Vegetarianisation of education

INDIAN BIOLOGICAL and medical sciences are going through difficult times, thanks to the moves of ``animal lovers''who have gained clout with the three arms of our government - the legislative, executive and judicial. First it was the high-handed action against animal houses, and the draconian rules that have since been declared. These rules have severely hampered biological research, drug discovery and trials in the country.

Now it is the turn of biology education at the high school level. As a result of the campaigns, petitions and litigation from groups such as Kindness to Animals and Respect for Environment (KARE), Beauty without Cruelty, National Ahimsa Foundation, and Blue Cross, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has been forced to remove, through a court order, dissection of frogs and similar experimental animals from school biology practical classes. Many educators are agitated over this move.

They feel (rightly) that dissection is important since it teaches the student manual skills and dexterity, first hand knowledge of anatomy and physiology, and trains his mind and hand for a future career in biology or medicine.

Swim, but don't get wet!

Animal lover groups have countered this by saying that video lessons, computer simulations and models can well replace actual dissection. The debate has hotted up, and has been covered in the pages of the environment magazine Down to Earth. Dr S.K. Wanganoo of the Apollo Hospitals has commented: ``Teaching swimming through correspondence courses is what the CBSE is aiming at with the ban on animal dissection". Mrs. Camellia Satija of KARE counters this by asking:``Does this mean that one cannot learn astronomy without travelling in space, geography without travelling the world, and history without a time machine?"

Sure, astronomy can be learnt without going in space, history without a time machine, swimming without getting wet, and music without opening your mouth. Such knowledge will remain theoretical. Indeed, if we can identify one major deficiency in the Indian educational system, it is precisely this - not enough hands-on work. There are many reasons behind this. Our method of teaching, right from class one, has been to ask the student to learn by rote.

The teacher expects a set answer for the question, and if the student swerves away from it, he loses marks. (My friend Dr. Jacob Tharu once told me how his daughter got zero marks in a class IV test for defining an angle as a corner. The teacher would not accept it, since it was not the answer that was taught in class. I challenge any one to give me a better definition).

Secondly, practical classes and sessions are not held in the manner they should. Resources are claimed to be the problem. The teacher is held personally responsible for the equipment, the chemicals and such. So, he would rather not let the students use them lest they are broken or lost; he would rather ``demonstrate'' experiments or lock up the equipment in cupboards. Third, the student is not allowed to innovate, or use the many alternatives that People's Science Movements, and groups like Kishore Bharati of Madhya Pradesh have tested out and published. The syllabus is so rigid and the freedom given to the teacher or student so restricted as to shut out these alternatives that are available, accessible and affordable.

Software as soft option?

Unfortunately, this trend continues right up to the B.E., M.B.B.S, and M.Sc level. Practical classes are converted into demonstration periods, or at best familiarization trips to factories, national laboratories or hospitals. Is it any wonder that software is hundred times more popular than hardware among Indians? Professor A Raychaudhary of Bangalore put his finger on the issue in an article that he wrote 15 years ago entitled Practising Western Science in an Eastern Cultural Milieu, wherein he identified one of the basic differences between a student in the West and one in India. It is that the former has been doing things with his hands since childhood (breaking, making and devising stuff), which builds in him self-confidence and the can- do spirit. The Indian student, on the other hand, is discouraged from doing so-``Don't touch it, it will break; don't do it, you will hurt yourself; don't fiddle with it, it is too expensive to play around with''and so forth.

Gratifyingly, we see this can- do spirit in the unschooled``working class''of India, typified by the carpenter, the auto mechanic, the tailor, and the urchin who fixes punctured bicycle or scooter tyres. If this excellent skill of hand and``horse sense''were buttressed with proper schooling, this urchin could become an Edison. And if the``schooled''children were allowed to do things with their hands the way the urchin is forced to, there could be more Edisons.

Cost-benefit decisions

Sure, astronomy can be learnt without going to space, swimming, on dry land, bicycle tyre fixing, without touching it, and biology, without cutting up a frog. But these would produce armchair specialists who cannot be trusted to fix things with their hands. Without practice in dissection, a doctor will be a theoretician. Would I go to an armchair ophthalmologist for my cataract operation? Practice starts at the school level. Let us practise dissection, if not with frogs and mice, with lizards and cockroaches. To do so is not to show disrespect to animal life any more than experimenting with plants is to plant life. And one thing biology has taught us over the years is continuity of life, that all life forms are connected and each of them is precious. Dissection as an educational exercise is not cruelty, but poaching pandas or pachyderms is. Experimenting with plants is not cruelty, but cutting down tropical forests, or``developing''Silent Valley is. Doing clinical trials on human volunteers after informed consent is not cruelty, but killing people because of their faith is. As in many other situations, we are obliged to make cost- benefit decisions, which may hurt a few but help a million.

The issue of dissecting animals in the school lab or of testing drugs on animals in animal houses needs to be looked at from this perspective. Most biology teachers and researchers act with sensitivity and responsibility, and abide by the 3R policy- Replace (animals when possible), Reduce (the number of animals to be used) and Refine (the procedures and analysis accordingly). In the atmosphere that prevails in the country, they feel harassed and vilified.

Professor Vidyanand Nanjundiah of Bangalore brings forth yet another perspective in the June 30 issue of Down to Earth, which is worth pondering over. He writes:``The blatant fact is that cruelty to animals is practically a national pastime in our country.

This should be handled on a priority basis. In the absence of any attempt to do so, to believe that one is addressing the issue of mistreatment of animals merely by banning laboratory experiments is fatuous. The exercise smacks of what biologists call a displacement activity- performing a relatively harmless substitute action because you are unable or unwilling to do the real thing".

D. Balasubramanian

L. V. Prasad Eye Institute

Hyderabad 500 034

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Science & Tech
Previous : Small is beautiful, thin is in
Next     : Question corner