Here, we describe a human physiology laboratory class measuring changes in autonomic function over time in response to atropine. Students use themselves as subjects, generating ownership and self-interest in the learning as well as directly experiencing the active link between physiology and pharmacology in people. The class is designed to concomitantly convey the importance of bias in experimentation by adopting a double-blind placebo-controlled approach. We have used this class effectively in various forms with ~600 students receiving atropine over the last 16 yr. This class has received favorable feedback from staff and students of medicine, pharmacy, and neuroscience, and we recommend it for such undergraduates. The learning objectives that students are expected to achieve are to be able to 1) know the ethical, safety, and hygiene requirements for using human volunteers as subjects; 2) implement and explain a double-blind placebo-controlled trial; 3) design, agree, and execute a protocol for making (and accurately recording) precise reproducible measurements of pulse rate, pupil diameter, and salivary flow; 4) evaluate the importance of predose periods and measurement consistency to detect effects (including any reversibility) after an intervention; 5) experience direct cause-and-effect relationships integrating physiology with pharmacology in people; 6) calculate appropriate summary statistics to describe the data and determine the data's statistical significance; 7) recognize normal variability both within and between subjects in baseline physiological parameters and also recognize normal variability in response to pharmacological treatment; 8) infer the distribution and role of muscarinic receptors in the autonomic nervous system with respect to the heart, eye, and mouth; 9) identify and explain the clinical significance of differences in effect due to the route and formulation of atropine; 10) produce and deliver a concise oral presentation of experimental findings; and 11) produce a written report in the form of a short scientific research article. The results of a typical study are presented, which demonstrate that the administration of atropine by a subcutaneous injection elicited a significant increase in pulse rate and pupil diameter and a significant decrease in salivary flow, whereas administration of atropine in an oral liquid elicited significant effects on pulse rate and salivary flow, and an oral solid format elicited a significant alteration in salivary flow alone. More detailed analysis of the salivary flow data demonstrated clear differences between the routes of administration and formulation in the onset and magnitude of action of atropine. (Contains 4 figures, 1 table and 1 footnote.)