Huntingdon Life Sciences postpones listing on the Stock Exchange at the NYSE's request

There is a story on the front page of the Thursday, September 8 Financial Times, UK and US editions, headed in the UK, "Animal test group postpones US listing." (Also in the Guardian, and on NPR, see below.)

It opens:
"Huntingdon Life Sciences, the medical research company, said it had postponed its listing on the New York Stock Exchange at the NYSE's request because of potential protests from animal rights activists.

"Shares in Life Sciences Research, the US parent company formed solely to buy the troubled HLS in 2001, were due to start trading yesterday. But LSR said the move was postponed at the request of the exchange. The NYSE had not responded to calls at the time of publication yesterday.

"HLS moved its headquarters to the US after a long campaign by animal rights activists in the UK, who objected to the company's use of animals in testing."

(For more details on the use and objections, see below.)

It tells us, "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, the most prominent British group that campaigns against HLS, has targeted suppliers and other companies connected to HLS" and mentions the SHAC 7, who are awaiting retrial after being accused of conspiring to commit "animal enterprise terrorism".

The first few paragraphs are on line at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bbe094ae-2006-11da-853a-00000e2511c8.html
Only subscribers can read the full article on line. You can get a free 15 day trial subscription. However the Financial Times article on the topic was brief -- not worth subscribing for, even for free.

The September 8 Guardian (UK) had a more detailed story headed, "Huntingdon delays listing after attacks." We learn that "The parent company, Life Sciences Research, was due to upgrade its listing to the NYSE yesterday but was asked by the exchange to delay the move. The exchange offered no explanation and refused to comment on the request."

About HLS, we read:
"Huntingdon was forced from the UK market in 2002 after a vigorous campaign by animal rights extremists during which bombs were planted in the cars of people loosely associated with the firm. US investors bought the company and it has since been listed on the junior OTC market in the US. It continues to conduct research....Huntingdon shot to fame in the late 1990s when activists recorded undercover film of mistreated animals."

You can read the full Guardian article on line at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1565018,00.html

The "mistreatment of animals" to which it refers can be viewed on the http://www.SHAC.net website. You'll find footage of a scientist yelling profanities at a beagle puppy and punching him in the face, and a primate conscious on an operating lifting her head with her chest cut wide open.

The place of militant action is hotly debated within the animal protection movement. But most people agree that there is no place for horrendous cruelty visited upon animals in laboratories for often trivial purposes. Regardless of how we feel about the manner in which the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty or SHAC campaign is conducted, this story gives us the opportunity to discuss the appalling status quo of the biomedical testing system. Interestingly, the Guardian has published too strong letters today questioning the role of animal testing. A great site for more information on that issue is http://www.CureDisease.com. And I will paste today's letters below:

The Guardian (London), September 8, 2005

Research and destroy:

Vioxx was tested on animals, so was Thalidomide (What have guinea pigs ever done for us? September 1). Why does Vivienne Parry ignore this when she assumes successful drugs work because they were tested on animals? The tests are invalid because animals have very different anatomies, physiologies and metabolisms to humans.

Martin Hunt
Pontllyfni, Gwynedd

Penicillin was delayed a decade by misleading rabbit tests - and would have been shelved forever, had it been tested on guinea pigs, which it kills. Kidney transplants were performed sucessfully in humans before success was achieved in animals. Cyclosporin revolutionised transplantation, though it was almost abandoned due to animal tests. Tamoxifen showed success in human breast cancer patients before it was ever tested in animals. It causes cancer in rats. Tamoxifen, like all medicines, came to market despite not because of animal tests.

Kathy Archibald
Europeans for Medical Progress

(END OF GUARDIAN LETTERS)

One doesn't have to know details such as in the letters above to write a short effective letter. A look at the SHAC footage, and the knowledge that the UK and US governments have propped up rather than closed down HLS, will probably be enough to inspire you.

The Financial Times takes letters at letters.editor [at] ft.com
The Guardian takes letters at letters [at] guardian.co.uk

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Finally, NPR's 'Day to Day' covered the issue. (I send thanks to Ken Guttman for pointing us to that story.) The coverage was balanced, though Stephen Beard from the Marketplace London Bureau said that Huntingdon Life Sciences is "in some quarters a very unpopular company because it uses live animals in some of its testing." The situation is considerably more complex than that. And Beard oddly described the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign as an "animal welfare group." You can listen to the story on line at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837503

Day to Day takes comments at http://www.npr.org/contact/ -- Select "Day to Day" from the program pull-down menu.


(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)