The public cadaver

"Spine to the future"-A narrative review of anatomy engagement

Anatomy has been integral to medical and health education for centuries, it has also had a significant role in wider public life, as an educational resource, a link to their health, and also as a darker deterrent. Historically, public engagement in anatomy is hallmarked by public dissections of convicted criminals across the globe. Artists, specifically non-medical men, such as Leonardo da Vinci, are reported to have participated in public dissection. Dissection would later rekindle public interest in anatomy as graverobbing led to the reform and regulation of anatomy in many countries. In recent years, there has been growing interest from the public in learning more about their bodies as health and well-being become of paramount importance, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. Anatomy sits in a prime position to direct and instigate conversations around health, well-being, and body image. Every human on earth possesses a perfect resource to look at and learn about. Models, art-based anatomical activities, and crafts provide active learning opportunities for the wider public around anatomy. Most recently, apps, games, and extended reality provide novel and insightful learning opportunities for the public relating to the body. Finally, training and resources must also be made available from institutions and professional bodies to anatomists to enable them to deliver engagement in an already congested and educationally heavy schedule. This resurgence of interest in anatomical public engagement sees anatomy re-enter the public spotlight, with more appropriate resources and educational settings to offer engagement with the aim of benefiting the public.

Profiting from public dissection: A new era of unethical practices

Historically, adverse events have reflected poorly on both the practice of dissection and the perception of the discipline of anatomy. The recent public dissection of a body donor is a regression to an unethical historical practice and was strongly denounced by anatomists around the world. The individual whose donated body was sourced from a 'for-profit" company in the United States had not given consent for a public dissection. This violates the ethics surrounding consent and body donation and potentially places the future of body donor programs in jeopardy as it compromises community frameworks around epistemic trust. Recent guiding frameworks by international anatomical associations on the ethical use of bodies have cemented the way in which body donor programs should operate. This viewpoint reflects on past and current events pertaining to public dissections and questions how these indignities may influence the public's interaction with human bodies. The authors argue that public dissection should be prohibited as it is against social mores. Social pressure should be applied to individuals or companies who wish to profit from unethical anatomical practice and legislation prohibiting public dissection should be introduced in those countries where it does not yet exist.

Human Dissection in Medical Education: More than Just Anatomy

The dissection course is an essential component of the medical curriculum. Nonetheless, the time expenditure and intensity of supervising the students in this course has been diminishing since the 1970s. That endangers not only the transmission of fundamental knowledge of anatomy. It also concerns key concepts such as establishing values, the concept of humans, and physician competencies, because medical education must be seen not merely as fact-directed instruction but instead should be connected with a mission for professional acculturation.

Anatomical practice at Göttingen University since the Age of Enlightenment and the fate of victims from Wolfenbüttel prison under Nazi rule

This report briefly summarises anatomical practice at Göttingen University from its founding in 1737 until the Nazi period and gives a detailed account of how Nazi death penalty legislation and execution practice at Wolfenbüttel prison influenced the decision-making of the anatomists in charge at that time. Problems in the procurement of corpses, encountered almost continuously throughout Europe since the broad introduction of dissection into medical training in the early 18th century, were absent in Göttingen during periods of overt progress in anatomical sciences, e.g. under Albrecht von Haller (in office 1736-1753) and Jacob Henle (1853-1885), and at times when existing regulations were rigorously enforced by the authorities (1814-1851). Ample availability of corpses in the wake of more than 600 executions in Wolfenbüttel between 1935 and 1945 was curtailed only by transportation fuel shortages and resulted in the dissection of more than 200 Nazi victim corpses in the Göttingen anatomy course. Apparently, neither individual offers of voluntary body donation (dating from 1932 to 1937 and published here as the earliest documents of this kind), nor the strong tradition of high-level anatomical research, nor even the awareness of the University's Age of Enlightenment origin, prevented the unethical use of corpses of Nazi victims for medical teaching. The Göttingen example may add "historical and moral detachment" under unusual political and wartime pressures to the "clinical and emotional detachment" thought to prevail amongst anatomy personnel (Hildebrandt, in this issue); together with the other reports it calls for all anatomists to bear in mind their ever present ethical obligations in respect to activities involving the use of corpses, both in medical schools and in the public domain.

Human clay models versus cat dissection: how the similarity between the classroom and the exam affects student performance

This study examined the effect of different anatomic representations on student learning in a human anatomy class studying the muscular system. Specifically, we examined the efficacy of using dissected cats (with and without handouts) compared with clay sculpting of human structures. Ten undergraduate laboratory sections were assigned to three treatment groups: cat dissection only, cat dissection with handouts, and human clay sculpting with handouts. Exams included higher-order questions that presented novel anatomic images and scenarios that the students did not practice in class. The higher-order anatomy exam questions varied the degree to which students in the different treatments had to transform the anatomic representation studied during laboratory activities to match the representation used in the exam questions. In this respect, exam questions manipulated the similarity between the surface features of the anatomic representations used in the classroom versus the exam. When identifying anatomic structures presented in a photograph or diagram, student performance improved significantly when transformation demands decreased, i.e., students in the human clay sculpting treatment group performed best on human anatomy questions and students in the cat dissection treatment group performed better on cat anatomy questions (independent of the use of handouts). There were similar, but nonsignificant, trends when students were asked functional anatomy questions presented in human and cat contexts. On survey questions designed to measure student attitudes about dissection versus nonanimal alternatives, students typically preferred the method used in their treatment group, suggesting that student preference is too fluid to factor into curricular decisions. When designing curricula, instructors must choose anatomic representations that support their course goals. Human representations are most effective when teaching the human muscular system.

Properties of publications on anatomy in medical education literature

Publications on anatomy in medical education appear to be largely anecdotal. To explore this, we investigated the literature on anatomy in medical education, aiming first to evaluate the contribution of the literature on anatomy in medical education to "best evidence medical education" (BEME) and second to evaluate the development of this literature toward more "best evidence" between 1985 and 2009. Four databases were searched for publications on anatomy in medical education published between 1985 and 2009, resulting in 525 references. Hundred publications were characterized by five variables (journal category, paper subject, paper category, author perspective, and paper perspective). Statements from these publications were characterized by two variables (category and foundation). The publications contained 797 statements that involved the words "anatomy," "anatomical," or "anatomist." Forty-five percent of the publications contained no explicit research question. Forty percent of the statements made were about "teaching methods" and 17% about "teaching content," 8% referred to "practical value," and 10% to "side effects" of anatomy education. Ten percent of the statements were "positional," five percent "traditional," four percent "self-evident," and two percent referred to "quality of care." Fifty-six percent of the statements had no foundation, 17% were founded on empirical data, and 27% by references. These results substantiated the critical comments about the anecdotal nature of the literature. However, it is encouraging to see that between 1985 and 2009 the number of publications is rising that these publications increasingly focus on teaching methods and that an academic writing style is developing. This suggests a growing body of empirical literature about anatomy education.