This article aims to highlight content that can be taught in the field of natural sciences to help transmit respect for animals to students.
Las asignaturas de Ciencias de la naturaleza, Biología, Cultura científica o Ciencias de la tierra y el medio ambiente, todas ellas impartidas desde el departamento de Biología y Geología, están relacionadas con los animales y pueden servir para transmitir valores de respeto. Pero la formación científica de quienes la imparten puede provocar que el rango ético de la asignatura quede fuera del espectro visible en el respeto animal.
Several years ago, a colleague asked me for advice on how to handle a situation. A group of 12-year-old students had told her, laughing, that they had caught a cat that weekend, kicked it to death, and that kittens had emerged from its body and were still moving. The colleague rightly linked the incident to the way they had been raised. But that responsibility seemed to fall solely on the family: "It's normal for them to do this, since these kids, being Roma, have been watching cockfights since they were born, and they all have a chick their parents gave them."
She was undoubtedly right. Families had a responsibility. But the education system bore no less responsibility. Instead of presenting an alternative view of animals, this colleague—highly trained in the scientific field—seemed to reinforce it. A month before the incident, she had taken the first-year secondary school students—the level to which those who had killed the cat and her kittens belonged—to the laboratory to dissect a rabbit. "That's how they really learn where each organ is." In addition to seeking alternatives to the use of animals in the classroom and modifying statements or texts that clearly reinforce the view of animals as resources, there are three pillars of respect for animals that can be addressed within our subject.
1. We are animals
For science teachers, it's obvious that human beings belong to the animal kingdom. But students don't seem to grasp this so clearly. If we ask students to divide living things into two main groups, someone will likely divide them into eukaryotes and prokaryotes, or autotrophs and heterotrophs. But surely someone else will also classify living things as simply animals and people. Plants, fungi, protists, and monera will be left unclassified. Furthermore, they'll treat humans as if we weren't animals. And it's important to clarify both of these misconceptions.
Aislar a nuestra especie, Homo sapiens, del resto de animales nos permite distanciarnos de ellos, y por tanto hacer más difícil comprenderlos y más fácil explotarlos. Por eso, cuando decimos que somos animales, siempre se levanta una mano de alguien que quiere aclarar “pero racionales”.
It doesn't matter that the classification of "rational animal" vs. "irrational animal" has become obsolete and is no longer defended by anyone in the field of ethology. And although there is no debate in the field of biology about whether we are animals either, we continue to resist accepting this idea; not for scientific reasons, but because of prejudice. We continue to consider being an animal something bad, and the word "animal" remains an insult.
Accepting that we are animals helps us humans to step down from the pedestal to which we have unjustly elevated our species. But it also helps other animals because it means beginning to dismantle the barrier of prejudice we have built to isolate ourselves.
2. The capacity to feel.
Already in the first year of ESO (Compulsory Secondary Education), the curriculum includes concepts directly related to the capacity for sensation and the interaction of all living beings with their environment, delving into concepts such as "nastic movements" and "tropisms." The nervous system is studied in the third year. In the fourth year of ESO, students study the evolution and geological history of our planet, which explains how, during the Cambrian explosion 450 million years ago, the first anatomical structures complex enough to allow some animals to transform nerve impulses into sensations emerged. The first year of Bachillerato (Upper Secondary Education) focuses on the anatomy and physiology of the animal nervous system and the role of interaction in different living beings.
Respect for animals over other living beings stems precisely from the capacity for feeling that most of them possess. All living beings fulfill the function of interaction. The ability to respond to environmental stimuli determines their capacity for survival. Even bacteria and archaea—the simplest known organisms—will migrate to environments that provide them with the best biological conditions and flee from those lacking food, with excessively high or low temperatures, or with a pH that is too acidic or too alkaline.
Pero me da la impresión de que no se suele prestar atención en la diferencia biológica entre sentir e interactuar porque se desconoce su importancia ética. Sentir, como se ha dicho, supone la capacidad para experimentar sensaciones, placer o dolor. En el campo de la neurología se acepta sin discusión que para ello es necesario contar con un sistema nervioso complejo. Las esponjas, pertenecientes al reino animal, no tienen sistema nervioso y los cnidarios (al que pertenecen las medusas y los corales), aunque tienen un sistema nervioso, carecen de núcleos neuronales capaces de transformar el impulso nervioso y transformarlo en sensaciones. Las respuestas a estímulos de su sistema nervioso son siempre el resultado del acto reflejo. También sabemos que los hongos, los protoctistas (protozoos y algas), las plantas y las maneras (organismos procariotas, como las bacterias) carecen de sistema nervioso y no se ha encontrado ninguna estructura anatómica capaz de realizar una función similar. Del mismo modo que los animales no hacemos la fotosíntesis porque carecemos de cloroplastos (salvo la Elisya clorotica, que los obtiene de las algas de las que se alimenta), los seres vivos que carecen de sistema nervioso también carecen de la capacidad de sentir. No hay ninguna duda científica al respecto. La única ocasión en la que un científico pone en duda este hecho demostrado es cuando tiene una vagana o un vegano delante.
We were saying that the difference between feeling and interacting has great moral relevance. Because those who feel can suffer and enjoy their lives, and therefore have an interest in not suffering and in living a life with positive experiences. A sponge, an anemone, a mushroom, or a blade of grass cannot suffer, and therefore it makes no sense for us to worry about their suffering. A dog, a fish, or a pig can suffer and can enjoy a multitude of experiences, which is why we must value them ethically as individuals. We must keep in mind that our actions can harm or benefit them. This idea is the basis of respect for animals, and that is why it is essential that we explain the difference between feeling and interacting in schools and colleges.
3. What are animals like?
Animals are studied at all levels of education. But the curriculum always approaches them from a taxonomic, anatomical, physiological, histological, or cytological perspective. We teach the differences between homeothermic and poikilothermic animals, the difference between viviparous, oviparous, and ovoviviparous reproduction; the structure of animal cells and tissues, the location and function of organs, and the taxonomic classification of the animal kingdom. But we don't teach what animals are like. Ethology is completely excluded from the curriculum's content, and the teachers in the Biology and Geology department seem to have overlooked this. The truth is that during our own education, from preschool through our undergraduate studies, no one explained to us what other animals are like. That's why it's so easy for us to repeat this mistake, because we are unfamiliar with the subject.
I had a debate with a colleague in my department about dairy consumption. He's a veterinarian and knows that for a mammal to produce milk, it must be female and have been pregnant. We also agreed that to obtain milk from cows, sheep, or goats, we must separate the mother from her offspring. The disagreement between us stemmed from his argument that forced separation doesn't cause pain; "at most, they might feel grief for an hour or two, but animals live in the present."
My position was the opposite. Every cow feels pain and helplessness when separated from her calf. I told him that during a research project I had visited dairy farms in Asturias and had seen calves crying desperately for their mothers, while chained to a wall or kept in enclosures of little more than two square meters. The farmers knew that if they were given freedom of movement, they would immediately reunite with their mothers and drink the milk that, in reality, belonged to them. I also wanted to show him a YouTube video depicting the tragic separation of a cow and her calf. But he continued to argue that those images were meaningless. Apparently, the objective observation of an animal's reaction has no ethological value (even though that is precisely what ethology is). His belief that "animals only live in the present" was not biased by anthropocentric prejudices and he did not need to give any objective data to support his position; he is a veterinarian, while my training is much further removed from animals.
The latest update to the Gaia Sanctuary website is coincidentally dedicated to this topic. The sanctuary is run by Ismael and Coque—who, by the way, is a veterinarian. The post tells the story of Helga and her son Isaac. Helga arrived at the sanctuary first, while her son took three months to arrive. The text reads as follows:
"Since Helga arrived at the Sanctuary, after being separated from her son Isaac for three months, she hasn't left his side for a moment. They go everywhere together, and if they ever separate, they soon start calling each other to reunite."
The bond between a cow and her calf is for life, comparable to the bond we humans share. Can you imagine the suffering they endure on farms when their calves are taken from them and sent to the slaughterhouse?
It is in our hands to change this situation, because all animals have the right to live.
We know what dogs and cats are like. Because we live in close contact with them, often in our own homes. That's why it's easy for us to empathize with them. But we know absolutely nothing about other animals, which helps explain why there are many attitudes we accept without question when they are carried out with "farm animals," but which we would consider mistreatment if they were carried out with dogs or cats.
Ignorance about the emotions and feelings of all these animals contributes to their exploitation and mistreatment. The fact that the official curriculum does not address these issues directly does not justify their absence in the classroom.
4. Nutrition.
If knowing how animals feel allows us to understand that animals don't want us to eat them, knowledge of nutrition allows us to know that we also don't need to eat them.
In the third year of ESO (Compulsory Secondary Education), a unit is dedicated to the digestive system and nutrition. In it, teachers tend to say that "you have to eat everything." But by that, they don't mean having a balanced diet with proteins, fats, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, and water. They mean that you absolutely must eat cereals, fruit, vegetables, and legumes, but also meat, fish, eggs, and milk.
Once again, another debate I recently had in my department on this topic comes to mind. My veterinarian colleague argued that I didn't have any nutritional deficiencies because I had adopted a vegan lifestyle as an adult. However, he claimed that a vegan child would show nutritional deficiencies that would manifest as health problems. His daughters' pediatrician had told him this.
I showed him reports from the World Health Organization that supported a diet free of animal products. I showed him the report from the world's leading association of dietitians and nutritionists, the American Dietetic Association, which stated verbatim:
The American Dietetic Association maintains that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, as well as for athletes.
I also informed him that from Aula Animal we had launched a campaign to have vegan menus recognized in schools in Aragon and had the support of people like Iva Marqués, a tenured professor of Nutrition at the Faculty of Health and Sports Sciences at the University of Zaragoza, who wrote a letter to the Department of Education.
The Professional Association of Dietitians-Nutritionists of Aragon (CPDNA), in support of this campaign, prepared a report in September 2012 that concluded as follows:
“Therefore, the CPDNA considers that providing a vegetarian option (including strict vegetarians or vegans) in school cafeterias is in accordance with current scientific evidence, and that, properly planned by dietitians-nutritionists, they can ensure a correct energy and nutritional intake, so that the needs of children are met.”
Le hablé también de Forks over knives, un impactante documental sobre nutrición que utilizo en mis clases y que está cargado de datos científicos. Dirigido por Lee Fulkerson cuenta con la participación de nutricionistas reconocidos como Colin Campbell y Caldwell Esselstyn cuyas investigaciones les han llevado a la conclusión de que los alimentos de origen animal están relacionados con enfermedades como cáncer, hipertensión, obesidad, infartos, etc.
It didn't matter that I provided all these reports; he couldn't produce a single text stating that a vegan diet was harmful to children's health at a young age. His response was, literally, "You don't know more about child nutrition than my pediatrician." I don't, but any of the organizations I cited certainly do. And someone who teaches science should be able to assess the credibility of their sources. To me, "My daughters' pediatrician told me so" sounded like a child saying "My mom told me so." But sometimes, when we debate, we don't evaluate the arguments of the person in front of us; we simply try to prevent our initial idea from being changed, even when the data presented against our initial thinking is overwhelming. I left with the feeling that this person, out of arrogance, will continue to preach the demonstrably false idea that we need to eat animals in his classes for many years to come. And I think he left with the impression that I was an indoctrinator.
5. Environmental impact of meat products
The fact that a lifestyle or activity is more environmentally friendly doesn't necessarily make it better than one that isn't. Therefore, our argument against consuming animals isn't that animal products have a greater environmental impact than plant-based products, but rather that animals deserve to have their rights recognized.
However, natural science subjects explain trophic relationships by analyzing energy flow and the waste generated. This can help guide those who believe that using animal products could benefit the planet because it supposedly requires cutting down fewer trees to grow vegetables, legumes, or grains.
The truth is, I have found books here that directly address this issue. And their authors, judging by their other activities, don't seem to recognize animal rights, so they approach it from a strictly scientific perspective.
Thus, the Earth and Environmental Sciences book from the publisher McGraw Hill (Calvo D., Molina, MT, Salvachúa J., 2016) includes the following activity:
Human caloric requirements are estimated at around 2,500 kcal/day. Let's imagine an area where primary production is 20 x 10^6 kcal/day.
a.- How many people could this area support if they were all vegetarians?
b.- If, on the contrary, they fed on goats whose total daily production, between milk and meat, was 150,000 kcal, what human population could subsist?
c.- Deduce which of the two support systems will be more energy efficient
The answer is that if we were strict vegetarians as the problem states, we could feed 800 people, whereas if we ate goats, because they use up 90% of the energy they consume in their own metabolism, we could only feed 6 people. Therefore, the answer to question "c" is: a vegetarian diet is more energy efficient.
This implies not only that the planet can feed far more vegetarians than people who eat animals, but also that most cultivated land is used to produce "cattle fodder," as is reflected throughout the Amazon region.
Another similar problem that reflects a lack of understanding is the belief that a vegetarian diet requires consuming large quantities of soy, most of which is genetically modified, thus promoting genetically modified crops. A diet free of animal products does require the consumption of legumes, but these don't have to be soybeans. They can be chickpeas, beans, peanuts, broad beans, lentils, kidney beans, and so on.
Furthermore, it is true that most soy crops are genetically modified. Many are found in large areas of Latin America, but this soy is almost entirely used to produce high-protein animal feed. The soy we consume directly in Europe is largely produced in southern France and is not genetically modified, as indicated on the labels. Therefore, when we consume meat products, we may be contributing to the financing of genetically modified soy crops, whereas if we consume soy directly (in the form of tofu, tempeh, soy milk, textured soy protein, etc.), it is highly unlikely that it comes from distant countries and that these countries have violated labeling regulations.
6. What is natural is not necessarily ethical
So far, I've worked in five different schools. I've had great colleagues at all of them, but the topic of animal rights and veganism has come up every year. In these discussions, there's always someone who says something like, "How can you, as a science teacher, not think it's natural to eat animals?" or "We act the same way it happens in nature; in nature, the wolf eats the goat, and at home, I eat the sheep."
Using this argument consistently leads us to justify a multitude of acts that occur in nature and that we would never accept if the victim were of our own species. No one uses this argument to justify rape, parents killing their offspring, cannibalism, etc. Nor do we hear anyone say that people shouldn't wear glasses because that doesn't happen in nature, or that the use of electricity should be eradicated.
The argument from "natural" is only used in cases that benefit us and where the harmed party belongs to a different species. Therefore, those who resort to this argument should consider why their species deserves special recognition. Perhaps there is a certain anthropocentrism in the "environmentalist" stance.
7. Do not use the term "invasive species"
"Invasive species" is a topic frequently covered in our course. The term is well-received by the public. Even when preceded by the word "eliminate," it is perceived as having a positive connotation, as it is "for the good of the planet."
Although we have succeeded in having the expression "invasive races" considered racist, we seem far from recognizing the expression "invasive species" as speciesist. But science teachers can begin to use more technical and less prejudiced expressions such as "alien species." Furthermore, we must remember that the animals are not responsible for these "invasions." Humans are usually behind it, and more specifically, animal exploitation (hunting, fishing, fur farms, etc.).
8. Regulate populations
Science teachers generally dislike hunting, but they accept it if it's regulated for "population control." After all, "wild boar populations increase significantly and can create imbalances in the ecosystem and damage agriculture."
The idea that hunters contribute to the proper functioning of the ecosystem is false propaganda used by hunters themselves to avoid acknowledging the real reason for their hobby: they enjoy killing animals that live in the wild. But a science teacher cannot accept this, and above all, cannot ignore in the classroom that even if it were true, killing an animal denies it its right to life, and we must not accept that anyone kills an animal for personal gain.
Populations grow excessively when the predator-prey relationship becomes unbalanced, as demonstrated by Lotka and Volterra. Hunters want large populations of rabbits and wild boar so they can kill and eat them. This is why they kill foxes and have practically wiped out wolf populations across the Iberian Peninsula.
They have also transformed the fields into veritable farms, which they call "hunting grounds." They breed animals and release them in these areas so they can continue their killing spree. This activity provides no benefit to the ecosystem, much less to the true victims: the animals.
9. The planet doesn't feel
While it sounds good to say that "the Earth suffers because of what we humans do," it's not true. Just as plants don't feel pain, neither do planets or stars. This is something we know with absolute certainty.
Cultivating respect for nature is not incompatible with scientific rigor. It's good to value the diversity of landscapes, processes, behaviors, and forms. This is achieved by raising awareness. It's also good to value the importance of not harming the planet, but to do so, it's not necessary to treat it as a sentient being.
The planet is our home, the home of animals. We have no right to destroy it because that would mean animals would lose their habitat. Similarly, we cannot destroy a house, not for the sake of the house itself, but for the sake of those who live in it. Recognizing this does not diminish the importance of protecting ecosystems; it simply brings objectivity to that protection. In this way, when the protection of our home or planet conflicts with the protection of those who live on it, we can make decisions that take into account who might suffer and who might not.
10. Field trips
Let's not kid ourselves, if we continue taking students to zoos it's simply out of convenience. It's more convenient to go to a zoo and see animals in cages than to go to the countryside and see them in the wild. It doesn't matter that the animals in cages don't behave naturally, and it doesn't matter that our students know what a gazelle looks like, but know nothing about the animals that live around them. How many students can recognize a robin, a goldfinch, or a pike?
Going to the zoo guarantees we'll see lots of animals, but it doesn't guarantee we'll understand them. It prevents situations where, for example, a student might ask us about a plant or animal and we wouldn't know the answer. But it doesn't help us teach respect for other animals.
11 Laboratory Practices
All my colleagues in the department I've worked with so far know that I didn't want to use animal bodies in my classes. I preferred to conduct alternative laboratory exercises. To be honest, I don't think my arguments—on the few occasions I've presented them—have convinced anyone, and I imagine they'll all continue buying animal organs from butchers for the students to dissect. I must also say that, until now, they've always accepted my ideas and haven't raised any objections in department meetings. I wonder, in some cases, if they would have been as respectful if, instead of a colleague, it had been a student who said they didn't want to participate in those exercises.
It's interesting that when I've discussed this issue with colleagues in my department, they try to steer the debate toward animal research and the benefits it has brought. "How are we going to find a cure for cancer without using animals?" The argument against animal experimentation isn't just that it's increasingly questioned on scientific grounds; we can also respond that regardless of the benefits we might gain, animals aren't here to serve us. The use of Jewish people in medical research also led to scientific advancements, and that doesn't justify such experiments. But that comparison can't be made because those who are speciesist but not racist find it very offensive to compare the animal holocaust with the Jewish holocaust.
The truth is that there are hardly any research projects in schools and institutes. When there are, they're usually surveys or bibliographic research. I don't know of any preschool, primary, or secondary school that's researching a cure for cancer. Yet some people use this and other similar diseases to justify a laboratory procedure that involves opening a lamb's eye to remove the lens.
Students aren't researchers. And, let's face it, neither are school teachers. Our job is to disseminate the studies that others conduct. If anyone thinks that science communication isn't important enough, they should look for an alternative career in the field of research. But research without victims, that is.