Human volunteer practicals are an integral component of our undergraduate bioscience programmes at the University of Manchester. These practicals are always highly rated by students across the bioscience programmes (rated best year 1 practicals 2010-2019) and have survived many revisions of the curriculum over the last 20 years. However, as student numbers continue to rise and the administrative burden (of satisfying) and obtaining approval from the University Research Ethics Committee increases, the logistics of running these practicals are now being questioned. This study examined student perceptions of these practicals across the 1st year bioscience courses, and tried to support or dispute the notion that these practicals are essential for undergraduate science students. Currently, all bioscience students take 15 practicals in year 1 of which 7 are human volunteer practicals. These include two human volunteer practicals (Haematology and BP and Pulses) in semester 1 which are taken by all 650 year 1 students within the School of Biological Sciences and five semester 2 practicals (Drug action on the Eye, Asthma treatment, Lung Mechanics, EMG and Nerve Conduction, and ECG) which are taken by approximately 350 students. Students completed a survey on their perceptions of the validity of these practicals to their degree programme and the skills acquired. Data from our initial evaluation shows that all students found these human volunteer practicals useful in supporting physiological knowledge and core degree programme units (60% extremely useful, 27% fairly useful, 13% somewhat useful). When asked what skills they felt these practicals had enhanced, responses included: measurement of physiological parameters (79%), accuracy and precision (64%) and data handling (52%). Furthermore, 75% of students stated that these practicals improved their communication skills and 79% felt that these practicals had enhanced their capacity for teamwork. This perhaps suggests student’s value human interaction over simulation. In addition, 91% students highlighted that these practicals raised their awareness of the ethics of research involving human volunteers. This initial evaluation suggests that students feel these practicals are still valid for enhancing and developing generic skills. Moreover, they feel these practicals improve communication and teamwork, which is of interest in our advancing technological age. In addition, they serve to support and reinforce our core bioscience course units and they still hold great value to students. This study supports the inclusion of human volunteer practicals in our core curriculum.