Kansas School Naturalist

STUDENT BLOOD LABS

We are naturally interested in properties of our own bodies: our own fingerprint ridges, our own curly or straight hair . . . our own blood. We see blood sporadically in cuts and nosebleeds; we need to recognize it as an amazing complex tissue vital to carry food, oxygen, and immune factors. Taking our own blood samples allows us to see our own A-B-O (and other) blood cell antigens and understand how we, as individuals, would be affected by a possible blood transfusion or Rh conflict marriage. Osmotic pressure, complete blood cell counts, and other phenomena are all more interesting and “meaningful” when we see them happen with our blood.

That is why it is so disturbing that over half of the biology teachers who previously conducted such labs have stopped using them. Two-thirds of the time, this is reported as “due to the perceived danger of AIDS transmission.”

The following data from the Center for Disease Control (MMWR Vol. 34, issue 54, page 16) indicate the occurrence of contagious diseases in the United States population at large. Some diseases are admittedly mild, others serious and often fatal. For the school age population, at far lower risk for AIDS via I-V drug use and high risk sexual behavior, the very serious danger from blood cross-contamination in labs has been, and remains, hepatitis. The risk of AIDS from blood cross-contamination using the old-style lancets, plus poor lab supervision and procedures, is extremely remote. Such remote dangers vanish with new self-administered automatic lancets with disposable blades, sterilizable platforms, secure “sharps containers,” and commonsense procedures. When university students, training to become biology teachers, can readily design safe blood lab procedures, there is no excuse for veteran biology teachers to abandon this vital exercise. With adequate resources and competent supervision, fear of AIDS transmission is not a valid reason to avoid modern responsible human blood labs.

U.S. Contagious Disease Cases Reported per 100,000 1976-1985.
Gonorrhea	384.51
Chickenpox	123.23
Syphilis (all)	28.50
Salmonellosis	27.37
Hepatitis B	11.50
Hepatitis A	10.03
Tuberculosis	9.30
Shigellosis	7.14
Aseptic meningitis	4.50
AIDS	3.46
Hepatitis unspecified	2.38
Non-A Non-B Hepatitis	1.81
Whooping Cough	1.50
Mumps	1.30
Measles	1.18

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE NABT POLICY ON DISSECTION?

The above statement was issued by NABT in April, 1989 "News and Views." An expanded one-page statement was issued October 25, 1989, continuing to promote alternatives when communities are "outspoken in their objections to dissection."

“Recent discoveries” have expanded our knowledge in biochemistry and cell biology. However, the “nature of learning and understanding biology” remains the same: students learn best from real experiences that allow full interaction and consequences and test true.

"New foci" based on items such as the Krebs cycle or respiratory pathways cannot pretend to supplant an understanding of anatomy and physiology, or the internal complexity and diversity of organisms, in understanding evolution and ecology.

“Negative experiences” from incompetent labs is a problem of incompetent teachers. Any “negative experiences” from competently supervised dissections would include fainting at the sight of blood, revulsion to feces or mucus, etc. Currently, medical personnel receive enough experiences to overcome these harmful socialized handicaps and develop a comfortable and objective attitude toward these realities. A biology teacher should be at the forefront of developing, not ignoring, better attitudes.

“Appear to promote” is a public relations concern. Science teachers have a duty to expand humanity’s understanding of the real world. Galileo’s defense of the solar system and Darwin's ideas on evolution also “appeared to promote a disrespect” for common beliefs. Catering to appearance rather than reality is inappropriate in all cases.

Recent and exciting discoveries in several fields of biology are changing the nature of learning and understanding biology. Now, it is both possible and important for the discipline to respond to current personal needs and societal issues. New foci are needed in our educational curriculum. Dissection and vivisection illustrate a focus on levels of biology (i.e. tissues and organs) which are more classical and less appropriate in terms of current research. Unfortunately, dissection and vivisection are often given more time than is justified by contemporary goals of general science education. Further, such procedures may provide negative experiences for some students, present health risks, and appear to promote a disrespect for life.

Therefore, the National Association of Biology Teachers recommends, where appropriate, alternatives to dissection and vivisection in life science classrooms in schools and colleges. These alternatives may include computer displays, films, videos, models and other teaching strategies. NABT is committed to providing information on alternatives through its publications, convention sessions, workshops and other educational programs.