Replacing Animal Use in Physiology and Pharmacology Teaching in Selected Universities in Eastern Europe

Abstract

The aims of this study were to explore the use of animals in teaching and the implementation of innovative technology-based teaching practices across a small sample of universities in Eastern Europe. The research methods used were a questionnaire circulated four weeks before a workshop took place (in October 2009, in Belgrade, Serbia), as well as focused, face-to-face group discussions, led by one of the authors during the workshop. Twenty-two faculty (physiologists and pharmacologists), from 13 Eastern European countries, attended the meeting. Fourteen of the eighteen schools represented at the workshop were making use of animals, in some instances in quite large numbers, for their teaching. For example, a single department at a Romanian university used over 250 animals per annum, and at least 1130 animals were used, per annum, across all of the institutions. The species used in largest numbers were the rat (34%), frog/toad (29%), mouse (22%), rabbit (10%), guinea-pig (4%) and dog (1%). None of the universities sampled had implemented institution-wide virtual learning environments (VLEs), although there were isolated instances of local use of VLEs. There was relatively little current use of technology-based teaching and learning resources, but there was considerable enthusiasm to modernise teaching and to introduce innovative learning and teaching methods. The major perceived barrier to the introduction of replacement alternatives was the lack of versions in local languages. There was a consensus view that developing local language exemplars and evaluating their usefulness was likely to have the greatest impact on animal use, at least in the short-term.

Keywords

animal experiments animal use alternatives computer-assisted learning Eastern Europe pharmacology physiology teaching universities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Casati

& Hartung

(2003). Third report of the EU on experimental animal numbers. ALTEX 20, 93.

Grindon

(2005). The fourth EC report on laboratory animal use — is it sufficiently revealing? ATLA 33, 1–2.

Sauer

U.G.

, Spielmann

& Rusche

(2005). Fourth EU Report on the statistics on the number of animals used for scientific purposes in 2002 — trends, problems, conclusions. ALTEX 22, 59–67.

Gruber

F.P.

& Dewhurst

D.G.

(2004). Alternatives to animal experimentation in biomedical education. ALTEX 21, 33–48.

Leathard

H.L.

& Dewhurst

D.G.

(1995). Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a computer assisted learning program with a tutored demonstration to teach intestinal motility to medical students. Association for Learning Technology 3, 118–125.

Ruksenas

(2006). Animals and alternatives in biomedical education in the Baltics. ALTEX 23, Special Issue, 78–80.

Cervinka

, Rudolf

& Cervinkova

(2006). Alternatives to animal experimentation in undergraduate curricula at medical schools — analysis of current trends in the Czech Republic. ALTEX 23, Special Issue, 46–50.

Sladowski

& Halder

(2002). ECVAM's activities in the EU Candidate Countries. ATLA 30, Suppl. 2, 203–205.

Jukes

(2008). Russia: Update on animal experiments and alternatives in education. ALTEX 25, 56–62.

10.

Kojic

Z.Z.

& Dewhurst

D.G.

(2009). The impact of introducing computer-based alternatives to the use of animals in the teaching of physiology and pharmacology at Balkan universities — a pilot study. ATLA 37, 547–556.

11.

Hughes

(2003). Teaching pharmacology in 2010 — new knowledge, new tools, new attitudes. Nippon Yakurigaku Zasshi 122, 411–418.

12.

Edmunds

(2000). Focus Group Research Handbook, 288pp. Lincolnwood, IL, USA: NTC Business Books.

Replacing Animal Use in Physiology and Pharmacology Teaching in Selected Universities in Eastern Europe — Charting a Way Forward

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References