy little animals are being hurt in the process, then their primordial sense of empathy is naturally going to kick in. With or without PETA having an influence over proceedings, the result is going to be the same as soon as the nature of vivisection is expained. As that PETA person put it:

Well the courses are designed to examine the fields that benefit from animal testing:

quote:

The curriculum, which introduces students to scientific topics such as animal laboratory testing, diseases, health, food safety and the development of vaccines. "A lot of times, kids don't even think that science relates to them. If you ask them what subject in school has absolutely no connection to real life, many of them will say science," Benford said.

As the article stated, most kids probably fail to realise the role of animal testing and the benefits they yield in society. Perhaps most children form misconceptions that all animal testing really is is to put shampoo in their eyes to study its effects. The new courses are designed to provide them with additional perspective.

quote:

Besides, I don't see any evidence (in the above article at least) of "lies" being told, merely the attempt to put a "positive spin" on the concept of animal rights. Weren't you the one who advocated the attempts of an interest groups to introduce a "positive spin" to the US history being taught in schools, mainly by spending less time concentrating on the "bad things"? Is that merely "positive spin" or an obstruction of facts? Is it any different in nature to this PETA issue?

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing against humane courses as Arbiter is. I'm arguing for science based curriculums to teach kids the benefits/necessity(?) of testing. The humane courses are already in place. Why not provide children with a more rounded perspective by introducing these additional science based courses? Therefore this is exactly like the US history issue. I'm not arguing against teaching kids about the bad parts of US history or the bad parts of animal testing, I'm arguing for teaching kids BOTH sides of the story.

Edit: Although in retrospect, looking at the title of my thread, I can see where you got the impression that I was antagonistic, one way or the other. I actually did not mean it in that way ... although if I had to choose one over the other I would honestly have to pick the former.

although I really dont want this to turn into a pro/anti animal testing debate I would like to point out that a lot of people legitimately believe that 99.9 % if not all animal testing is not needed or necessary.

I would also just like to say that was this 200 years ago noone would have had any problems testing on blacks, or people of other nationalities. At that point they were not people and had no rights not to be tested on. At this point now we make the same argument for animals, but it is quite concievable that in the future this will not be held to be true. And regardless of necessity I dont think anyone here would aruge that its reasonable to test drugs on someone who is black, or asian or any other minority.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio although I really dont want this to turn into a pro/anti animal testing debate I would like to point out that a lot of people legitimately believe that 99.9 % if not all animal testing is not needed or necessary.

Well I would agree with you 100% that we should abolish animal testing that doesn't need to happen (primarily corporate animal testing). However, I'm (reluctantly) for animal testing when it comes to biological/medical research. Here's an interesting question: Should companies be allowed to conduct paid testing on people?

For some reason, the statment I am about to make has come to be viewed as unsensitve, but I am really at a loss as to why. People are far more important than animals. If I am put with the choice of using 100 laboratory animals, in a humane way, in order to save the life of only one human, I'd do it in a heartbeat. There has to be a line drawn in the pecking order of things, and I draw it just below human.
If we are going to be so upset with mammalian lab animals being used for experiementation, why wouldn't our logic tell us that all life deserves the right to a peaceful existance, free from human testing? If that's the case, why should reptiles, nematodes, even bacteria for that matter be used for testing? My point is, unless you find willing human participants, biological research has to be done on its target, life. We like to draw a line at what is "cute, fuzzy and near and dear," but this is rediculous since, in the case of medical research, we must test in an environment that mimics the human body.
As far as education is concerned, I believe the act of pithing frogs is useful. You may think you can learn everything about the physiology of muscle action from a book, but I whole-heartedly disagree. To me it is like telling a doctor, there is no need to learn anatomy through the use of a cadaver, or how to perform medical proceedures through the use of human subjects, because it can all be read about in a book. There must be real life, hands-on learning to understand the advanced form and function of life. I'm not saying eveyone should go around pithing frogs for the hell of it, but if you're to the point of taking a physiology class that requires it, and you have a large objection to it, perhaps you are going into the wrong field. Everyday I cause my patients pain at the hospital, but I know it is ultimately for there own good, much the same way I know the pain I may have caused an animal for educational purposes was for my own good and the good of other humans.
There is an excellent short story by Ray Bradbury about the future of animal rights. In his future, animal rights are taken so far as to implement "bacterial rights." With these rights, antibiotics are outlawed, and millions die of infection, as it was a hundred years ago. I'm not saying we are headed in that extreme of a direction, but somehow equating the life of a human to the life of an animal or any other living thing, is in itself inhumane.
People are far more important than animals.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio And regardless of necessity I dont think anyone here would aruge that its reasonable to test drugs on someone who is black, or asian or any other minority.

Thousands (if not millions) of humans have voluntarily undergone drug testing upon themselves in which financial compensation is often involved. Others do it or have done it for a cause that they believe in, or perpaps are dying of (e.g. cancer or AIDS). I'm assuming you meant to say "involuntary" or "forced" testing.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm with adagnitio. So long as the material being taught is "accurate", I see nothing wrong with instilling consciensciousness and compassion into the mind-set of younger people. I'd certainly rather leave behind a generation of over-sentimental hippies than a generation of neo-rightist eco-biggots.

Hey! Easy now there buddy!

The question is in teaching ideals verse reality. Should we teach them a view of how things happen, or a tool so they can make their own view?

There seems to be a growing trend these days that institutions of education MUST teach you everything you should know. Well they shouldn't, instutions should teach you the basics, and arise your interest to learn on your own and make you own opinions of things. It is not I beleive the place of these institutions to teach us everything we should know or view in life, it is simply not possible.

I remember in elementray school I was also taught about the evils of animal testing.. never was I told about the utility of testing on animals... but I already had the tools to understand that people don't do something just do be bad, or to make a cheap buck, and there must have been a good reason for it.. and by questioning I discovered it does have proper and necessary utility.

In my view, the fundamental problem is this:

The question of the moral value of various types of animal testing is not within the domain of science, but instead is a philosophical issue.

In order to intelligently discuss the complex ethical issues involved in animal testing, large amounts of time must be devoted to defining criteria for what is "humane", whether or not various species deserve "humane" treatment, etc...

The actual fact that animals are used in scientific testing is incidental. The question is not one of biology, it's one of philosophy - of ethics. Therefore, it does not belong in the science curriculum, but in a philosophy curriculum.

If huge amounts of time are spent converting science classes into philosophy classes, as would be required in order to teach the pro-animal rights curriculum in an intelligent rather than dogmatic manner, I find it hard to believe that sufficient time would remain to adequately teach the science itself.

If the curriculum is taught in a purely dogmatic manner, it is of no use to the children and is a complete waste of their time. One might as well be teaching them creationism. Such an education would not be conducive to producing educated free-thinking individuals, and hence, in my opinion, would be contradictory to the purpose of education itself.

Well I wouldn't mind turining this into an animal-testing vs. animal-rights debate ... sounds better than the usual dribble we go through every day. At any rate, I once wrote a paper for my business ethics class on the morality of conducting animal testing ... I'll see if I can find it. I'm pretty sure that I came to the conclusion that it was more immoral to NOT conduct animal testing, thereby allowing the death of human than it was to conduct animal testing to begin with (under the circumstances of saving human lives). I'll try to rebuild my argument if I can't find that paper.

which leads me to question a report I read about research done the other day...

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...29cancer29.html

Research was conducted on mice to prove that green tea helps prevent cancer.

So my question is how excatly did they get the mice to drink green tea? Did they just replace their water with hot green tea and force them to drink it since they had nothing else? Or was it some harmful green-tea injection.

And since the green-tea-drinking mice were saved from cancer, can this be seen as animal-alturism?

Or if the mice burned their tounges, is this a severe abuse of their rights?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.