Gillian Braden-Weiss | True humane treatment

This is a response to both the article from Oct. 20, "Philly residents protest Penn's animal testing," and the Oct. 23 staff editorial, "Humane Science."

It was disappointing to see that The Daily Pennsylvanian neglected to speak with anyone from the University of Pennsylvania's research community when printing allegations by the protest group Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) that the University is a perpetrator of animal "abuse."

In fact, a similar protest with the same accusations was reported in February 2007 by the DP; for that article, the DP interviewed the director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, who stated that the number of Animal Welfare Act violations at the University could be artificially inflated.

Individual schools and departments within Penn have far larger animal research programs than the entire programs of smaller universities; thus it follows that the raw number of violations may be greater.

We wish that the DP had taken a more even-handed approach and included opinions other than those of the protestors when discussing such a critically important and complicated subject.

Furthermore, it is misleading for the DP to reiterate the protestors' fictitious assertions that there is little or no system of regulations to protect laboratory animals at Penn. In fact, a significant number of individuals on this campus have the sole responsibility of thoughtfully promoting, assuring and practicing the highest level of animal welfare at the University.

Under the Animal Welfare Act, the University must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which reviews projects involving animals used in research.

This review process ensures that projects involving animal use are not repetitive, that pain and distress are minimized or absent when possible, that all alternatives to animals are considered and that there is a scientific justification for why the research must be performed.

By law, this diverse committee contains both scientists and non-scientists, veterinarians as well as individuals from the outside community - including a positive association with the Pennsylvania SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). In light of these commitments to welfare regulations, the protestors offer no evidence of how Penn "failed to meet even minimal requirements" or that the University is both "abusing" animals and promoting research projects that are "not scientifically valid."

In addition to the IACUC, there are many other members of the Penn community who take seriously the responsibility to ensure that animals are used in a humane manner and that the standards of care are enforced.

The University's Laboratory Animal Resources department has many board-certified veterinarians, veterinary residents, veterinary technicians, animal caretakers, a training and health surveillance division and many other staff members who are all committed to animal welfare.

Regardless of species, Penn treats all protocols involving animals with the same level of scrutiny and treats all animals with the same level of respect.

The Penn research community upholds a commitment to exceed the minimal standards of care for our research animals set by federal regulations and policies. To suggest that the veterinarians and others involved in animal research are promoting and condoning the abuse of animals is incorrect and slanderous.

Unfortunately, the impact of the DP's articles extends beyond the scope of the University community. On SAEN's Web site, these specific articles are promoted as sources of factual information that support their agenda.

This agenda is not to eliminate animal abuse or to reduce the number of Animal Welfare Act violations but to "fight for [the animals'] freedom until all the laboratory cages are empty." A complete discussion of the arguments for and against the use of animals in research is beyond the scope of this editorial.

However, we hope that the DP recognizes that this issue deserves a respectful conversation, which at the very least recognizes the benefits to society of medical advances that would be impossible without animal research.

The prospects for such a discussion are diminished when the DP publishes biased endorsements of exaggerated statements, and we respectfully request that the DP report more responsibly on the issue of laboratory animal research in the future.

This column is supported by 63 members of the Penn Vet Laboratory Animal Medicine club, student body and associated faculty.

Gillian Braden-Weiss is a Penn Vet student and the secretary of the Laboratory Animal Club at Penn.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.