I understand that these bodies are not dissected in the manner one generally performs this procedure for forensic use; rather a special technique is used, which involves replacing fluids with a plastic preservative. The skin is then removed. This is to enable a better view of the internals.
There are two companies who exhibit these bodies in the US. Von Hagen's Body Worlds has three shows in the US; his competitor has three as well. They differ in that the competitor admits to using unclaimed bodies, former prisoners, and mental patients. Von Hagen uses people who have signed consent forms.
The exhibit is intended to be profitable (to von Hagen's company, and the museums), and entertaining, with a benefit of being educational. However most ethicists (and ethical people) would agree that the study of a cadaver in an anatomy class in an accredited medical school is more in line with the commonly accepted use of bodies for educational purposes. This exhibit is more like an outing with the family to the local museum. Whereas you might learn something, I would caution the misplacement of language to couch the reality. It's like calling the production of human-based soap "manufacturing". True semantically, but certainly not the same.
Perhaps there are other ways to be entertained and other ways to be educated. Personally I cannot see myself supporting this venture on many levels. Nor do I think this is right for my kids.
I guess I wish von Hagen had invested his talents in ways that target his efforts toward medical schools and physicians, who can find moral value in this. But von Hagen's target is the museum going public. And the exhibit price is high enough to ensure his offering is profitable too.
In contemporary society it appears that most people (or perhaps most people on TV) would say that if you are not harming someone, it is not wrong. They say that if you are impacting someone, but they consent to the action, then it is not harm, and therefore not wrong.
And thus we discuss the age of consent, a person's ability to provide consent, informed consent, consenting adults, etc. With phrases like "as long as you are not hurting someone", "in the privacy of your own home", "it's their choice to…"
As it turns out, this formula does not work so well in the Halacha (laws and ordinances evolved since biblical times to regulate worship and the daily lives of the Jewish people) system where there are victimless wrongs, and there are limitations to the victim's right to provide consent (meaning, for that consent to have impact to the halacha). The morality-assumptions differ considerably. Maimonodies' treatment on ethics in his "8 chapters" describes behaviors and activities that are prohibited in Halacha because they have negative impact to your character (personality). Using the zeitgeist terms you might say that some actions are prohibited because "you are the victim, and your subconscious cannot give consent".
The Bodyworks question demonstrates this dichotomy. Supporters will say, "the people displayed provided consent", opponents will say "but it is wrong to display the bodies". Supporters will say "but it is educational, not harmful", opponents will say, "it is wrong to view this display". Notice how the two views do not share the same set of morality-assumptions.
So I mention this as an observation. When you consider your perspective on issues, introspect on your morality-assumptions. Especially when you introduce Halacha into the conversation. Test your assumptions.