In early September the UK Government closed a consultation on the proposed subject content of a new natural history GCSE. This consultation got me reflecting on why what we teach matters as much as how we teach it when it comes to animals.

Content first

The new Natural History GCSE is likely to have 20 hours of outdoor field work which may include activities such as species identification or habitat surveys of plants and animals. Working directly with wildlife is often very engaging for young people, but the current curriculum misses important lessons on HOW to respectfully engage with wildlife particularly in subjects where future careers may involve working with animals.

The new Natural History GCSE offers many opportunities to study plants and learn the same techniques or principles of fieldwork. However, from my previous teaching experience I know, for example, that using woodlice in the classroom to do practicals has been common practice. They are used to study things like respiration or behaviour responses, e.g. preferring dark environments to light… This can fall into the KS3 science syllabus all the way up to the A-level Biology syllabus.

Indeed, I have done such experiments in the classroom in my early teaching career. Whilst I gave very strong instructions around handling the woodlice, at no point did I consider what message this sent to students about using animals as a scientific or educational tool.

If I were to do this activity today with students, I would use simulations or other activities to collect and provide the relevant data for analysis, and I would have the conversation with students about why we were not using live animals in the classroom.

Animals as tools

The tools we introduce to young minds can carry an unspoken ‘hidden curriculum.’ By using animals in our teaching we are modelling the use of animals as an educational tool and signalling that it is ok to take species out of the natural environment for the purposes of study. There may well be justifiable reasons for doing so if you are a conservation researcher, but there is not the same necessity for school teaching. There are many other ways of teaching the same principles with virtual tools or real-world data.

It was during my time working at the RSPCA that I started considering the difference between how we individually value different species. It is highly unlikely in the UK that you would find a teacher using live vertebrate animals in a classroom (E.g. mice or frogs…) from experience I can also say you are very unlikely to find whole animals used in dissections for an educational purpose.

For those of you who remember the scene from E.T this certainly used to be more common in the United Sates. But for some reason the use of live invertebrate like woodlice or water fleas is more common here in the UK.

This difference raises an interesting point about how we individually view different species, but also the message we are sending to the students about how we should value different species.

This thought process can also be applied to the use of animal tissue in school and university, both for learning about organ structure or learning about cell types. When we use animal tissue as a standard teaching tool the message is that this is ok and a normal part of teaching scientific enquiry and research.

A Shift in the Classroom

Transitioning to a world without animal research requires a fundamental shift in how we approach science education. If we want to foster the next generation of innovative, forward-thinking scientists, we need to model human-relevant, ethical approaches right from the start.

Thankfully, modern technology means we no longer have to choose between rigorous science and ethical teaching. Non-animal teaching methods today can match or outperform traditional animal-based tools, offering a much more interactive and effective way to learn.

Instead of traditional lung dissections, classrooms can now utilise synthetic models or interactive 3D digital anatomy software. Similarly, animal behaviour can be beautifully studied using non-invasive field observations of local wildlife, or advanced computer simulations that model behavioural responses without stressing living invertebrates. At the university level, the shift toward human-relevant science is even more exciting. Rather than relying on animal tissue, modern universities are utilising human cell cultures, virtual laboratory suites, and complex software models to study cell types and human physiology directly. Even down to learning veterinary techniques, a digital simulation allows a student to repeat a procedure, zoom in on micro-structures, and safely learn from mistakes.

Furthermore, humane teaching tools create a genuinely inclusive environment. They eliminate the stressful choice many students face between their academic marks and their ethical or religious beliefs, ensuring nobody is alienated from pursuing a career in science.

Shaping the Future Together

At Replacing Animal Research, we know that changing ingrained educational habits takes time. It involves patient policy work, such as the dialogues we are opening with major exam boards to modernise their specifications.

By introducing human-relevant alternatives into schools and universities, we challenge students to understand how knowledge can be advanced while doing the least amount of harm, and we set a high bar for replacing animal use wherever possible. Having these conversations with students about how they learn is as important as the conversations around what they are learning.

Education should fill minds with facts, but it should also cultivate empathy. By intentionally choosing humane teaching methods, we show future researchers that scientific progress and compassion can go hand in hand.