RE: defending animal dissection

To defend animals dissection by saying: "... I would use the example of driving a real car versus a driving simulation on a computer or in a game room machine. The real-time dissection provides awareness to all of the senses -- touch especially -- texture, form, etc." for me it doesn't make much sense.
To compare animal dissection with driving a real car instead of driving a simulation doesn’t have any relation. A car does not suffer, an animal does.
The experience of dissecting an animal can be brutal not only for the animal but for the student as well. There are a lot of bad behaviors in humans that can come from seeing this type of practice.
Also, dissecting an animal brings more unnecessary suffering. The animals are used in so many ways, that when humans come up with alternatives to stop the animal's suffering why not use them? What's the pleasure of seeing an animal suffer if you can see it, study it without causing pain? You mentioned that: "The real-time dissection provides awareness to all of the senses -- touch especially -- texture, form, etc". Awareness to our senses? But, what about the senses of the animals? All animals, including humans, share the capacity to feel pain and pleasure and the desire to avoid pain when it's caused to them. Your comparison is selfish, it implies that other beings besides humans don't count at all. It's though, comparable to how Rene Descartes referred to animals. "He concludes that nonhuman animals can be viewed as no more than machines with parts assembled in intricate ways. Based on Descartes ' rationale, humans have little responsibility to other animals or the natural world, unless the treatment of them affects other humans". (http://home.cogeco.ca/~drheault/ee_readings/West/Descartes.pdf)
But the ironic thing is that, we all are animals and we all feel pain.