Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday December 02 2019, @01:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-more-croaking dept.

A high school in Florida is switching from real to synthetic frogs for dissection in biology classes.

Nearly 100 synthetic frogs were dissected last week by students at J.W. Mitchell High School in New Port Richey, Florida, according to the company that developed them, SynDaver.

The company said the high school is the first in the world to try out the new technology, but it hopes to spread them nationwide — making dead, formaldehyde-ridden frogs a thing of the past. The frogs can be used for education, surgical simulation, and medical device testing, SynDaver said.

The synthetic frogs have a number of significant advantages over preserved frogs. They are odor free and non toxic, avoid ethical concerns, and also

are designed to mimic both the visual and textural elements of a live female frog. They feature a skeleton, muscles, skin, organs and even a reproductive system with eggs. The synthetic tissues are made out of water, fibers and salts.

"This makes it more like a live frog than the preserved specimens currently sold to schools for dissection labs," said Dr. Christopher Sakezles, founder and CEO of SynDaver. "SynFrog not only looks and feels like a real frog, it's physically safer to dissect than a real preserved frog because it doesn't contain potentially harmful chemicals like formalin."

Michigan J. Frog approves this innovation.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @01:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @01:41PM (#927102)

    SoylentPolitics is the world's finest online community of wealthy sexagenarians.

    Vote Libertarian Republican.

    Kill the poor.

    Money makes right.

    Take from the young and give to the old.

    Donate your life savings today, right the fuck now.

    Eternal Motto: Fuck You, Got Mine, Give Me Yours.

    SoylentPolicy: Worldwide death penalty, no discussion, firing squad, for the crime of inconveniencing old people.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @01:49PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @01:49PM (#927106)

    Unlike jews who like to make their victims scream while a knife cuts through the victim's vital organs. There are also necrophile khazars. Even human corpses are not safe from them.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 02 2019, @09:06PM (2 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday December 02 2019, @09:06PM (#927339) Homepage

      That actually raises a good point -- that frogs are not the only living beings dissected in low-level bio classes. A decent low-level college-level bio class will feature large grasshoppers, starfish, earthworms, frogs, beef eyeballs, possibly others. A decent college-level anatomy class will feature the dissection of a human cadaver, and of course veterinary college courses probably feature cats and dogs or large animals like cows and horses.

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 02 2019, @09:06PM (1 child)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday December 02 2019, @09:06PM (#927340) Homepage

        Oh, and don't forget the fetal pigs.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 02 2019, @10:18PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Monday December 02 2019, @10:18PM (#927379) Journal

          And the Chinese food.

          .....I dunno...I'm hungry: just ignore me.
          :)

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by EEMac on Monday December 02 2019, @02:22PM (8 children)

    by EEMac (6423) on Monday December 02 2019, @02:22PM (#927114)

    Replacing "this is the actual tissue of a once-living thing" with a simulation doesn't sound like a good idea to me. The point was taking something formerly alive and seeing what went on inside. That includes unexpected things. Although I didn't enjoy dissection, there was at least some fun to be had exploring after meeting lab requirements. What does this connect to? What's inside this thing?

    A simulation, by definition, can't include all of that, because we don't know all of it. The mesentary [independent.co.uk] probably wouldn't have been identified as a separate organ if doctors spent all their time on simulated bodies.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @03:06PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @03:06PM (#927138) Journal

      The point was taking something formerly alive and seeing what went on inside. That includes unexpected things.

      This is high school. We don't want students to encounter unexpected things. This can lead to asking questions. Getting ideas. Questioning their place and purpose in life.

      The goal is to turn out students pigeonholed into either:
      1. inmates in the for-profit prisons
      2. workers who create the wealth to keep the government and for-profit prisons in operation

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 02 2019, @10:21PM

        by Gaaark (41) on Monday December 02 2019, @10:21PM (#927384) Journal

        I want to mod you Scary Insightful... Or, just ..... SHIT...glad I'm not black!?

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:55AM (#927502)

        I would be so tempted to gather the leftover parts, assemble them between two slices of bread, some mayo, mustard, ketchup, and maybe lettuce.

        Wrap it, put it in a baggie, insert into someone else's lunch box.

        And wait for the artesian fountain.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:19PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:19PM (#927144)

      The mesentery is not really an organ. It is an accessory structure that answers the question: "If these organs can move around, what is keeping them connected to their supply?" Cable management, so to say.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by rleigh on Monday December 02 2019, @05:22PM (1 child)

        by rleigh (4887) on Monday December 02 2019, @05:22PM (#927219) Homepage

        That was the previous view of it, certainly was when I was an undergraduate biologist. More recently, it has been classified as an organ in its own right due to its nervous and immune system roles which connect the entire gut together.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @10:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @10:14PM (#927375)

          So what function does it have besides providing a sheath for structures that actually have functions of their own, like blood vessels, lymph nodes, nerves and possibly the relevant organ itself at the times it is intraperitoneal? An organ used to be a set of cells that were specialized to perform a function. Have the meninges been declared organs yet?

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 02 2019, @10:22PM

        by Gaaark (41) on Monday December 02 2019, @10:22PM (#927385) Journal

        Cable ties: what a blessing.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:45PM (#927228)

      But this way some politically connected firm gets to make stable, state-mandated profit. Any two-bit huckster can put together a frog farm.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:35PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:35PM (#927119)

    Why would you even do that at school?

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday December 02 2019, @02:42PM (8 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday December 02 2019, @02:42PM (#927123) Journal

      Biology class, or Life Sciences. The study of anatomy is important, and IMNSHO getting an understanding of something by taking it apart is important. Triply so to those who learn primarily or best by psychokinesis.

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday December 02 2019, @02:50PM (2 children)

        by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 02 2019, @02:50PM (#927127)

        IMO, the only way to understand biology is charts. The real thing is 99% snot and pus, and too messy to tell anything other than maybe matching a few parts with the charts.

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday December 02 2019, @06:32PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:32PM (#927250) Journal

          Charts are excellent for visual learners. I learned more from the dissections I carried out.

          --
          This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday December 02 2019, @08:08PM

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @08:08PM (#927313)
          Charts are great, but it's also important to see the difference between charts and the real thing. Picking out structures in a cadaver (be it frog or human) is a lot harder than picking it out on a chart. They look very different in real life. And yea, I realize these are HS students, not amphibian trauma surgeons, being trained here, but it's still good to show the differences.
      • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday December 02 2019, @05:47PM (2 children)

        by pe1rxq (844) on Monday December 02 2019, @05:47PM (#927229) Homepage

        If you are not able to teach how a living thing works on the inside without actually killing it you suck at teaching.

        • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday December 02 2019, @06:28PM

          by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @06:28PM (#927243) Journal

          The only dissection I recall from high school was a worm, and due to a snafu most of the structures were desiccated beyond recognition.

          That doesn't make me ignorant of anatomy. I've seen plenty of charts and pictures on the topic. That said, I didn't understand how we were really put together until I disassembled rabbits (for food). It made it much more clear to me. examples: Livers are huge. The size on the charts doesn't do them justice. Kidneys are big too, and tucked behind a layer of fat that makes them easy to miss. Your entire digestive tract is just a complicated tube that connects your mouth to your asshole. A heart is a super dense ball of muscle, and Lungs look indescribably flimsy but aren't.

          It certainly was educational, and no formalin involved.

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday December 02 2019, @06:33PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:33PM (#927251) Journal

          If you say so. For learning, however, it works quite efficiently.

          --
          This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @09:52PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @09:52PM (#927367)

        Apple won't let unauthorized students vivisect an iPhone.

        Support 'Right To Repair' for dead frogs of all kinds.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 02 2019, @10:25PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Monday December 02 2019, @10:25PM (#927386) Journal

          Nodded you funny because milk from the nose wasn't an option....I'm lactose intolerant. :)

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @09:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @09:54PM (#927368)
      I studied in a non-US school, and we never had to cut anything open. Probably most of us would have unconditionally refused. And there was no need, the nicely colored charts demonstrated everything that we needed to know. Some say "charts are for visually oriented only" - but you have to be even more visually oriented to tell which real organ is which. And what for? Veterinarians will get the proper training, and that training has a good purpose - to treat animals. But what purpose is in cutting frogs in school? Does it make anyone a better human? Even if you insist on looking inside frogs, that should be done only by those students who have enough knowledge to make use of it and who have proper ethics, likely those who want to become biologists of doctors.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:35PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:35PM (#927120)

    What about Michael J. Frog?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:55PM (#927130)

      A lot of garlic and slow roasted over a campfire.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 02 2019, @02:46PM (7 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday December 02 2019, @02:46PM (#927125) Homepage Journal

    I don't blame them for going for a more readily available source of dissection materials. I mean, it's not like they're Arizona or something and have an endless supply of frogs locally.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @03:12PM (5 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @03:12PM (#927142) Journal

      Are the synthetic frogs re-usable?

      Can you run them through the dishwasher, zip them back up, then refrigerate and re-hydrate for another dissection lab next week?

      Sort of like Escargot shells at a McRestaurant. Run shells through dishwasher, re-stuff them with McMeat.


      Q. Why don't high schools teach sex education?
      A. Because nobody signs up for the lecture but everyone signs up for the lab.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:01PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:01PM (#927178)

        Or, perhaps these "frogs" are 3D printed, so easy to print a new one for the next class.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @04:09PM (3 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @04:09PM (#927183) Journal

          The frog could just snap apart, sort of like it was made out of lego. Require students to reassemble to pass course.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:27PM (#927190)

            The parts are interchangeable with the Lego® Bruce transgender kit.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:47AM (1 child)

            by dry (223) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:47AM (#927471) Journal

            I had a model something like that as a kid, except a human. You could take it apart to basically a skeleton and put it back together, hard plastic though and only one way to reassemble. This was back in the 60's.
            This also raises the question, why stop at frogs? Could have synthetic human cadavers and as a bonus, in the image of the principal or such.

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:36PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:36PM (#927640) Journal

              The medical schools training doctors to be would use up all of the synthetic human cadavers, leaving none for the high schools.

              The high schools could get the now unwanted and unnecessary human cadavers. After use in the biology lab, they can be repurposed for the school lunch program.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday December 02 2019, @08:14PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @08:14PM (#927316)
      Most of them come from supply companies anyway. They grow them, prep them, and ship them out to schools. Frogs at least. Fetal pigs they get from farms I believe. Dogs and cats come from shelters. People from donating your body.
  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday December 02 2019, @02:48PM (7 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 02 2019, @02:48PM (#927126)

    I took Chemistry instead of biology in high school. But I cannot imagine my peers, even in a rural high school, dissecting frogs. But then Americans do not seem any more suited to it either, it is hard enough to get kids to work with uncooked meat in cooking classes.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @03:24PM (4 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @03:24PM (#927150) Journal

      Late 1970's, high school in flyover US. Chemistry and Biology, sadly. No IC chips or code. Yes, we dissected real frogs. Yes, it was a bit disgusting. Frogs came individually wrapped in sealed plastic refrigerated bag of smelly liquid.

      This was a few years before E.T. the movie of 1982. That movie would have instructed school administrators in the proper way to do this:
      1. you use LIVE frogs
      2. force students to put them to sleep with cotton balls soaked in ether
      3. Dissect frogs while they are still alive but sleeping
      4. DON'T !! DO NOT !! don't do this in high school, but in middle school where the children are younger and more likely to be highly disturbed by this

      step 3 helps condition students for later in life where AT&T has a clause in their service agreement allowing AT&T at its sole option and discretion to harvest your organs and those of your family members. AT&T is willing to forego this provision of the service agreement if your cable tv company has already gotten your organs first. In the event that you subsequently enter an agreement with a company establishing a competing claim upon your organs, you agree to notify AT&T promptly so that AT&T can exercise its right to have first pick and choice of your organs for harvesting.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:05PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:05PM (#927180)

        > ... where AT&T has a clause

        Good thing we have Verizon here!
        Out of curiosity, what have you got against AT&T?

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @06:52PM (2 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @06:52PM (#927274) Journal

          Nothing against AT&T. It's just that you should read the fine print.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:53AM (1 child)

            by dry (223) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:53AM (#927473) Journal

            Which is always, "we reserve the right to change this agreement any time we choose" .

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:22PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:22PM (#927635) Journal

              That's true.

              My latest journal entry [soylentnews.org] is not due to any bias against AT&T. No, really, it's not. Just a technical explanation of observed evidence anyone can see.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Monday December 02 2019, @06:29PM

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:29PM (#927244)

      Yes. It became a common college thing in the 20s apparently. In the 40s and 50s, high schools latched onto it as a way to expand their "college prep" type programs. Nowadays sometimes even middle schools offer it. I did a quick web search but didn't find a solid source for this, maybe someone has some more time.

      Many states have laws that schools need to be able to offer alternatives to live dissection; many districts and counties and so forth have their own more specific rules.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @07:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @07:11PM (#927287)

      I took chemistry too. The first thing they taught was making an explosive from ordinary table salt. Then, how to melt mothballs in a test tube. I passed with a D+.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by wisnoskij on Monday December 02 2019, @02:58PM (8 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 02 2019, @02:58PM (#927133)

    Actually big enough to see what is going on. A single adult pig is probably cheaper than a classroom of dissection frogs, and probably cheaper than a single synthetic frog.
    Also they can share with the cooking class.

    Doing a pig, you will get an animal far closer to a human, which should be more interesting to a biology class than a frog. The people taking the class because they might be interested in a medical career can see organs that are put in humans in surgical operations.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:12PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:12PM (#927143)

      Doing a pig, you will get an animal far closer to a human, which should be more interesting to a biology class than a frog

      Last I checked, they did this when the animals were still alive. To see beating heart and things like that.

      But that's a poor teaching tool for high school kids. This isn't 1800s when we ship them off to war at 18. Oh wait....

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @03:26PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @03:26PM (#927152) Journal

        This isn't 1800s when we ship them off to war at 18. Oh wait....

        But war now is like a video game. Requiring high schools to refocus their teaching methods.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday December 02 2019, @05:31PM

        by Bot (3902) on Monday December 02 2019, @05:31PM (#927222) Journal

        Lol and does the teacher recite something backwards when you sacrifice the live frogs? Bunch of heathens.

        --
        Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:23PM (#927148)

      I remember seeing the catalogs supply houses would send the teachers. Fetal pigs, rats and frogs were available. We did frogs in 8th grade and rats in 9th.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:30PM (#927194)

      Frogs in highschool, fetal pigs in college and humans in med school.

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday December 02 2019, @06:52PM

      by legont (4179) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:52PM (#927273)

      Not too long ago (definitely later than WWII) American kids had hunting class. Not sure about the curriculum, but usually hunting lessons include dressing the animal.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday December 02 2019, @08:16PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @08:16PM (#927318)
      We did fetal pigs in my advanced bio class in HS. Bigger than a frog but small enough to do in lab groups. In college we used cats then human cadavers in the advanced classes. And yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but there is only one right way to do it.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:55AM (#927474)

      Never dissected a cow for obvious reasons, but did dissect a cow's eye in middle school.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:07PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:07PM (#927211)

    I don't mean the headline sarcastically; I literally mean "what's the point of school science classes?"

    Based on my research into if I wanted to go to grad school, I can see two real reasons for science classes.
    1) We experts know the world, we want to teach it to you. (This is what is done in undergraduate classes.)
    2) We want to create an environment in which you become an expert and discover new things in the world. (This is what is done in Ph.Ds.)

    If it is the former, then using simulated frogs sounds very reasonable. It is a cost effective and "ethical" (whatever that means) and reproducible way to teach what we (think we) already know.

    If it is the latter, this is a terrible idea, as the simulation by definition is not accurate to real life. As an extreme example, imagine rigging up a intentionally broken simulation of an electric circuit, and then using that to teach children that, "light bulbs produce energy based on your prayers to God, see?"

    Personally I'd error on #2 above, and I am very cynical about the usage of these fake-frogs to teach biology. There is a lot of complex things in life, and while I found it distasteful and disgusting, there is something important with actually dealing with real organism. On the other hand, we have no problems with textbooks, and any complaint about these fake-frogs could just as easily be applied to textbooks.

    So I go back to my title: What's the point of these classes?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:21PM (#927217)

      Why does there have to be a singular point?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday December 02 2019, @06:43PM (5 children)

      by theluggage (1797) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:43PM (#927262)

      I don't mean the headline sarcastically; I literally mean "what's the point of school science classes?"

      The point should be:

      1. To ensure everybody attains a bit of general knowledge about science and scientific thought so that they don't get it from the creationists and anti-vaxers
      2. To give kids a taste of all the subject(s) so that they can decide what studies they want to take forward

      Of course, it is highly debatable whether current educational practice achieves that, or if it just achieves the primary target of providing free day care while obliging kids to jump through a lot of hoops (e.g. chopping up frog without puking or getting disciplined for throwing frog guts at kid who looks as if they might puke) while rote-learning a lot of pop-quiz factoids about science without any context or depth of understanding (because that's what is easiest to test, score and report to school management to show that the teachers are meeting performance targets).

      In the case of frogs, the question should absolutely be "why do kids need to cut up frogs" rather than "how do we get kids to cut up frogs without half the class walking out on ethical grounds and then suing us because they slipped on a pool of vomit". When Confucius (reputedly) said "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand" he didn't have access to 3D rendered fly-throughs of living frogs.

      Trouble is, the education system only knows one way to behave - if you decree that kids should understand the principles of scientific thought, the test will probably be whether they can spell "hypothesis" (after all, you can't put 'participate in a reasoned debate and support your claims with reproducible evidence' on a Scantron form... plus, a creationist paid for your sports stadium).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @12:19AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @12:19AM (#927905)

        I'm not sure what this post has to do with 'creationism' or 'anti-vaxers.'

        You even mentioned it twice. (BTW, I did get my flu vaccination and I'm not an anti-vaxer and I am a strong believer in protecting the environment).

        "plus, a creationist paid for your sports stadium"

        Ideas of universal common descent are entirely tax funded, at least those that question it are privately funded. Because UCD supporters are so insecure about their garbage anyways they demand that their views be tax funded but no criticisms allowed. and you are so opposed to anything that disagrees with your insecure beliefs that you must mention it twice in an unrelated thread.

        "To give kids a taste of all the subject(s) so that they can decide what studies they want to take forward"

        LOl. No that is not what you want at all. You want them to be exposed only to YOUR beliefs at MY taxpayer money so they can believe what you want them to believe.

        But I do agree, students should be exposed to different viewpoints. They should be exposed to universal common descent, criticisms of universal common descent, intelligent design (and they can learn about the various religions in religious classes) and criticisms of intelligent design. Then they can decide for themselves what they want to believe after getting a well rounded exposure to various beliefs. Because, unlike you, I am not so insecure about what I believe that I would want them to be exposed to only one side of the issue.

        • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday December 04 2019, @07:00PM (3 children)

          by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday December 04 2019, @07:00PM (#928218)

          You want them to be exposed only to YOUR beliefs at MY taxpayer money so they can believe what you want them to believe.

          No. By all means teach about creation in schools - those stories are an important part of our culture. Just do it honestly in classes with "religion" in the title, and make sure those classes include information on the widest possible range of religious beliefs - including the various denominations of Christianity and their inter-connection with Judaism, and Islam, plus some alternatives like Hinduism, Buddhism - oh, and don't forget things like Humanism. Of course, not wanting to do that is more likely to be the source of the US's little constitutional hangup about religion in schools than some desire by the Founding Fathers to promote atheism.

          The problem with "intelligent design" and the supposed "scientific controversies" about evolution is that they have been contrived to dress religious faith up as science so it can be snuck in to science classes. It is the equivalent of creating "The Book of the Prophet Darwin" and trying to sneak it into churches. Scientists and theologians have been managing to reconcile their spiritual beliefs and scientific knowledge as different aspects of the truth for different purposes, for centuries.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @08:22PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @08:22PM (#928238)

            I agree with your first paragraph, while I am Christian I don't think that any specific religion should be promoted above another in a public school. A wide range of different religions should be taught.

            As far as your second paragraph, you can define 'science' however you like (if you want to give it a less useful definition or make a definition that makes it fit your beliefs then go ahead) and create a separate 'philosophy' class where criticisms and alternatives to UCD such as intelligent design (and criticisms to ID as well) are taught. As long as the pro and con arguments to both sides are taught fairly so that students can decide for themselves what makes most sense to them logically regardless of some arbitrary definition of the word 'science'. Arbitrarily dedefining the word 'science' to fit an agenda isn't going to really change people's minds, my main concern is that students are exposed to the pros and cons of different perspectives fairly.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @08:24PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @08:24PM (#928239)

              arbitrarily redefining the word 'science' * (sorry about the misspelling).

            • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday December 05 2019, @01:16PM

              by theluggage (1797) on Thursday December 05 2019, @01:16PM (#928437)

              As far as your second paragraph, you can define 'science' however you like

              No, I really can't. Sure, we can argue over which 1000-page discourse on the nature of Science is the most complete, but there are core fundamentals such as falsifiability and the proven ability to make testable predictions that separate scientific knowledge from belief. Any variation on creationism - from "Exactly what it says in Genesis" through Intelligent Design to some sort of divine thumb on the scales of evolution - ultimately invokes some inscrutable external intelligence with undefined powers, which is inherently non-falsifiable (since any discrepancy in the theory can be attributed to the creator's ineffable plan) and therefore not science. ID is a cynical attempt to package religion as science (particularly so that it can be snuck in to US schools) - it is roughly equivalent to translating excerpts from His Dark Materials into Aramaic and trying to pass them off as a lost book of The Bible (oh, so tempting, but pretty unethical).

              The problem here is not "OMG, some kids might question Darwin!" but that ID is bad, flawed science based on logical fallacies that undermines students' understanding of science itself (it doesn't do wonders for their perception of religion, either).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @07:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @07:00PM (#927280)

      I don't believe high school science classes are the right place to be pushing the boundaries of human scholarly knowledge. If kids learn some basic principles (for a generally educated population) and if they learn that "science is cool" and some of them decide to pursue science further in their careers then that's pretty much mission accomplished.

      On the other hand, we have no problems with textbooks, and any complaint about these fake-frogs could just as easily be applied to textbooks.

      A dissection lab in this environment is squarely about teaching established concepts to children. This is certainly intended to be the equivalent of a textbook explanation, but it's important to cater to people that have different learning styles. Some students learn better by holding something in their hands as opposed to reading a textbook. A decent class would do both.

      I have no idea how these synthetic frogs stack up compared to real ones for these purposes. The article soley quotes the board superintendent, the manufacturer of these products, and PETA, which seems unlikely to give us a fair view.

      Florida public schools generally do not have a good reputation for quality science education.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Monday December 02 2019, @05:25PM

    by Bot (3902) on Monday December 02 2019, @05:25PM (#927221) Journal

    Training meatbags to take synthetic beings apart. Nice try but in the end you'll succumb in the robocalypse anyway.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:06PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:06PM (#927234)

    My mom got live frogs to dissect. Step 1 was to pith it. This means you drive a probe through the base of the skull, then wiggle it to wipe out the brain. You can then study reflexes (controlled by the spine) and observe the heart beating.

    My frog, in 1987 or 1988, was preserved. It was stiff, and sort of deflated, having lost the plumpness of a proper frog.

    I can compare, because I also did a recreational dissection of a frog I found in the wild. That was way better. All the innards felt different.

    There is no way a fake frog will be any good. It will lack details. Bones have internal structure, and they snap in a certain way. Bones have joints. Skin has variation on different body parts. Eyes have a complicated structure. Stomach content has variety and is recognizable.

    • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Tuesday December 03 2019, @03:17AM

      by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @03:17AM (#927519) Journal

      Step 0 - watch the negotiations between lab partners.

      --
      В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @04:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @04:33PM (#928156)

    also approves this innovation.

(1)