Exploring the educational gap in animal ethics within Brazil's Biological Sciences curricula and its implications for scientific practice and conservation.
Imagine a biology student, immersed in learning about the intricate wonders of life—from the complex social structures of ants to the sophisticated communication of whales. Yet, when these very creatures become subjects of research or conservation, a critical question remains unasked: What ethical considerations do we owe these sentient beings?
This scenario plays out daily in Brazilian universities, where future biologists receive extensive training in biological complexity but little to no education about the moral status of the animals they study.
This educational gap becomes particularly paradoxical when we consider that these professionals will likely encounter ethical dilemmas involving animals throughout their careers, whether in research, conservation, or policy-making.
The absence of animal ethics in biological sciences curricula represents more than just an academic oversight; it reflects a deeper philosophical disconnect in how we conceptualize our relationship with other species. As Brazilian researcher Gabriela Pinto discovered in her comprehensive analysis of pedagogical projects, the majority of Biological Sciences courses in Brazilian public universities lack dedicated disciplines in Animal Ethics or Environmental Ethics. Even more revealing: in the existing Bioethics courses, most do not address animal ethics themes, focusing instead primarily on human-centered ethical issues 7 .
What does the systematic absence of animal ethics in biological education look like in practice? A groundbreaking study conducted by Gabriela Pinto at the Federal University of Fluminense set out to quantify this very question. The research analyzed the Pedagogical Project Courses of undergraduate Biological Sciences programs across Brazilian public universities, searching for the presence of Bioethics, Animal Ethics, or Environmental Ethics in their curricular matrices 7 .
of courses didn't include Bioethics as a discipline
had specific courses in Animal Ethics or Environmental Ethics
The results were striking: the majority of courses didn't include Bioethics as a discipline, and none had specific courses in Animal Ethics or Environmental Ethics. When Bioethics was present, the syllabi largely overlooked animal ethics, with bibliographies predominantly focused on legal and ethical aspects of professional practice rather than interspecies ethics 7 .
This absence is particularly concerning given that biologists regularly face conflicting situations and dilemmas involving non-human animals from the beginning of their professional lives 7 .
Without adequate ethical training, biologists may lack the critical framework necessary to navigate complex moral questions about animal use in research, conservation dilemmas, and welfare considerations in field studies.
This educational dynamic perpetuates what some scholars term "speciesist blindness"—the failure to consider the interests of beings based solely on their species membership 7 .
To understand what's missing from biological education, we must first explore the philosophical landscape of animal ethics. Several ethical frameworks have emerged that challenge traditional human-centered moral considerations:
Championed by philosopher Peter Singer, this approach argues that the capacity to suffer (or feel pleasure) is the vital characteristic that grants a being moral consideration.
"Can they suffer?"
Represented by thinkers like Tom Regan, this view assigns all animals the same moral status as humans, viewing animal welfare regulations as symptoms of a fundamental ethical error.
This approach prioritizes the integrity of species and biodiversity conservation over individual welfare, valuing all species equally while prioritizing those most threatened .
Moral decisions based on empathy and compassion, where obligations arise from relationships of care rather than abstract principles.
Publicly proclaimed on July 7, 2012, this represented a pivotal moment when a prominent international group of scientists affirmed that many animals, including all mammals, birds, and even cephalopods like octopuses, possess the neurological substrates that generate consciousness 2 .
The research methodology employed to document this educational gap offers insight into both the scope and specificity of the problem. Pinto's study used descriptive quantitative methodology and field research to analyze the pedagogical projects of Biological Sciences courses across Brazilian public universities 7 .
This systematic approach allowed for comprehensive documentation of a nationwide pattern of omission. The study revealed that when Bioethics appears in curricula, the bibliographies focus predominantly on legal and ethical aspects of professional practice, with minimal attention to interspecific ethical relationships 7 .
This human-centric approach to bioethics overlooks what many philosophers consider fundamental questions about our moral obligations to other sentient beings.
Descriptive quantitative analysis of pedagogical projects across Brazilian public universities
This educational gap becomes even more pronounced when we consider the professional responsibilities of biologists. These professionals regularly make decisions that impact animal welfare in research, conservation management, habitat intervention, and environmental policy.
The research concluded that curriculum revision is essential—not only for the mandatory inclusion of Bioethics but specifically for the incorporation of animal ethics themes. This would support a more complete education that prepares biologists for the ethical complexities they will encounter in their professional lives 7 .
The exclusion of animal ethics from biological education has far-reaching consequences across multiple domains:
The use of animals in research presents complex ethical questions that extend beyond the current focus of Ethics Committees on mere regulatory compliance.
Brazilian universities like UFPR offer courses on animal manipulation in experimentation, focusing on the "3 R's" (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and ethical use aimed at "experiments without pain or suffering" 4 .
Biologists working in conservation regularly face ethical dilemmas that pit individual welfare against species or ecosystem interests.
Traditional conservation biology often prioritizes species preservation, while animal ethics introduces concerns about individual suffering in wild animals—a topic organizations like Animal Ethics are now addressing through multimedia projects and multi-language resources 1 .
The very definition of biological sciences as the study of life seems to demand consideration of ethical relationships between humans and other life forms.
As one study concludes, animal ethics content is necessary for "a more complete training and less speciesist" education 7 .
| Species Group | Evidence of Sentience | Scientific Recognition |
|---|---|---|
| Mammals & Birds | Neuroanatomical substrates for consciousness; intentional behaviors | Cambridge Declaration (2012) explicitly includes all mammals and birds 2 |
| Cephalopods (octopuses, squids) | Complex nervous systems; problem-solving abilities; pain responses | Recognized in Cambridge Declaration; protected in research ethics in some countries 2 |
| Other Vertebrates | Pain responses; emotional states; cognitive capacities | Increasing evidence across fish, amphibians, and reptiles |
| Farm Animals | Complex social behaviors; emotional contagion; pain sensitivity | Subject of welfare science; focus of emerging ethical concerns |
Despite the persistent gaps, signs of change are emerging across Brazilian academia. Recent developments suggest a growing recognition of the importance of animal ethics in biological education:
The 8th Brazilian and 5th Latin American Congress on Bioethics and Animal Law, held at UFSM in 2025, represents the kind of interdisciplinary dialogue needed to bridge this educational gap. The event brought together researchers, students, activists, and animal advocates from Brazil and other Latin American countries, featuring 61 speakers and panel coordinators, and 871 enrolled participants 2 .
Professor Nina Disconzi, director of the Animal Abolitionist Institute and organizer of the congress, emphasized the vision to make UFSM "a hub for animal protection" that could serve as a model for other federal public universities 2 . This institutional commitment signals a potential shift in academic priorities.
Meanwhile, postgraduate programs are beginning to incorporate animal ethics content. The Master's in Biocience and Health at UFG includes a discipline on "Dilemmas bioéticos em pesquisa, direitos humanos e dos animais" (Bioethical dilemmas in research, human and animal rights) that addresses alternatives to animal use and alternative methods 5 .
Organizations like Animal Ethics are expanding their reach through multimedia projects in multiple languages, including a documentary on aquatic animal sentience and courses on wild animal suffering in Hindi 1 . These resources represent valuable supplementary materials that could enrich formal biological education.
| Initiative | Approach | Potential Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Congress on Bioethics and Animal Law (UFSM, 2025) | Interdisciplinary dialogue between law, ethics, biology | Building academic networks; raising awareness 2 |
| Postgraduate Ethics Courses (e.g., UFG) | Incorporation of animal ethics in master's programs | Creating specialized expertise; trickle-down to undergraduate |
| Multimedia Resources (Animal Ethics NGO) | Documentaries; online courses; multi-language resources | Accessible educational materials beyond formal curricula 1 |
| State Animal Welfare Fund (Rio Grande do Sul) | Policy initiatives supporting animal welfare | Creating practical need for ethically trained biologists 2 |
The absence of animal ethics in Brazil's Biological Sciences curricula represents more than an academic oversight—it constitutes a critical gap in the formation of professionals who will inevitably make decisions affecting countless sentient beings. As the scientific consensus continues to affirm the sentience of diverse animal species, our ethical education must evolve to acknowledge these realities.
Addressing this educational deficit requires both structural and conceptual changes—revising curricula to include animal ethics, developing appropriate pedagogical resources, and fostering interdisciplinary dialogue between biologists, ethicists, and legal scholars.
"When we talk about the vulnerable, we also talk about animals." 2
This ethical expansion represents not just an academic exercise but a necessary evolution in how we conceptualize our relationship with the living world we study and steward.
Integrating animal ethics into biological education to cultivate scientifically rigorous and ethically thoughtful professionals
The path forward requires what the researcher Pinto identified as the need for "a more complete training and less speciesist" 7 . By integrating animal ethics into biological education, we can begin to cultivate a biological sciences profession that is not only scientifically rigorous but also ethically thoughtful—prepared to navigate the complex moral terrain of our relationships with the other sentient beings with whom we share this planet.