Cornell University President Hunter Rawlings sent this letter today (Feb. 10, 1999) to the student organization Cornell Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals:

"Thank you for your letter of Jan. 28 concerning university policies governing the use of animals in the instructional program and the availability of alternatives to dissection.

"I must disagree with your statement that I have not taken this issue seriously. The use of animals as part of the instructional program has repeatedly been the subject of discussion with and among the faculty responsible for the biological sciences. Their policy statement in this regard was reaffirmed in 1996 and is printed at the beginning of the Biological Sciences section of the 1998-99 Courses of Study. This policy clearly states that live animals will be used for teaching in certain courses in the biological sciences, and that in some instances euthanasia will be required. The Division of Biological Sciences conforms to the rules for the care of such animals that have been adopted by the appropriate national professional organizations and by the state and federal governments.

"Introductory biology courses are taken by more than 1,000 Cornell undergraduates each year. As you are aware, the course description for Biology 103-104, the introductory biological sciences laboratory course, specifically indicates that alternative materials will be made available for students who object to animal dissection but that testing will involve identification of important structures in real organisms. The determination of whether or not to use animals as an aid to teaching in a particular course and the assessment of the appropriateness of alternative materials must rest with the faculty member responsible for the course. That is the proper locus for such decisions.

"Twenty of the 525 students who took Biology 103 last fall declined to participate in live dissections. They were encouraged to use the tutorial on frog anatomy published on the Biology 103 web page. In the practical examinations, they were required to identify various anatomical features on real frogs. Student evaluations of this laboratory course regularly vote the frog dissection lab as one of the most valuable laboratories, and not a single complaint concerning the use of animals policy has been received by the director of the Division of Biological Sciences in the last two years. I would also like to point out that the staff in 103-104 handles the dissection choice matter in a very sensitive and quiet way. Students are reminded in lab the week before that dissections will take place the following week and that students who wish to do the tutorial instead should talk to their lab instructor privately after class. The claim is sometimes stated that choices are made during lab sessions and that students are too embarrassed to choose the tutorial. This is simply not true.

"It is also important to note that many of the Biological Sciences faculty agree that existing alternatives to dissection are almost universally inferior to the level of quality appropriate for Cornell courses or are otherwise unacceptable. Many of these alternative materials, they say, have been designed as a supplement to or as a review of materials learned in an actual dissection, not as a substitute for the dissection itself. In many cases, and in certain upper level courses, they say, adequate alternative materials are simply not available. It is clear that you believe otherwise, and I would therefore request that you bring whatever information you have in this regard to the attention of the appropriate members of the faculty.

"Among the 10 programs of study available to undergraduate biology majors, all but physiology can be successfully completed without performing dissections if students have objections. While alternatives are available in the introductory general biology course, I cannot accept your position that the university must adopt a policy that all Cornell courses offer an alternative to animal dissection when such a requirement is determined by the responsible faculty member to be an essential element of the course of instruction.

"I understand and respect the positions of some students that their participation in dissections is morally unacceptable; in those few instances where dissection is required, they may have to make the judgment not to take that particular course or major in that concentration. I must further remind you and others opposed to the university's current policy and practice that your objections must be registered within the boundaries established by the University Code of Conduct. Violations of that code, particularly those that involve disruption of the instructional program and threats to the safety of other members of the university community, will not be tolerated."