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?
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?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
11 Comments
Add Comment
I wonder......will their cause ever address the ongoing warfare against the lowly fly/mosquito? Perhaps including the ban of flyswatters?
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.
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.
Perhaps you should read what the eonEcon Foundation has to say about DDT:
http://www.eonecon.org/blog/2008/ddt-and-it-harmful-environmental-effects/