Published: 2017-01-28

Guinea pig versus computer mouse in post graduate practical pharmacology

Allen Joe Rodrigues, Laxminarayana Kamath


Background: Pressures from animal right organizations like PETA lead to stringent animal handling guidelines by CPCSEA, UGC, MCI which resulted in limitation of animal experiments in postgraduate practical pharmacology. So, this study is designed to know the perceptions and alternative suggestions of pharmacology postgraduate students about animal experiments in their practical curriculum.

Methods: 127 pharmacology postgraduate students who participated southern regional conference of IPS -2016 at Belgaum, Karnataka were included in this questionnaire based study. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results: Majority 79% students favoured animal experiments even though only 53% of students were conducting animal experiments at their institute. Some of the reasons quoted by the students to favour animal experiments were, provide better understanding of drug effects (66%), interested in preclinical research & drug development (60%), provides hands on experience (56%) etc. Some of the virtual experiments suggested by students which can be used in parallel to animal experiments to reduce animal sacrifice were computer simulated animal experiments (78%), preformed graphs/charts (65%), video films (53%) and so on. Main reasons to like CAL were effects of drug can be clearly visualized (72%), can be repeated (63%), avoids error (57%), saves time (54%) etc.

Conclusions: There is a need to incorporate CAL along with continuation of animal experiments in postgraduate practical pharmacology, so that both will compliment, enhance, reinforce the learning from each other and also drastically reduce the number of animals sacrificed.


Animal experiments, Computer assisted learning (CAL), Students

Full Text:



Badyal DK, Desai C, Tripathi SK, Dhaneria SP, Chandy SJ, Bezbaruah BK. Postgraduate pharmacology curriculum in medical institutions in India: time for need-based appraisal and modifications. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014;46(6):584-9.

Badyal DK, Desai C. Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014;46(3):257-65.

Committee for the purpose of control and supervision of experiments on animals (CPCSEA). Available from: [Last accessed on 2013 May 25].

Guidelines for discontinuation of dissection and animal experimentation in zoology/ life sciences in a phased manner, 2011. University Grants Commission. Available from: Guidelines%20for%2.

Thirunavukkarasu J, Babu CS, Tharani CB. A Study on Effectiveness of Different Teaching Methodology in Pharmacology for Under Graduate Students. 2011;2(3):487-92.

Saurabh MK, Agrawal J. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology The opinion of undergraduate medical students on current curriculum and teaching methodology of pharmacology in four medical colleges of India: A questionnaire based study. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(5):970-5.

Tikoo D, Gupta M. Student’s perception and experience of computer assisted learning as a teaching method in experimental pharmacology. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(6):1168-74.

Babu CS, Latha K, Thirunavukkarasu J, Tharani CB. P Harmacology V Irtual E Xperimental P Harmacology and an Lternative or N Ot ? - a G Lobal a Ssessment By P Harmacology F Aculties and Mbbs. 2011;3(10):25-9.

John LJ. A review of computer assisted learning in medical undergraduates. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(2):86-90.

Raveendran R, Batmanabane G. Alternatives to Animals in Teaching : Experience in an Indian Medical School. 2000:355-60.

Nettath S. Computer assisted learning (CAL) as a teaching learning method in teaching experimental pharmacology. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2014;3(1):63.

Medical Council of India. Medical council of India, New Delhi, amendment notification of 8 July 2009 to the Minimal standard requirements for medical colleges with 150 admissions annually, regulations, 1999; Available from: FOR 150.pdf

Richmond J. Refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal use for regulatory testing: future improvements and implementation within the regulatory framework. ILAR J. 2002;43(1):S63-8.

Gibbons NJ, Evans C, Payne A, Shah K, Griffin DK. Computer simulations improve university instructional laboratories. Cell Biol Educ. 2004;3(4):263-9.

Toth EE, Ludvico LR, Morrow BL. Blended inquiry with hands-on and virtual laboratories: the role of perceptual features during knowledge construction. Interact Learn Environ. 2014;22(5):614-30.

Dantas AM, Kemm RE. A blended approach to active learning in a physiology laboratory-based subject facilitated by an e-learning component. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;32(1):65-75.

Franklin S, Peat M, Lewis A. Virtual versus traditional dissections in enhancing learning: A student perspective. In: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education; 2001.

West J, Veenstra A. Cane toad or computer mouse? Real and computer-simulated laboratory exercises in physiology classes. Aust J Educ. 2012;56(1):56-67.