|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|||
|
Its main site is Huntingdon Research Center: Huntingdon Life Sciences HLS also runs a Research Center in Eye, England: Huntingdon Life Sciences'
Eye Research HLS’s only U.S. site is in New Jersey. Called the “Princeton Research Center” in an effort to associate itself with the prestige of Princeton, this facility is actually located 30 minutes north of Princeton in East Millstone, near New Brunswick in Central New Jersey: HLS Inc.
These figures were obtained by averaging out the number of animals listed in USDA reports and other published reports from other overseers and government regulatory agents, over the past few years. It is estimated that, at any one time, there are 70,000 animals imprisoned at HLS waiting to die.
When using dogs, labs, including HLS, often use Beagles as they are very passive and unwilling to bite. Their docile nature decreases resistance to the process of shoving tubes down their throats, restraining them, etc. (We’d like them to use a Pit-Bull and see how far they get.)
They also test household products such as detergents, tanning lotions, diet pills, food wrapping plastic, coffee sweeteners, some pharmaceuticals etc. Viagra was tested at HLS, as was Olestra, a fat-free “oil” that was found safe in animal tests at HLS but caused anal leakage in humans. HLS also experiments with the controversial genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and has performed Xenotransplantation experiments. Check out the largest leak ever of documents about a confidential experiment here
Additionally, the AWA merely regulates adequate food, water, housing, exercise, and veterinary care; it places no restrictions whatsoever on what can be done to animals during actual experiments. The following provision ensures this: “Nothing in these rules, regulations, or standards shall affect or interfere with the design, outline, or performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility.” Furthermore, under the Animal Welfare Act rats, mice, birds, fish, and farm animals (which comprise 85-90% of the animals used in “research” are not considered animals and hence are not afforded even the minimal protection of the AWA. Read the full text
of the AWA here. Beyond the Animal Welfare Act, animals in laboratories are also afforded the “protection” of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, or IACUCs. Institutions that use laboratory animals for research or instructional purposes are required by Federal law to establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to ‘oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care and use program,‘ (www.IACUC.org). In actuality IACUCs are rubber stamp committees comprised of vivisectors from the institution conducting the research. In fact, Federal law requires that only one member of an institution’s IACUC must be an individual not officially affiliated with the institution; no laws exist requiring that any IACUC member not be an animal researcher her/himself. Hence, the “protection” afforded to animals via IACUC’s is merely a cycle of vivisectors rubberstamping vivisectors.
Because HLS is a CRO, any company can hire HLS to test its products, and HLS's customers have included some of the largest pharmaceutical, chemical, and cosmetic companies in the world. The only way to ensure that you are not using products that were tested at HLS is to boycott all companies that test on animals. You can get a list of companies that do not test on animals by contacting: People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PeTA) offers a regularly updated, wallet sized shopping
guide to companies and products that are not tested on animals. Contact
them at: PeTA, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA, 23510, 757.622.PETA. Click
here for their webpage. By boycotting companies that test on animals, you not only ensure that your money is not going to HLS, but also that your dollars are not being used by *any* company to experiment on animals.
In a word, no. In more words…while there seems to be general consensus among the public and the press that progress in human medicine is reliant upon animal testing, such consensus does not exist in the scientific community. Activists have teamed up with two doctor/researcher organizations who oppose animal research based on the belief that it is harmful to humans. These groups are Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). Scientists and M.D.'s from these organizations - many of them former animal researchers - argue that the cellular differences between species (not only between humans and non-humans, but among different species of non-human animals) are too great to extrapolate experimental results from one species and apply it to another. They cite examples where the predictions of animal research have been devastatingly wrong, the differing behavior between species in reacting to chemicals and experimental procedures, and ask the question, 'how can we know in advance which animal will behave most like the human in a particular experiment.' Examples include: Thalidomide, which was tested safely on animals but caused horrendous birth defects in humans. Olestra, which was tested safely on animals AT HLS but caused anal leakage in humans. Acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) kills cats - had Tylenol been tested on cats, we'd not have it today. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. This list goes on extensively, as 80% of all drugs that pass animal tests fail the first time humans are exposed to them. Find more examples listed here. The perceived consensus supporting animal research comes largely from PR firms that work tirelessly to *create* this consensus. They manufacture and advertise support for animal research, but abandon critical debate and lack cogent scientific arguments. Additionally, they shy away from offers to debate scientists opposed to animal research. Americans for Medical Progress is one of the largest of these PR firms. But sometimes, the animal research community. A quote by the head of the National Cancer Institute demonstrates what is revealed when those who profit from animal research slip up. Dr. Richard Klausner stated in the Los Angeles Times, May 1998, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." This is just one in a long line of telling statements from the other side. While we agree that animal research is unscientific and harmful to humans, we are not scientists and do not have the expertise or background to do the scientific arguments against animal research justice. We suggest you contact AFMA and/or PCRM and speak directly with M.D.'s and scientists to fully understand these arguments. They can also direct you to primary and secondary resources if you are interested in books that make this argument or further research.
Endless distinctions are drawn between humans and non-humans in an attempt to find a relevant characteristic that differentiates "us" from "them" and justifies using non-humans for human gain. However, each of them ultimately rests on speciesism. Perhaps the most common reasoning put forth justifying the use of animals for human gain is that of superior intelligence: humans are more intelligent than non-humans and therefore humans are justified in using animals for human ends. However, imagine a mentally retarded human being with an intelligence level at or below that of a non-human animal-for example a chimpanzee. Based on intelligence these two individuals are equal. Why then is it permissible to use the chimpanzee to test oven cleaner and not the human? Our opponent will undoubtedly respond, "because the mentally retarded individual is human and the chimpanzee is not," revealing that it is in fact species and not intelligence that is the differentiating characteristic. We will respond, "why is species relevant? How is it more relevant/different than race or gender?" The answer is always, "because species is entirely different than race or gender." The critical thinker will see that this answer begs the question and merely repeats the assertion in order to justify it. Boiled down this argument merely says, "species is different than race or gender because species is completely different than race or gender." Additionally, in suggesting that animals are somehow lesser than humans because they are less intelligent assumes that high intelligence is necessarily a good thing. "Mental intelligence alone is value-neutral. It can function for evil or good. Intelligent minds carefully planned the extermination of millions of people in the bloody excesses of the 20th Century-proving in the most extreme way that intellect alone can be horrifying cold ... The mind is a great tool, capable of astounding leaps of comprehension and calculation. But like any tool, the service to which it's put is determined by the intent of the user," (Jeff Cox, source unknown). It seems foolish to say that all humans are justified in causing great suffering to all animals simply because "humans are more intelligent than animals." A high level of intelligence does not necessarily make an individual morally superior to an individual with a lower level of intelligence. Other criteria, such as the human ability to speak, to reason, use tools, create art, or to have meaningful relationships, can also be boiled down to speciesism and shown to be value-neutral (additionally, there are arguments that claim non-humans do have meaningful relationships, use tools, communicate in ways that parallel human speech, etc.) To claim it is acceptable to use a chimpanzee, but not a human for human gain because the chimp is an animal and the human is a human, is no different than saying that a white person is superior to a black person because he/she is white while the other is black. The characteristics considered are not relevant to the question at hand. In order to justify using one group for the needs of another group, we must find and isolate a characteristic that, when all other characteristics are the same, the chosen characteristic (a) provides both a clear difference between the two groups and (b) that that difference justifies exploitation. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, writing in 1789 in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation wrote, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer," (147). As Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation, "If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration," (8). When determining the moral worth of animal lives versus human lives, we must ask that at the bear minimum that the characteristics considered are relevant to the question being asked. Others waste no time searching for criteria that draws a discerning line between humans and non-humans but simply believe the gains animal testing affords (which are questionable to begin with. See question #24) justify the practice in and of themselves. Beyond being a "might makes right" philosophy, this belief is a slippery slope towards justifying exactly what it is trying to prevent - testing on humans. Playwright George Bernard Shaw sums up the moral dilemma with the following statement: [O]nce you grant the
ethics of the vivisectionists and you not only sanction the experiment
on the human subject, but make it the first duty of the For a more in depth inquiry check out the following books: The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan and Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer. Both are good starting places for an exploration of the ethical arguments against animal testing. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
What is HLS?