Beginning in lab sessions next week, over 350 students enrolled in introductory biology courses are being presented an alternative to the traditional slice-and-dice method of dissection learning. Through a new alternative of "virtual dissection," students may opt to explore the insides of selected animals with the use of Web site photographs, plastic models and instructional CD-ROMs. "Over the years, we've had some objections by some students... due to ethical reasons," said Linda Robinson, coordinator for Penn's biological laboratories. The program was proposed by Penn Students for Animal Rights, who then worked with Robinson to foster its creation. Penn medical student and PSTAR member Joe Teel said he feels that humans "don't have the right to use animals in either educational or non-educational environments, regardless of the benefit" they may provide as a learning tool. Between intro biology courses 102 and 122, an estimated 70 animals ranging from squids to dogfish sharks are dissected every semester. Robinson explained that traditionally, objectors have been paired with other students who were unopposed to the practice. These objectors were then asked to observe their partners perform the animal dissection. With the new system, however, squeamish and morally opposed students will view photographs of the dissected animals' internal organs on laptops provided during the lab. "The students who don't want to do the dissection can take a computer instead of a fetal pig," Robinson said. And by doing so, they add no cost to the department -- the alternative system's conglomeration of free Web sites, a borrowed CD-ROM and already-owned models prevents this addition to the curriculum from adding strain on the departmental budget. "The cost has just been my time in terms of searching the Internet," Robinson noted. Just because it's free, though, Robinson said it doesn't mean it's better -- when reflecting on the comparability of the alternative system to that of the traditional, Robinson said there is nothing like the original. "I think the big disadvantage is that [objectors] can't see the animal in 3D," she said, adding that the biology faculty feels that "students get much more out of the dissection of animals" and recommend the alternative only to those who have a "strong moral objection." Although professors may emphasize their preference for the original research method, animal rights activists like Teel feel that the new system is "comparable." College junior and PSTAR member Randi Sokol noted that while the group is "coming at it from a moral standpoint," the program is beneficial for both the morally opposed and the merely squeamish. Although the alternative has been presented to students since the distribution of syllabi on the first day of classes, Robinson noted that few students have approached her about the new process. "So far this semester, only four students have contacted me," Robinson remarked. However, she explains that she'll have to wait until the labs begin before she will have a more concrete number regarding those who plan to participate. Even with the potentially small enrollment, though, Teel is continuing his and PSTAR's quest to provide alternatives to students for all courses in which dissection is a requirement. "It's about giving students more choice," linguistics graduate student Ian Ross said. As a member of PSTAR, Ross explained that the group's goal is to present Penn students with more animal-friendly choices throughout the University -- from dining halls to classrooms. According to Teel, while PSTAR may have originally channeled most of its energy into initiatives which would affect mainly introductory biology courses, its scope is broadening. "Right now we're working... to institute a College-wide policy" of providing alternatives, Teel explained, noting that the new initiative will most likely target and affect those enrolled in upper-level biology courses.