Beyond Dissection: A Chemistry Teacher’s Guide to Ethical Treatment of Living Organisms in the Science Classroom

When people hear “animals in science,” they usually picture scalpels and frogs on metal trays. As a chemistry specialist at Bangkok Christian College and clinical candidate at Moreland University, my day-to-day teaching looks very different: titrations, particle models, thermochemistry—not a frog in sight.

But even in a chemistry-centered curriculum, students often encounter living organisms: yeast in a gas-production investigation, aquatic plants used as bio-indicators for pollution, invertebrates in a shared lab, or classroom pets down the hall in a biology room. The way we plan and talk about these experiences quietly teaches students what it means to respect living things.

In this post, I outline how I plan to prepare for and implement ethical and humane treatment of living organisms in and around my science classroom, grounded in current professional guidelines and research.

Where Living Organisms Can Show Up in a Chemistry

Even in a chemistry specialization, living organisms can appear in at least four ways:

1. Microorganisms in chemical contexts

   
   

   • Baker’s yeast in investigations of gas production, respiration, or fermentation in closed systems.

   • Yogurt bacteria or other safe cultures when linking chemical change to enzymes and metabolism.

   
   

2. Plants as “living sensors” in environmental chemistry

   
   

   • Aquatic plants to model eutrophication or the impact of pH on living systems.

   • Seedlings exposed to different conditions (e.g., acid rain simulations, salt stress) to connect ionic compounds and environmental impact.

   
   

3. Invertebrates and small organisms in integrated science

   
   

   • Water fleas (Daphnia) used in some schools to explore toxicity, heart rate, or temperature effects.

   • Local insects or invertebrates briefly observed during fieldwork in ecology or environmental units.

   
   

4. Organisms beyond my own classroom

   
   

   • Classroom pets (fish, snails, small rodents) in other science rooms that my students visit.

   • Dissection and anatomy activities in biology courses that share students, labs, and departmental policies.

In other words, even if I never order a single frog, I am still part of a system where living organisms are present and where my decisions—as a chemistry teacher—need to be ethically coherent with my colleagues’ practice.

What the Research Actually Says: Benefits and Risks

Potential benefits

Professional organizations such as the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) argue that, when done responsibly, including live animals in K–12 science can deepen engagement, provide rich observational data, and make abstract concepts more concrete (NSTA, 2008). 

Beyond content learning, a substantial body of humane-education research suggests that structured interaction with animals can support empathy and prosocial behavior. For example:

• Daly and Suggs (2010) found that teachers perceived classroom pets as contributing positively to students’ empathy and socio-emotional development. 

• Samuels, Meers, and Normando (2016) reported that a structured in-class humane education program improved upper-elementary students’ attitudes toward animals and some aspects of prosocial behavior. 

• The “Pets in the Classroom” study, conducted by American Humane for the Pet Care Trust, concluded that classroom animals can help children develop responsibility, compassion, and respect (American Humane Association, 2015). 

More recent work continues to link humane education with gains in empathy and prosocial behavior, suggesting that well-designed programs can have lasting effects on how students relate to animals and people (Samuels, 2023; Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2025). 

Real ethical and practical concerns

At the same time, there are serious concerns:

• Animal welfare: Without clear standards, classroom animals may be housed in enclosures that do not meet their physical or behavioral needs, or may not receive consistent care on weekends, holidays, or after project completion (TeachKind, 2025; NSTA, 2008). 
  

• Safety and health: Students can be exposed to allergies, zoonotic infections, bites, scratches, or stress responses from animals that feel threatened. This is particularly relevant in programs that bring therapy dogs or other animals into schools (Steel, 2025).  

• Equity and consent: Some students have cultural, religious, or personal reasons to avoid animal dissection or contact. Without opt-out options, they may be forced into ethically uncomfortable situations (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2016). 

There is also an ongoing debate over how strong the empirical evidence is for some claimed benefits of animal-assisted activities and whether, in some contexts, potential harms outweigh the gains (McCullough et al., 2021; McPhedran, 2009). 

Taken together, the literature suggests a balanced message:

Animals can enrich science learning and student character development, but only when their welfare and student safety are carefully planned and continuously monitored.

The Ethical Framework: Laws, Policies, and the “3Rs”

Professional and legal guidance

Several major bodies provide guidance that teachers like me can lean on:

• The National Science Teaching Association position statement Responsible Use of Live Animals and Dissection in the Science Classroom sets out expectations for justification, humane care, alternatives, and student choice (NSTA, 2008). 

• The American Psychological Association issues Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals and a K–12-specific document for behavioral projects. These emphasize training, appropriate housing, minimization of distress, and special care in educational settings (APA, 2012; APA, 2013). 

• Various state and district policies (e.g., Massachusetts, Cambridge Public Schools) explicitly require humane treatment of animals, clear policies on dissection alternatives, and alignment with NSTA recommendations (Massachusetts DESE, 2016; Cambridge Public Schools, 2022). 

While the legal details differ by country and region, the broad expectations are similar: animals should only be used when educationally justified, and their welfare must be protected at all times.

The 3Rs: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement

The most influential ethical framework in animal research and teaching is the “3Rs,” first articulated by Russell and Burch (1959):

• Replacement – whenever possible, replace animal use with non-animal or non-sentient alternatives (e.g., simulations, videos, virtual labs, plant models).

• Reduction – use the minimum number of animals needed to achieve valid learning or scientific objectives.

• Refinement – modify procedures, housing, and handling to minimize pain, stress, and distress, and to improve welfare. 

Originally developed for laboratory research, the 3Rs have been widely adopted in ethical guidelines for teaching as well (NC3Rs, n.d.; USDA National Agricultural Library, n.d.). 

For a secondary science teacher, the 3Rs translate into very concrete classroom decisions:

• Do I actually need live organisms to meet this learning goal, or could a high-quality video, simulation, or dataset do the job?

• If I use live organisms, can one or two groups collect data that the whole class later shares?

• How can I design the task so that manipulation is minimal, observation is central, and housing conditions are appropriate?

My Core Principles as a Chemistry Teacher

Based on these guidelines and the current literature, here are the principles I commit to in my practice:

1. Curriculum-driven, not novelty-driven use of organisms

   
   

   I will only incorporate live organisms when they directly advance specific learning goals that cannot be achieved as effectively through non-animal alternatives. For example, I might use yeast to link chemical change to metabolic processes, or hardy aquatic plants as indicators in a water-quality investigation, but I will not keep animals simply as “classroom decorations.”

   
   

2. Strict adherence to the 3Rs

   
   

   • Replacement: For many topics in chemistry (e.g., reaction kinetics, equilibrium, enthalpy), there is no ethical justification for live animal use, so I will rely on models, simulations, and data.

   • Reduction: When organisms are necessary, one small culture or a few plants can generate class-wide data.

   • Refinement: Handling will be limited, gentle, and supervised. Activities will be designed to avoid pain, injury, or distress.

   
   

3. No euthanasia or invasive procedures by students

   
   

   Students in my classes will not perform euthanasia or invasive procedures on any animal, in line with APA and NSTA recommendations for K–12 settings (APA, 2012; NSTA, 2008). 

4. Humane housing, care, and after-care

   
   

   Any organisms brought into the classroom must have species-appropriate housing, food, temperature, and enrichment. I will ensure there is a clear plan for care on weekends and holidays and a responsible long-term plan after the activity ends. Releasing non-native species into the local environment will not be allowed (NSTA, 2008; Massachusetts DESE, 2016). 

   
   

5. Student choice and psychological safety

   
   

   Any activity involving organisms will include an opt-out with an equivalent alternative assignment for students who have ethical, religious, cultural, or trauma-related concerns. They will not be penalized or singled out, consistent with policy recommendations on dissection alternatives (Massachusetts DESE, 2016).

   
   

6. Humane education as part of science literacy

   
   

   When we use organisms, I will frame the activity in terms of responsibility, empathy, and interconnectedness, not just data collection. Reflection prompts will push students to consider not only what they learned scientifically, but also how their actions affected the organisms and what responsible stewardship looks like (Daly & Suggs, 2010; Samuels et al., 2016). 

Implementation Blueprint: From Policy to Practice

To make this real (and not just a nice statement on my e-portfolio), I plan to use a simple implementation cycle.

1. Before the school year

• Audit the curriculum: Map where living organisms might appear—yeast investigations, plant experiments, shared biology labs, fieldwork.
  

• Align with school and district policy: Review policies on animals in schools, dissection alternatives, and lab safety; confirm how they interpret NSTA and APA guidelines in my local context (NSTA, 2008; APA, 2012). 
  

  
  

• Create a decision tree: For each potential use of organisms, I will build a simple flowchart:
  

  
  

  “Can this learning outcome be met by a non-animal alternative?” → “How many organisms are the minimum?” → “What housing and care are required?”

2. Before each specific activity

• Justify the activity in writing: One short paragraph in my lesson plan stating the learning objectives, how organisms contribute, and how the 3Rs are applied.
  

• Risk assessment and welfare plan: Identify potential harms (to students and organisms) and mitigation strategies—PPE, hygiene, supervision, maximum exposure time, housing checks.
  

• Parent and student communication: Briefly explain the purpose, what organisms will be used, how they’ll be cared for, and how opt-outs work.

3. During the activity

• Front-load humane expectations: Begin with explicit norms for handling and observation. Students should know that minimizing stress is part of “doing good science,” not a soft extra.
  

• Structure roles and tasks: Assign specific roles (observer, recorder, caretaker) so that every student has a cognitive task and no one is forced into direct contact.
  

• Observe welfare in real time: Build in pauses where we check for signs of distress in organisms and be prepared to stop or modify the activity.

4. After the activity

• Debrief the science and the ethics: Use exit tickets or short reflections:

  
  

  • “What did we learn scientifically?”

  • “What did we notice about working with living things?”

  • “What would we change to be even more humane next time?”

  
  

• Review care and after-care: Confirm that organisms are properly rehoused, rehomed, or returned; document any issues for future planning.
  

• Iterate: Use student feedback and my own observations to refine activities over time.

Conclusion: Building a Culture of Respect in Science

Even as a chemistry specialist, my professional identity as a science educator includes responsibility for how students see and treat living organisms. The research tells a nuanced story: when living things are brought into classrooms with careful planning, they can deepen conceptual understanding and support empathy and prosocial behavior; when they are used casually or without adequate safeguards, they risk harm to both animals and students.

By grounding my practice in the 3Rs, aligning with NSTA and APA guidance, and embedding humane education into my everyday pedagogy, I aim to make my classroom a place where respect for life is not just an add-on lesson, but part of the hidden curriculum of how we do science.

References

American Humane Association. (2015). Pets in the classroom study: Phase I findings report. 

American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals. 

American Psychological Association Committee on Animal Research and Ethics. (2013). Guidelines for the use of nonhuman animals in behavioral projects in schools (K–12). 

Animal Legal Defense Fund. (2025). Humane education position statement. 

Cambridge Public Schools. (2022). Animals in the classroom [Policy document]. 

Daly, B., & Suggs, S. (2010). Teachers’ experiences with humane education and animals in the elementary classroom: Implications for empathy development. Journal of Moral Education, 39 (1), 101–112. 

Hubrecht, R. C. (2019). The 3Rs and humane experimental technique: Implementing change. Animals, 9 ( 10), 754. 

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2016). Dissection and dissection alternatives in science courses (Appendix XII). 

McCullough, A., et al. (2021). Measuring the social, behavioral, and academic effects of classroom animals. Human–Animal Interactions, 3 (1), 1–18. 

McPhedran, S. (2009). A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14 (1), 1–4. 

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). (n.d.). The 3Rs. 

National Science Teaching Association. (2008). NSTA position statement: Responsible use of live animals and dissection in the science classroom. 

Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen. 

Samuels, W. E., Meers, L., & Normando, S. (2016). Improving upper elementary students’ humane attitudes and prosocial behaviors through an in-class humane education program. Anthrozoös, 29(4), 597–610. 

Samuels, W. E. (2023). Learning to care: An in-school humane education program and empathy development. Human-Animal Interactions, 5(2), 1–15. 

Steel, J. (2025, January 17). Reading with dogs scheme could be harmful to pupils and pets. The Times. 

TeachKind. (2025). What’s the problem with classroom “pets”? 

USDA National Agricultural Library. (n.d.). Animal use alternatives (3Rs).