On Sept. 24, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture against ASU, demanding “an investigation into [the] cruel and deadly experiments” in anatomy and physiology classes.

PETA issued a press release on its Web site coinciding with the complaint. The press release was evocatively titled, “Concerned Students Report That University Is Using Animals in Deadly Experiments Despite the Availability of Humane Alternatives.”

“Arizona State University has shown an apparent disregard for … animal protection law and guidelines,” said Kathy Guillermo, PETA Vice President of Laboratory Investigations, in the press release.

Four days later, ASU issued a response to PETA’s complaint simply titled, “ASU response to PETA press release,” in which it called the press release “inaccurate and misleading.”

“Animals are NEVER treated cruelly or inhumanely at ASU,” read the response. “They do not experience pain or distress in the experiments as stated by PETA.”

Before we examine the authenticity of this campaign against our University, we should not underestimate its strength.

PETA is one of the most determined and relentless organizations in the United States. With more than 2 million members and a variety of participating celebrities, it is the largest animal rights organization in the world.

And its influence is manifesting itself across campus.

PETA has partnered with Students Taking Action for Animal Rights, an on-campus organization, to circulate a petition to stop animal experimentation at ASU.

“Unless the students are aware, they won’t take any action,” said Kirby Mauro, vice president of STAAR, in a State Press interview.

I completely agree with this sentiment. Awareness is extremely important, especially when discussing something as delicate as animal experimentation.

But I prefer my awareness without hyperbole and outright deception.

First, students should know that ASU has an entire department dedicated to ethical research, particularly to animal experimentation.

The department is the Office of Research Integrity and Assurance, and within that department is the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The purpose of the IACUC is “to provide a humane and compliant environment for animals” during scientific research.

And there are extremely strict regulations for experiments involving animals.

Research proposals must be submitted to the committee to ensure they conform to federal guidelines. These proposals must contain a description of why animals are required and how researchers would alleviate pain during the experiment. All research personnel must be certified through the ASU Humane Practice of Animal Care and Use Training Program.

Moreover, the IACUC involves members of the community as well as University researchers so these proposals are deemed acceptable by everyone, not just scientists.

John Olson, professor of anatomy and physiology at ASU’s Downtown campus, said in an interview that people from diverse backgrounds participate in the IUCAC, including, during one round of petitioning, a Baptist minister.

PETA first complained about the animal experimentation in anatomy and physiology classes back in January. The IACUC evaluated these complaints and determined the professors provided convincing justification on why these animals were needed.

Second, students should know there currently exists no technology that can replace limited animal experimentation.

On its Web site, PETA claims that technology can completely replace animals in ASU’s anatomy and physiology classrooms. PETA provide links to computer programs like Digital Frog 2.5, which enables students to conduct virtual dissections with a digital scalpel.

But PETA fails to mention these programs are not designed for University students. In fact, the advertisement boasts this software meets “the educational needs of K-12 students in eight states.”

Simply, our generation’s future researchers deserve better than a program designed for children.

“We’re training the next generation of people that are going to be saving lives, and we deserve to give them the best education we can,” Olson said.

Despite its shortcomings, ASU acknowledges technology can provide alternatives for animal experimentation.

“ASU believes … the University should employ them wherever possible,” said Sharon Keeler, director of Media Relations at ASU, in an e-mail interview. “In fact, the majority of our instructional labs use non-animal alternatives.”

Third, students should know this experimentation is mischaracterized, and the benefits are often ignored.

Before Olson became an anatomy or physiology professor, he was a TA, responsible for caring for frogs during the experiment.

He emphasized that every time he performed the experiments, he would learn something new about their anatomy.

“Using animals provides students a sense of urgency and learning,” said Olson, adding that anatomy and physiology are “completely different when it’s viewed.”

As a molecular biosciences and biotechnology major, I performed that same frog dissection PETA so vociferously dismissed. Not only was the experience informative and educational, but the animals were treated very carefully during the experiment.

Olson emphasized PETA’s complaints originate from the mistaken belief that scientists are experimenting for their own purposes or operating under the assumption that the ends justify the means.

“Life-saving treatments and critical medical advances depend on the study of whole, living organisms, and these advances cannot currently be achieved any other way,” Keeler said.

Fourth, students should know that PETA functions by fomenting controversy and provoking reactions.

In 2003, PETA ran a campaign called “Holocaust on your Plate” where they compared inmates in concentration camps to caged animals and leather products to those manufactured from the skin of human victims. PETA eventually apologized.

But more chillingly, in 2003, PETA distributed pamphlets to children attending “The Nutcracker” whose mothers were wearing fur. The pamphlet bore the headline “Your Mommy Kills Animals” and included a picture of a grinning woman stabbing a bloody rabbit carcass.

PETA is using its customary tactics of shock and awe in its campaign against our university. Animal experimentation is an extremely sensitive issue because we instinctively empathize with the animals. With its campaign against the anatomy and physiology experiments, PETA is exploiting this empathy in its typically gruesome fashion.

I completely agree awareness is important. Therefore, students should fully understand this issue of animal experimentation before condemning our science teachers and signing that misleading petition.

Reach David at david.k.edwards.1@asu.edu.