Many people are involved in educational dissections: students, teachers, software engineers, biological suppliers, policy makers, and animal advocates. Therefore, many opinions about the ethics of dissection and the protection of student choice should be taken into consideration.

Students

Generally, 30-70% of students have some reluctance and concerns in regards to dissection and the consumptive use of animals in education (Balcombe, 2001).

• In a survey of psychology undergrads students, 54% responded that lab work with animals has no place in a psychology undergraduate  degree program (Cunningham, 2000).
• Another study found that six years after experiences with high school dissection, 27% of university students sampled felt exclusively negative emotions towards the activity and 38% felt combined positive and negative emotions as a mixture of curiosity and revulsion (Bowd, 1993).
• In a five year study using rat dissections and alternatives, 11.5% of students, three times as many females than males, chose the alternate opt-out route. A post-procedural survey found that a large number of students who did dissect supported the existence of an opt-out option for those who wanted it  (Downie and Meadows, 1995).
• A study using cat cadavers portrays similar results with 15% of the undergraduate biology students sampled choosing an opt-out option for reasons of ethics, discomfort at the appearance of the cadaver, and preference of virtual materials  Eighty percent of students chose to do the dissection but the majority of students stated that even though they recognized some of the practical advantages of dissections, they still found the activity distasteful (Franklin et al. 2002).
• It is estimated that 67% of students wish to protest dissection but only 3-5% actually do (Balcombe, 1997).

Teachers

• Teachers may be opposed to providing alternatives to dissection if they feel that their academic freedom is being compromised. Some teachers believe traditional animal labs are crucial for science education and there are no satisfactory alternatives that can replace the hands on practice of dissection (Cunningham, 2000).
• Teachers may also feel that opposition from students comes from misunderstanding the rationale behind animal use in education (Cunningham, 2000).
• Student choice can also benefit teachers by granting them the opportunity to expand their teaching capabilities and encourage discussions on bioethics.

Critics

• Some believe that dissection is still required in veterinary and medical schools for students to gain a background in surgical skills and anatomy (Valli, 2001).
• In these cases, the three R’s should be applied as frequently as possible without compromising a student’s ability to help humans or animals in the future.