Ethical ranking of top pharma companies slammed for ignoring animal testing
Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research | 31.05.2007 19:37 | Animal Liberation | Bio-technology
The Dr Hadwen Trust criticises the latest 'ethical' ranking for pharma companies, for ignoring animal experiments.
A report on the ethical reputations of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies which gives UK-based multinational GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) the top score, has been heavily criticised for ignoring one of the most contentious ethical issues around, animal testing. Ethically ranking animal-testing companies without considering animal suffering is deeply misleading, says non-animal research charity, the Dr Hadwen Trust (1). The ethical ranking was recently profiled (30 May) in a series of online industry journals such as DrugResearcher.com which called GSK 'big pharma's Mother Theresa' (2). That's ethical whitewashing, says the Dr Hadwen Trust.
The recently-released EthicalQuote report by Geneva-based ethical-monitoring firm Covalence (3), claims to represent the latest ethical evaluation of the top twenty multinationals, with ten companies selected for the top spots. In the category of Best Ethical Quote for pharmaceutical companies, one of the world's most notorious animal-testing companies, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), makes the top score of 326 despite being the focus of anti-vivisection boycott campaigns around the globe because of its massive animal testing and research programme. GSK was joined at the top by two more animal-testers, Bristol-Myers Squibb (second place scoring 315) and Johnson & Johnson (third place scoring 298).
Covalence claims that the ethical scores are calculated by assessing both positive and negative news. However, whilst the negative news categories include topics such as environmental impact, wages and intellectual property rights, the highly contentious issue of animal testing doesn't appear at all. Neither does a company’s degree of financial investment in developing non-animal research tests appear in the positive news scale (4).
All three companies are well known for their animal testing which includes invasive experiments on animals such as monkeys, dogs and primates
Says Wendy Higgins at the Dr Hadwen Trust:
"Ranking multinationals by their ethical performance is essential so that consumers and investors can support companies genuinely making an effort to conduct business with integrity. But it is completely irresponsible to ignore animal testing. The plight of laboratory animals inside the labs of these and other companies, is a major cause of concern for consumers and campaigning groups around the world. The report claims to take pressure groups into account when ranking companies, but it has clearly decided to simply ignore one of the biggest boycott campaigns on the planet by excluding animal testing. GlaxoSmithKline conducts painful and lethal experiments on countless dogs, monkeys, rabbits and rodents each year and their immense suffering should count for something. To blatantly dismiss it is deeply misleading and offensive."
In 2007, GSK's lab in the USA experimented on macaque monkeys to study osteoporosis (5). The monkeys had their ovaries suppressed by drugs and were then dosed with a test drug that might play a role in treating osteoporosis. GSK researchers studied the effects of the drugs on the monkeys’ bones. Other experiments have included deliberately inflicting surgical wounds on mice, some of which were purposefully infected with bacteria and left untreated for up to one week so GSK researchers could study the infection (6).
In an experiment published in 2006, Bristol-Myers Squibb crushed the nerves to the right hind leg of rats so that their muscles wasted (7). After the surgery, the rats were unable to move their leg and were left in this condition for 7 days whilst researchers tested different treatments. Johnson and Johnson also conduct highly invasive animal experiments. In 2006 they used dogs to study a drug developed to treat anxiety in humans (8). The dogs were dosed with the drug and then their metabolism monitored to assess the effects of the drug. They will almost certainly have been killed for a post mortem at the end of the study. Also in 2006, Johnson & Johnson's researchers used a range of chemicals to cause pain, inflammation and itching in the ears and skin of mice, followed by dosing the mice with experimental anti-fungal treatments (9). Some mice were left untreated to suffer the painful effects of the chemicals.
ENDS
Notes
1. The Dr Hadwen Trust is the UK's leading non-animal medical research charity funding exclusively non-animal techniques to replace animal experiments. www.drhadwentrust.org
2. DrugResearcher.com 30 May 2007
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=76941&m=1DRG530&c=vmopdgrdtskxywz
3. The report can be downloaded in PDF at
http://www.covalence.ch/docs/CovalenceEthicalRankingQ1-2007_PressRelease_26.04.2007.pdf
4. Best EthicalQuote Score is calculated by subtracting negative news from positive news, cumulated from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2007. Covalence claims that its ethical quotation system (EthicalQuote) is a reputation index based on quantifying qualitative data, which are classified according to 45 criteria of business contribution. The system integrates documents found among media, enterprise, non-government organisations (NGOs) and other sources, measure the historical evolution of the reputation of companies regarding ethical issues.
5. Department of Musculoskeletal Diseases, GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, USA, 2007. A highly potent inhibitor of cathepsin K (relacatib) reduces biomarkers of bone resorption both in vitro and in an acute model of elecated bone turnover in vivo in monkeys. Bone 40(1):122-31
6. GSK Pharmaceuticals, Pennsylvania, USA, 2006. Use of the surgical wound infection model to determine the efficacious dosing regimen of retapamulin, a novel topical antibiotic. Antibicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 50(11):3886-88
7. Pharmaceutical Research Institute, BMS, New Jersey, USA, 2006. Reduction of skeletal muscle atrophy by a proteasome inhibitor in a rat model of denervation. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 231:335-41
8. J&J Pharmaceutical Research and Development, PA, USA, 2006 Metabolism of the new anxiolytic agent, a pyrido[1,2-]benzimidazole (PBI) analog (RWJ-53050), in rat and human hepatic S9 fractions, and in dog; identification of cytochrome p450 isoforms mediated in the human microsomal metabolism. European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, 31(4):277-83
9. Preclinical Pharmacology, Skin Research Center, J&J Consumer Products, NJ, USA, 2006. Anti-inflammatory and anti-itch activity of sertaconazole nitrate. Archives of Dermatology Research, 298:191-99
The recently-released EthicalQuote report by Geneva-based ethical-monitoring firm Covalence (3), claims to represent the latest ethical evaluation of the top twenty multinationals, with ten companies selected for the top spots. In the category of Best Ethical Quote for pharmaceutical companies, one of the world's most notorious animal-testing companies, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), makes the top score of 326 despite being the focus of anti-vivisection boycott campaigns around the globe because of its massive animal testing and research programme. GSK was joined at the top by two more animal-testers, Bristol-Myers Squibb (second place scoring 315) and Johnson & Johnson (third place scoring 298).
Covalence claims that the ethical scores are calculated by assessing both positive and negative news. However, whilst the negative news categories include topics such as environmental impact, wages and intellectual property rights, the highly contentious issue of animal testing doesn't appear at all. Neither does a company’s degree of financial investment in developing non-animal research tests appear in the positive news scale (4).
All three companies are well known for their animal testing which includes invasive experiments on animals such as monkeys, dogs and primates
Says Wendy Higgins at the Dr Hadwen Trust:
"Ranking multinationals by their ethical performance is essential so that consumers and investors can support companies genuinely making an effort to conduct business with integrity. But it is completely irresponsible to ignore animal testing. The plight of laboratory animals inside the labs of these and other companies, is a major cause of concern for consumers and campaigning groups around the world. The report claims to take pressure groups into account when ranking companies, but it has clearly decided to simply ignore one of the biggest boycott campaigns on the planet by excluding animal testing. GlaxoSmithKline conducts painful and lethal experiments on countless dogs, monkeys, rabbits and rodents each year and their immense suffering should count for something. To blatantly dismiss it is deeply misleading and offensive."
In 2007, GSK's lab in the USA experimented on macaque monkeys to study osteoporosis (5). The monkeys had their ovaries suppressed by drugs and were then dosed with a test drug that might play a role in treating osteoporosis. GSK researchers studied the effects of the drugs on the monkeys’ bones. Other experiments have included deliberately inflicting surgical wounds on mice, some of which were purposefully infected with bacteria and left untreated for up to one week so GSK researchers could study the infection (6).
In an experiment published in 2006, Bristol-Myers Squibb crushed the nerves to the right hind leg of rats so that their muscles wasted (7). After the surgery, the rats were unable to move their leg and were left in this condition for 7 days whilst researchers tested different treatments. Johnson and Johnson also conduct highly invasive animal experiments. In 2006 they used dogs to study a drug developed to treat anxiety in humans (8). The dogs were dosed with the drug and then their metabolism monitored to assess the effects of the drug. They will almost certainly have been killed for a post mortem at the end of the study. Also in 2006, Johnson & Johnson's researchers used a range of chemicals to cause pain, inflammation and itching in the ears and skin of mice, followed by dosing the mice with experimental anti-fungal treatments (9). Some mice were left untreated to suffer the painful effects of the chemicals.
ENDS
Notes
1. The Dr Hadwen Trust is the UK's leading non-animal medical research charity funding exclusively non-animal techniques to replace animal experiments. www.drhadwentrust.org
2. DrugResearcher.com 30 May 2007
![](/img/extlink.gif)
3. The report can be downloaded in PDF at
![](/img/extlink.gif)
4. Best EthicalQuote Score is calculated by subtracting negative news from positive news, cumulated from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2007. Covalence claims that its ethical quotation system (EthicalQuote) is a reputation index based on quantifying qualitative data, which are classified according to 45 criteria of business contribution. The system integrates documents found among media, enterprise, non-government organisations (NGOs) and other sources, measure the historical evolution of the reputation of companies regarding ethical issues.
5. Department of Musculoskeletal Diseases, GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, USA, 2007. A highly potent inhibitor of cathepsin K (relacatib) reduces biomarkers of bone resorption both in vitro and in an acute model of elecated bone turnover in vivo in monkeys. Bone 40(1):122-31
6. GSK Pharmaceuticals, Pennsylvania, USA, 2006. Use of the surgical wound infection model to determine the efficacious dosing regimen of retapamulin, a novel topical antibiotic. Antibicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 50(11):3886-88
7. Pharmaceutical Research Institute, BMS, New Jersey, USA, 2006. Reduction of skeletal muscle atrophy by a proteasome inhibitor in a rat model of denervation. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 231:335-41
8. J&J Pharmaceutical Research and Development, PA, USA, 2006 Metabolism of the new anxiolytic agent, a pyrido[1,2-]benzimidazole (PBI) analog (RWJ-53050), in rat and human hepatic S9 fractions, and in dog; identification of cytochrome p450 isoforms mediated in the human microsomal metabolism. European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, 31(4):277-83
9. Preclinical Pharmacology, Skin Research Center, J&J Consumer Products, NJ, USA, 2006. Anti-inflammatory and anti-itch activity of sertaconazole nitrate. Archives of Dermatology Research, 298:191-99
Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research
e-mail:
campaigns@drhadwentrust.f2s.com
Homepage:
http://www.drhadwentrust.org
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Truth about the Hadwen Trust
01.06.2007 04:21
Example of anti-vivisectionism, Dr Hadwen Trust style: "It's nonsense to say that animal experiments have never contributed to any medical advance . . . and if vivisection had never made a contribution to medicine . . ." Gill Langley - 'Alternative News', Winter 1991-92.
Avoid like the plague.
Steve
Please avoid Steve like the plague
01.06.2007 12:00
Dr Hadwen Trust
e-mail:
campaigns@drhadwentrust.f2s.com
Homepage:
http://ww.drhadwentrust.org
The Langley Trust(Gill's Baby)
01.06.2007 16:27
This is not the first time that a "Dr Hadwen Trust" representative has accused someone of "Libel" on here.The libel threat always comes out when their short haired founder--Gilly Langley--is exposed for what she is and always has been.Namely,a vivisectionist saboteur.From Animal Aid to BUAV,she has fucked with them all.
Vegan-Truthist
Aha a mistake
01.06.2007 16:38
Not "Well" but "Widely" modelled.But still a scientific promotion as it states,and implies,that "Parkinsons disease" can be created upon the healthy brain of a healthy primate.And it cannot.....
(from the "Abolitionist online" interviewer)
" paper from Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research on Parkinson's Disease says
Parkinson's Disease is widely modeled in monkeys by injecting them with a toxic chemical called MPTP"
But hey!! The "Gill Langley Trust" depends upon all of us believing that vivisection is "scientific" and can't be dispensed with until we can find "alternatives." With the money for "alternatives" being given to the "Gill Langley Trust"--for the last few decades--and the torture and death of animals still happening.
And any "reducement" in vivisection has been down to radical animal liberationists shutting down breeders and making it a financial hell for all the vivisectionist complicit industries.Not the "Gill Langley Trust".
Infiltrators...i can't wait till there's an A.L.F. chapter bearing down on you.
Vegan-Truthist
Hadwen trust reply
01.06.2007 18:12
As you say, the purpose of indymedia is not to perpetuate ill-informed gossip… that’s why we’ll stick to the truth:
Is it not the truth that Gill Langley of the Dr Hadwen Trust, by her own admission, participated in experiments on cockroaches and rabbits during the period 1971-1974 as an undergraduate?
Is it not true that Gill’s husband, Chris, works, or worked, for Ciba Geigy, the chemical giant that conducts tests on countless animals?
Is it not true that Chris Langley, during his first two years as director of the Vegan Society lost the society over £75,000? (Incidentally, according to Hans Ruesch, author of the book Slaughter of the Innocent, Langley’s husband is also an ex-vivisector.)
Is it not true that Gill Langley has made a number of statements professing her belief in vivisection, despite the thousands of medical opinions against the practice? (Another example: “I do not believe that any advance made in medicine is quite independent of animal experiments.” – Gill Langley in a letter to Norman Gifford.)
Is it not true that the whole point of finding ‘alternatives’ to animal experiments is a fallacious one, in that vivisection - being inherently useless and counterproductive to the point whereby it has possibly made ‘modern medicine’ the principle cause of ill-health today - does not need finding ‘alternatives’ to but rather abolishing outright – the ‘alternatives’ already existing?
Is it not true that many hold the opinion that promoting a need for ‘alternatives’ implies that vivisection is useful, and that it is the opinion of same that those who raise funds to find ‘alternatives’ do so in order to a) keep the myth of vivisection alive, and b) syphon off anti-vivisectionists’ money that should be used to undertake genuine anti-vivisection campaigns?
Of course if you have a ‘detailed response’ to any of this I would love to see it. That this information has been in the public arena for over 20 years (with no response ever being offered) suggests that this is most unlikely.
“To show the extent of the deception Dr Hadwen was a fierce opponent not only of vivisection but of vaccination as well, and he obtained his sensational successes in times of epidemics by adopting strict hygienic measures instead. In praxis Gill Langley hides and contradicts all of Hadwen's theories and activities, but exploits his prestigious name hoping to lure funds into her unsavory begging enterprise.” – Hans Ruesch, CIVIS Foundation Report 3, Autumn 1988.
Read the whole sorry story at:
Steve
More like a religious cult than science or compassion.
01.06.2007 19:40
Of course, ANY criticism of the Great God Ruesch, Father Of Scientific Anti-Vivisectionism and, Founder of the Modern Anti-Vivisection Movement, or his Holy Books is total heresy! Anybody who holds views even remotely at variance with Ruesch's simplistic dogma (a mixture of quasi-science, conspiracy theory and simple ego-tripping posing as "science") is obviously a "supporter of vivisection" and a "paid infiltrator".
Ruesch and his acolytes have spent years trashing anyone in the animal rights and anti-vivisection movements who won't dance to their tune. When Ruesch's allegations have been tested in court, he has been shown to be a liar and forced to pay compensation. In more than a quarter century of libelling committed anti-vivisectionists, he has never produced a SINGLE PIECE of proper, substantiated evidence for his claims: just mixtures of innenuendo, selected quotes taken without regard to context, and personal abuse.
Look at the BAVA website and make up your own mind. What you'll see is an awful lot of bigotry, intolerance and personal abuse aimed at anti-vivisectionists, and precious little science or compassion to animals or people. And some quite appalling sycophancy to Saint Hans, of course. Supporters of vivisection couldn't have hoped for a better friend.
Gregor Samsa
Gregor Samsa
02.06.2007 04:09
Read the evidence for yourself, but one question: is why do some people,clearly lacking the wits they were born with, refuse to lift a finger to make criticism of those whose actions and words are clearly counterproductive in the fight to end vivisection, and whose comments will obviously set the cause back further? Another example: "Many medical breakthroughs have involved animal experiments . . ." Gill Langley (Hadwen Trust/BUAV) - Hastings Observer, 16 July 1983.
Not only is this incorrect, but is it really the job of those supposedly opposed to vivisection to help the vivisection industry by speading speading pro-viv propaganda such as this? And would any anti-vivisectionist really want to support, vocally or financially, such organisations?
Gregor Samsa, why do you support such deliberate falsehood?
Steve
Ruesch's books--medical journal facts...in 'em
02.06.2007 07:14
Ruesch has always been taken to court,mainly,because the legal system(and courts) are mostly always on the side of corporations.Infact Ruesch was sued by Peter Singer--in Italy for "libel",after it was discovered that Singer's tours were sponsored by a drug company corporation--and Ruesch subsequentfully called Singer:"A big phoney".The judge never allowed this vital bit of info--that factfully backed up the "The big phoney" statement--and ordered Ruesch to pay Singer compensation.Are u seeing how the courts operate Gregor? After all an AR activist who does abit of property destruction gets 12yrs but a rapist or pedo gets under 5!
Animal blinder Professor Blakmore,also,loves to "debate" Gill Langley and he has done so a few times.She doesn't challenge his unscientific verbiage and acually endorses it!! What better "opponent" could one ask for? Actually who does the corporate media go to when there's another cruelty expose of a vivisection lab...ermmm its Gill Langley.Case in point,"Countryside undercover"(HLS).And she always makes sure theres an implicit promotion for the "scientificness" of vivisection.Gilly Langley also trashed,while at Animal Aid,an AV book called:Naked empress or the great medical fraud.Calling it:"Full of inaccuracies."
Vegan -Truthist
As 4 Arthritis....Samsa
02.06.2007 23:07
"Arthritis a degenerative disease causing painful inflammation of the joints,and bringing about lesions and destruction of the cartilage".
"Overeating is one of its causes,regular exercise at an early stage of the malady is the only reliable cure we know to date."
My note: this is far more sensible,and safe,advice then taking pharma drugs which don't cure but merely mask the symptoms and cause adverse reactions.My nan took drugs for arthritis and it never ended it but caused more health problems.Exercise,at an early stage,has no adverse reactions like pharma drugs do.
Vegan Truthist
GSK liars
01.07.2007 03:03
phil
e-mail:
exposingpoultryfraud@yahoo.com.au
Homepage:
http://www.epf.org.nz