Talk:Animal Procedures Committee

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

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 articles

??? 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 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 articles
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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal Procedures Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208183004/http://www.apc.gov.uk:80/members/interest.htm to http://www.apc.gov.uk/members/interest.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animal Procedures Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]