The article on animal experimentation published Feb. 15 contained sufficient flaws in journalism that a response is irresistible. Jonathen Bassett did not do his homework.

The sensationalism in the headline "Group Attacks PSU Animal Experimentation" gets your attention but isn't accurate. The ARR evidently opposes animal use of all kinds, but the word "attack" is overkill.

Laboratory Animals Resources hasn't heard "boo" from this group. Fortunately, the leader, Trina Miller, shows a responsible attitude. The ARR is entitled to its opinion -- the "attack" should be debate, not vandalism.

As far as the inaccuracies go, the following need rectifying. Dr. Hobbes teaches a basic course in lab animal management that teaches anesthesia as one component of humane research. Anesthetics are not "fed" and there is nothing experimental about it.

This kind of education in managing safe, reliable anesthesia only helps to produce future researchers that are aware of and concerned enough to use it responsibly.

Secondly, the major mission of the Institutional Care and Use Committee was not even mentioned. This voluntary group of university researchers, veterinarians and members of the public review every research and educational use of animals on campus.

Each protocol is evaluated for scientific merit, that the appropriate species and number are used and that appropriate safeguards are taken to ensure the welfare of both the research animals and the people working with them (such as the requirements for analgesia, control of biohazards).

The power of peer review should not be underestimated.

Thirdly, the graph depicting numbers and species used is a typical animal rightist's misrepresentation. The number one species used is humans followed by mice and rats.

Misleading reports often depict cute puppies when in fact they are rarely used. Throughout laboratory animal medicine, the emphasis is on refinement (use least developed species possible), reduction (use fewest number scientifically appropriate) and replacement (use tissue culture, computer model where possible).

Opinion polls show the majority of Americans approve of animal research knowing that most medical advances are impossible otherwise. This reporter solicited opinions from two diverse groups -- veterinarians on one side and animal rightists on the other.

An unbiased report would have sought public opinion. The interview with Drs. Whary and Peper was an unannounced walk-in, lasted less than five minutes and then attributed the wrong quotes. In-depth journalism?

In support of animal use in research, it should be emphasized that there are plenty of safeguards. The principle one is the type of people working in the profession.

We are concerned enough to be involved to be sure things are conducted correctly. The correct question is not whether animal use is done humanely, but do we use animals to benefit the human race?