Secrecy and animal testing

November 10, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
One of the most secretive companies in town has made its first public announcement in a long time.

Harlan Sprague Dawley, which is best known for supplying custom-designed laboratory rats for research, has reorganized its various units under a single name, Harlan Laboratories Inc. The move will present a more-coherent image to customers, the company says.

Harlan is publicity-shy for a reason. Its executives live in constant fear of attacks from animal-rights protesters.

What are your thoughts about animal testing?

Labels on shampoos and other consumer products increasingly note they werenâ??t tested on animals. â??Cruelty free,â?? some say. Yet, many drug and cosmetic companies say they still need to reserve the option. Same goes for universities.

Should the testing be banned outright? Is enough being done to minimize the tests?

To put it personally, would you be willing to have a promising cancer drug tested on you before it had gone through animal testing?
  • Interesting isn't it how many of the same people who want to assure the continutation of a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, even if there is nothing wrong. But, boy oh boy, let's not harm those innocent rats in the name of product testing. I'm certainly all in favor of reasonable policies that decry the wanton abuse of animals. But, and a big but it is, sometimes these advocates throw common sense out the window.

    I wonder......will their cause ever address the ongoing warfare against the lowly fly/mosquito? Perhaps including the ban of flyswatters?
  • While I understand the need for animal testing to advance science, it still saddens me that it is necessary.

    I appreciate how many businesses continue to look for animal-free testing options and have reduced the number of animal trials they perform now on existing compounds to meet the public's demand. Those of you who work for a not to be named large pharma in town are familiar with the posters that show antimal testing protestors with the caption, These people can voice their opinions an average of 20 years longer now thanks to medical advances, testing, etc. (Which, by golly, if you think about it is most likely the truth.)

    BTW, berwickguy, I think you missed the mark here on this comment line. Animal testing (that which most often subjects a viable, healthy specimen to massive doses of compounds for eventual mandatory termination) has nothing to do with pro-choice / anit-choice movements. Stay on topic.
  • I think it's funny how you mention that they are publicity shy because they don't want to draw attention to the fact that they work in animal testing, so they test the waters with one harmless media release, and what's the first thing that happens? You jump on them about animal testing. As someone who works in the business communications field, I'm willing to bet that there was a PR guy in there somewhere who said, We should send out a release. Then someone from management said, No. If we do, we'll get bad press about animal testing. Now that manager is saying, See! I told you so! And the PR person is groaning in disgust. I bet we won't be seeing more releases from them any time soon.
  • Uh Indygirl, I would say the vast majority of terminated pregnancies involve viable, healthy specimens too. Berwickguy has a point. If ending a pregnancy abnormally does not bother people, and in fact 1/2 of this country would say its a woman's right to choose, then why should animal testing bother anyone?
  • Berwicky,

    They have already essentially spared the mosquito in the name of saving birds. DDT which was a completely inoccuous pesticide to human beings was used to destroy millions of malaria spreading mosquitos in Africa. Of course it made some birds' egg shells more brittle and thus meant many more birds might die. This was famously told about in Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring. So under pressure from animal rights whackos they banned DDT to save the birds and by doing so have caused millions of malaria deaths in Africa. To these people humans are expendable in the name of saving the environment.
  • Reasonable point, E101, however DDT also proved to be harmful to humans. I believe that was the final trump card.
  • Funny you should mention DDT being harmful to humans. It's never been conclusively tested on humans, and the reason it is considered a possible carcinogen is because of results of... you guessed it! Animal testing!
  • Wrong, DDT was never proven to be harmful to humans.
  • Regarding DDT... our world is a delicate balance of all species. If the birds were being harmed it could lead to their extinction which begins a domino effect on the natural world. All species are here for some purpose whether or not we like them all. The idea that we should always overlook the animal kingdom in favor of human issues is ignorant in my opinion. We're all in this together, human, bird, mammal, reptile, insect, ect. I'm not saying all those people in Africa should die, but there are other solutions and they should be used. The wanton use of chemicals in our environment in the modern world has probably caused us more problems than we'll ever realize.
  • I've known many animal-rights/earth-first types and actually, many of them are opposed to abortion. They would probably deny it, but many people involved in these movements are pretty conservative.
  • E101,

    Perhaps you should read what the eonEcon Foundation has to say about DDT:

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

  2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

  3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

  4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

  5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim