There are certain names and organizations that elicit knee-jerk responses. The mere mention of groups like Greenpeace and Animal Liberation Front are often followed by comments indicating that they are insane human haters.

I wish people would take the time to understand what these groups support, instead of dismissing them immediately. The members of these groups represent the small portion of the population that genuinely recognizes and respects the rights of organisms other than us.

Last week, one such group filed an official complaint against ASU for alleged inhumane treatment of animals in an undergraduate animal physiology laboratory. I hope that people can look past the name and understand the group’s concerns.

According to its Web site, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants an investigation into deadly ASU classroom experiments involving dissection, experimental surgery and euthanasia on live rabbits, frogs and rodents. I would like to discuss ASU’s official response.

In ASU’s press release, “NEVER” was used to indicate how often animals are treated inhumanely. We’re not in a chat room. “NEVER” convinces me less than “never,” and it makes the University appear insincere.

Despite its overcompensation, the press release neglects to address one of PETA’s main concerns — specifically, that animals are viewed as entirely disposable. Non-animal alternatives to the experiments are available, and yet ASU allows vivisection and subsequent killing at animals in undergraduate labs.

According to the press release, ASU believes in using non-animal alternatives but currently major medical advances “depend on the study of whole, living organisms, and these advances cannot currently be achieved any other way.”

I had no idea undergraduates in animal physiology were researching major medical breakthroughs.

“ASU believes that alternatives to the use of live animals should be developed and the University should employ them wherever possible,” according to the press release. These alternatives, generally computerized simulations, already do exist.

Doubtful? According to PETA’s Web site, University of California, Irvine recently discontinued the use of live rats in a neuroscience class experiment, which involved drilling into the brains of rats, injecting them with drugs and requiring them to perform in behavioral experiments.

The rats were then killed and their heads were removed.

After reviewing the humane alternatives, UC Irvine replaced the rat experiments with “sophisticated computer simulations.”

However, if ASU does not believe the alternatives to be satisfactory, perhaps instead of hiring oil executives to direct our solar energy initiatives, more money could be spent on improving non-animal technology.

In ASU’s defense, and as indicated in their press release, any student who objects to the experiments can decline and complete an alternate assignment. But if ASU agrees that alternatives provide adequate subject matter knowledge, then I think the animal experiments should be done away with.

Despite ASU’s emphasis on innovation, and if the PETA allegations are true, it fails to embrace simple, cruelty-free technological advancements for physiology classrooms. No one wants to be accused of wrongdoing, but sometimes it is nobler to admit it is time to change old practices.

Reach Becky at rrubens1@asu.edu.