Rhesus monkeys are used to test new vaccines designed to attack the AIDS virus; other primates are essential for in-depth studies of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

Cats help scientists in vision research, dogs are used for heart surgery experiments and millions of rats and mice are required each year for the testing of new drugs.

Since the dawn of modern science, researchers have relied heavily on laboratory animals for their experiments.

And animal rights activists are fed up with it.

"We're opposed to all types of animal experimentation," said Trina Miller (senior-general arts and sciences), president of the Alliance for Animal Rights, a campus organization committed to protesting this type of research. The AAR also opposes several University biology and veterinary science courses, Miller said.

Even behavioral studies that do not harm the animal are wrong, she said, because "the animal is taken out of its natural environment and isolated."

The debate has existed as long as animal experimentation itself: Which is ethically more significant and fundamental -- the advancement of science or the rights of the animal involved?

At least 17 million animals are used in laboratory experiments every year. Most of these include rats, mice, guinea pigs and rabbits, according to Newsweek. The experimentation takes place in 1,260 research centers across the country licensed for this type of testing.

Such centers are often the target of bombings and break-ins by militant animal rights groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, which raid the establishments to free animals and destroy equipment.

B. Ann Hobbs, associate professor of veterinary science, teaches Veterinary Science 405, in which students are asked to feed high doses of anesthetics to experimental mice. Asked whether the advances in her field justify the use of the mice, Hobbs replied, "definitely," and added her students feel the same.

"I think it's important for the students to be able to do this, and they don't have any problems with it," she said. "If they did, I don't think they'd take the course. They know what's involved."

Mark Whary (graduate-animal science) and Randy Peper (graduate-veterinary science) have taken the class and agree with Hobbs that using the animals is necessary for students to understand a complete living system.

"Plus, the class teaches you how to handle laboratory animals," Whary said, adding that this is not taught in many other classes.

Edward Wickersham, associate professor of biology, is in charge of another frequently criticized course, Biology 42. One experiment in this lab course involves surgery on anesthetized rodents to locate and remove their reproductive organs. Such experimental surgery for documentation is known as vivisection and draws the most public outcry.

Liz Hoag (senior-biology) first refused to take Biology 42 because of a moral objection to what was involved. But she is taking it now because her academic schedule demands it. Hoag said the course is exactly what she expected and the experiments still make her uncomfortable.

"Most of the experiments don't work, and (the professors) know ahead of time they won't work," she said. "It's a waste of life if you hook a mouse up to a machine to study its heartbeat and the machine doesn't work, because after we anesthetize them, we kill them."

Wickersham defended the course, saying, "It has been only through animal experimentation that we have had the tremendous advances in biology. People that take a strong stand against this are cutting off their nose to spite their face."

Bryan Raudenbush (senior-psychology) is involved in animal rights activities in his hometown in Schuylkill County and objects to the use of the mice in Biology 42 because that information has already been thoroughly documented. A humane alternative, he said, would be to use modern machinery to simulate the anatomy of the mice.

"I'm an emergency medic and all my experience has been with simulators. With modern technology you can get the same effect," Raudenbush said.

Presented with this claim, Wickersham strongly disagreed.

"Do you want a doctor operating on you that has only worked with simulators? Hands-on experience is essential to understand how a living system works," he said.

Wickersham said he does not encounter many problems or arguments from the students in the class.

"Initially there's some anxiety, like there would be with a fear of snakes or anything else," he said. "But after a while, they calm down and say, 'no problem.' "

Miller said the AAR is against exactly this type of University instruction as well as all animal research for human benefit.

Although the AAR has documents such as its constitution that date earlier than 1988, the Alliance did not gain provisional status with the University until May of that year, according to Associated Student Activities. Last October, Miller said, it reorganized and became active.

"We believe in educating first and acting second," she said. "Right now we're just meeting and discussing our views, but soon we should start looking to organize peaceful protests."

Miller emphasizes the group of about 25 is not "a bunch of terrorists," and that the University has no reason to fear any adverse action by the AAR.

"I have close connections with the Centralized Bio lab, and we're not going to go around spray painting the buildings like some students did last year . . . They're a little paranoid, and they don't have to be."

Joe Schall, a University staff member belonging to the Alliance, said the group is advised by two national animal rights organizations as well as a Washington, D.C. legal firm that help the AAR take rational but effective steps in expressing its views.

"The goal of the AAR and animal rights groups in general is to end all types of animal experimentation," Schall said.

"Everyone in the group's different, but right now we have people who won't wear leather or fur or eat meat, eggs, or butter," Miller said. "These are things the group as a whole is working for."

Another University course the AAR opposes is Animal Science 17, which teaches students the techniques of animal slaughtering, Miller said.

Dayton Sauerman, a U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian who inspects meat at the University Meats Lab, said about slaughtering, "Animal abuse or neglect is one thing, but too many people attribute human characteristics to animals.

"If a cow sees his buddies walking by and getting slaughtered, it doesn't faze him a bit. He's not going to turn around and run away; he doesn't know it's going to happen to him."

However, other students dispute this, claiming animals are capable of pain, fear and mental anguish.

Charles Dangler, assistant professor of veterinary science, uses chickens in his research of atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. He also uses swine to test a currently marketed commercial swine vaccine he has suspicions about.

Dangler emphasizes that experiments involving animals are only a part of scientists' work, and that they try to limit the use of the animals as much as they can.

"We hold off on animal research until we're absolutely sure what we want to do. This allows us to use as few animals as possible," Dangler said.

This sentiment is echoed by John Kavanaugh, professor of veterinary science.

"A lot of people think scientists get into research just to work with animals," he said. "Animal research is necessary, but it's only a portion of what they do. There are no frivolous or reckless experiments with the animals."

Kavanaugh is executive secretary of the University's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), a government-appointed, 12-member panel that performs routine inspections of the living conditions of laboratory animals on campus. Kavanaugh said there has never been a major violation found at the University by either the IACUC or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which also inspects the University on periodic unannounced visits.

The question of the animals' treatment while in the lab is discussed less frequently than the morality of using them in the first place because, Kavanaugh said, the scientific community is required to follow stringent guidelines concerning the care of the animals.

Dangler agreed. "I don't think there are many scientists around that don't agree the animals should live in acceptable conditions while in captivity," he said.

According to the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "The scientific community has long recognized both a scientific and an ethical responsibility for the humane care of animals. .. . Scientists have developed, and should continue to develop and use, scientifically valid adjunctive or alternative methods to animal experimentation."

Kavanaugh said the strict penalties involved, including the loss of funding to an institution suspected of animal misuse and a widespread investigation, act as a constant regulation of the laboratories. Also, the monitoring of the operations of a university laboratory is tight enough to allow little chance of animal misuse or neglect.

"Of course, I think Penn State has one of the better-run programs in that department, knock on wood," Kavanaugh said.

The IACUC, he said, also decides whether the use of the animals in laboratory classrooms is morally right, as in the case of Biology 42. There is a philosopher on the committee that deals specifically with these types of questions, Kavanaugh said.

"We felt that the use of the mice was a valid requirement in the course," he said.