Talk:Animal Procedures Committee

Politics of the United Kingdom Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom

Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Animal rights Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Past affiliations

HI feel very strongly that identifying a single past professional position on 1 of 19 people, simply because it is at a company that is recognisable due to selective targeting by animal rights groups, is very unfair and smacks of editorial insinuation. I happen to know some of the other academics on the list have current and past positions and interests in companies that test on animals. So either we list every single past affiliation that could be construed as interfering with their job on the committee (which would be ridiculously long) or we leave it as current positions, whatever they may be. I don't have a problem with listing professional pharma interests in general, but there is no reason whatsoever HLS should be held above all others. From anything other than an activist POV, they do not do anything fundamentally different than another other pharma or contract testing company. This is simply following the bully mentality of focusing adverse attention on one company. This committee does not rule of security, privacy or secrecy of licences (where an interest HLS could be considered exceptional), simply the cost/benefit analysis of award. There is no reason a past affiliation with HLS should have any greater influence than with any other company that has held a licence. Moreover, he is an ex-director of HLS and there are animal research companies that members of the committee are current directors of. So is we are listing HLS on the basis they have interests on one side of the debate, we should list the interests in Restart Resources Ltd, Natural Pharmacy Ltd, Cudos Ltd, Vira Genics, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Animal Aid, Vegetarian Society etc, also. Lets have some balance. Rockpocket 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]