Eckstein clearly thought dissecting a frog was immoral, though. It was also unnecessary. Students could use a CD-ROM program that does the same thing, essentially. It just seemed wrong to him for a frog to suffer such indignity. I have some reflections on Mr. Eckstein's point of view that have to do with the nature of moral reasoning.
Humans have transcendent value.
Frogs do not. But I'm not going to address that issue here. It seems to me that Eckstein can only say it's wrong to dissect frogs if he argues from a basis of a larger principle. He can't simply assert it's wrong to dissect frogs. He must demonstrate that this particular action is a specific application of a broader moral rule.