Frog and Cyberfrog are Friends: Dissection Simulation and Animal Advocacy

Although at first glance it may seem an unlikely alliance, frogs and cyberfrogs certainly benefit from an unusual friendship that connects the virtual world of dissection simulation and the physical realm of nonhuman animal advocacy.This paper focuses on the symbiotic relationship of dissection simulation designers and animal advocates. Dissection simulation manufacturers benefit from this relationship through the purchasing and promotion of their products by animal advocacy organizations, and also they benefit from policy changes that encourage the use of dissection simulations as alternatives to dissection. Reciprocally,animal advocacy organizations benefit by saving animal lives, gaining a new tool for convincing teachers to stop dissecting, and demonstrating that they are a pro-technology movement. The knowledges and values embedded in cyberfrogs make them both boundary objects and cyborgs.

[1]  D. Haraway Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature , 1990 .

[2]  Randy Moore Why I Support Dissection in Science Education , 2001 .

[3]  N. Nobis Animal Dissection and Evidence-Based Life-Science and Health-Professions Education , 2002, Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS.

[4]  Mable B. Kinzie,et al.  Student Achievement and Attitudes in a Pilot Study Comparing an Interactive Videodisc Simulation to Conventional Dissection. , 1994 .

[5]  Edgar H. Sibley,et al.  Use of multimedia technology to provide solutions to existing curriculum problems: virtual frog dissection , 2001 .

[6]  P. Cunningham Animals in psychology education and student choice. , 2000, Society & animals : social scientific studies of the human experience of other animals.

[7]  V. Valli Dissection: The Scientific Case for a Sound Medical Education , 2001 .

[8]  Andrew McLaughlin The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology , 1987 .

[9]  Jonathan Balcombe,et al.  The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations , 2000 .

[10]  Arnold Lobel Frog and Toad Are Friends , 1970 .

[11]  L. M. Rasmussen Life Sciences Learning: An Approach That Promotes Progress and Respects Life , 2001 .

[12]  Ron Eglash,et al.  African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design , 1999 .

[13]  Mable B. Kinzie,et al.  The effects of an interactive dissection simulation on the performance and achievement of high school biology students , 1993 .

[14]  K. Marr Dissection: Where and When Is It Appropriate in the Teaching Laboratory? , 2001 .

[15]  F. B. Orlans In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation , 1993 .

[16]  Amory B. Lovins,et al.  Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution , 1999 .

[17]  Rosalina V. Hairston The Responsible Use of Animals in Biology Classrooms Including Alternatives to Dissection. Monograph IV. , 1990 .

[18]  Doug Schuler,et al.  New community networks - wired for change , 1996 .

[19]  Thomas Andre,et al.  The Effect of a Prior Dissection Simulation on Middle School Students' Dissection Performance and Understanding of the Anatomy and Morphology of the Frog , 1999 .

[20]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[21]  J. Balcombe Dissection: The S cientific C ase for Alternatives , 2001 .

[22]  T F Andrews,et al.  National Association of Biology Teachers. , 1939, Science.

[23]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[24]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[25]  M. Fadali Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame , 1997 .

[26]  H. Herzog,et al.  Fetal Pig: The H igh School Dissection Experience , 2000 .