InterNICHE works in partnership with any individual, group or department that shares the common goals of replacement of harmful animal use and investment in high quality ethical science.

The presentation provided an overview of existing alternatives to animal experiments in medical, veterinary medical and biological science education and training. Concrete examples of alternatives successfully used to replace and even outperform harmful animal use were featured.

Dr. Olivier Berreville holds a PhD in Biology from Dalhousie University, and has been involved with various non-profit animal protection organizations for more than 12 years. He is presently Scientific Advisor for Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Food Animals and the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition. He has been the Canadian National Contact for the International Network for Humane Education since 2003, assisting life science students learn in their chosen field without harming animals.

Watch the 9-part video series below to learn more about learning without harming animals:

Alternatives in education: Part 1/9: Introduction

Alternatives in education: Part 2/9: Nerve Physiology

Alternatives in education: Part 3/9: Muscle Physiology

Alternatives in education: Part 4/9: Pharmacology

Alternatives in education: Part 5/9: Surgery

Alternatives in education: Part 6/9: Anatomy

Alternatives in education: Part 7/9: Animal Handling

Alternatives in education: Part 8/9: Views on Humane Education

Alternatives in education: Part 9/9: InterNICHE

- Adam Lang, AAS Assistant, North Vancouver, BC

National Lampoon's famous magazine cover, January 1973

I don’t know how many were induced to buy that issue, but if its satirical incorporation of emotional extortion and appeal for obedience and authority are any indication, I suspect their circulation numbers did show an increase.  Besides, it targeted our better natures.

The reverse was perhaps best showcased by Dr. Stanley Milgram during his experiments of the early sixties.   In these, he had participants, “teachers”, supposedly administering increasingly larger charges of electrical shocks to their “learners” if they gave incorrect answers.  The “teachers” were told it was a study testing the effectiveness of punishment as a learning tool, in actuality Milgram was interested in the scope of our obedience to authority.  In the initial experiments, 65% of the “teachers” systematically increased the shock all the way up to 450 volts, even though they expressed distress doing so.  The experiments exposed our willingness to disregard our own better morality when assured we’d be held blameless.  The basis for conducting these stemmed from the defense of Eichmann, et al, in answering for their crimes against humanity: they were “only following orders.”

Photo credit: popsci.com

The shock generator
Photo credit: age-of-the-sage.org

The outcome of these, and similar experiments, suggested that only those who disregarded authority, were unafraid of disproval, and held themselves personally accountable, ‘rebels’, if you will, had the internal fortitude to stop the infliction of pain.

They’re still conducting these types of experiments, though I believe with only human subjects.  Participants are still told it’s a study on the effectiveness of punishment as a method of learning.  The majority are still willing to inflict torture.

Now, I’m not advocating for blanket civil disobedience. Civilized society needs rules.  It needs persons of authority.  But these experiments have shown how great our capacity to inflict suffering is.  We need rebels when our humanity is at stake.

I would like to think I would not shock the puppy.

I first learned of Dr. Milgram’s experiments on obedience some years ago.  There are numerous articles, editorials and videos posted on line.  If you are interested in learning more, perhaps Wikipedia is a good place to start  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

- Shawna Katan, Port Alberni, BC