Bang the gavel: animal experimentation on trial—an interdisciplinary mock trial at the school of health sciences
Open accessAbstract
Active learning activities offer opportunities for medical students to facilitate the retention of knowledge and develop soft skills. We aimed to create a guide for an interdisciplinary mock trial learning activity within the medical curriculum of the College of Medicine, Anhembi Morumbi University-Laureate International Universities, Sao Paulo, Brazil. We designed an "Animal Experimentation Mock Trial" in which students are coached to search for scientific, legal, and ethical arguments pro and contra animal experimentation in medical research. The mock trial is prepared and staged with student teams to play the 1 ) presiding judge, 2 ) the plaintiff's attorney and expert witnesses contra animal research, 3 ) the defense attorney and expert witnesses pro animal research, and 4 ) the jury. The plaintiff and defense teams made presentations, and between each presentation the jury put questions to presenters (cross-examination). The jury team gave two evaluation scores after the plaintiff's presentation and then after the defense presentation. The formal feedback for this active learning activity indicated that students expressed satisfaction with the teaching strategies employed in the course. The mock trial with the lesson plan provides a learning mean to exemplify the complex relationship between animal experimentation, medical evidence, ethics, and law/regulations. This mock trial helps medical students to develop their soft skills, such as the ability to collaborate and als…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mock trials have also been used to promote interprofessional education in health sciences and teach child abuse or ethics in medical education.
“Mock trials have also been used to promote interprofessional education in health sciences (Ghimouz et al., 2021) and teach child abuse (van Wylick & Davidson, 2011) or ethics in medical education (Coelho et al., 2017).”
From Students’ performance and perceptions of mock trials as a teaching and assessment activity over three years at two institutions (2024) · cites this paper as Ghimouz et al., 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rosenberg, E., Hsu, S.-Y., Truong, H.-A., & Taheri, R. (2024) · Pharmacy Education · doi:10.46542/pe.2024.241.2939
- Authors
- Ghimouz, R., O’Sullivan, S., Baltatu, O. C., & Campos, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Abu Dhabi University (AE)
- College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE)
- Corresponding author
- Campos, Luciana Aparecida
- Venue
- Advances in Physiology Education
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2021-03-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-47
- ISSN
- 1043-4046 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1229
- OpenAlex
- W3122818584
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- AJP Advances in Physiology Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- animal experimentation, mock trial, active learning, medical students, animal research ethics, animal research regulation, legal arguments, interdisciplinary teaching, soft skills, medical curriculum
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brazil, Curriculum, Humans, Students, Medical, Universities, Animal Experimentation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review