Commentary
Issue Commentary Back Next

Commentary

Dissection is necessary for a true understanding of anatomy

To the Editor:
The polemic from Oberlin Animal Rights in the issue of February 23 warrants some discussion. The essay makes some interesting arguments, but I believe it fails because of misunderstandings of fact.

I am an Oberlin graduate (1964) who was a biology major. Currently, I am a practicing orthopedic surgeon. As such, I am, among other things, a working anatomist and physiologist. I am well familiar with alternative teaching methods in anatomy. Drawings and models have been traditional anatomy teaching aids for centuries. CD ROM based instructional materials are excellent, when properly designed and add a new dimension to what is possible. All of these methods supplement dissection, none can replace it.

Structure and function are intertwined in all of biology and variation is a fact of life; no two individuals of any species are identical. Mass, texture, geometry, size - all are important in understanding anatomy. I believe the study of actual specimens is essential for true understanding; to know life you must study life. Dissection is the cornerstone of anatomic study and is the real difference between she who has really studied the subject and he who has only memorized a diagram. This is a real and important difference; it is not an "infinitesimal" difference.

Everyone I know who has studied anatomy is well aware of the ethical issues related to the use of anatomical specimens. In addition to the ethical issues there are issues of custom and law. The rules that govern the use of animals in science apply to the preparation of specimens for dissection. These rules are more stringent than they used to be because of the animal rights movement activities of recent years. I believe this is a good thing. It is a simple matter to be sure that specimens used in college labs are appropriately acquired and prepared. They should be handled with respect and disposed of properly and with respect when study is complete.

It is important to recognize that all of life is competition. The fruit and grain that you eat today is not available for some other hungry creature tomorrow. This is the way the world is made. In the natural, biological world no creature has a right to life; each must fight for its share. In our intellectual lives we struggle with the concept of "rights" but we do not all agree. Lack of agreement need not imply disrespect, and on that ground I take exception to the tone the writers of this essay chose to take. It is clear that the Department of Biology doesn't agree with Oberlin Animal Rights, but this in no way means that the Department or the College is not fair. One might argue that the reverse is true. I believe that the topic is worth discussion, but at present it seems to me that the stronger argument is clearly on the side of the Department of Biology.

-Paul S. Treuhaft (Biology Dept. Research Associate)
Oberlin

Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 124, Number 16; March 1, 1996

Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.