Markets

Novartis Again Denies Links to Huntingdon Animal Lab; Activists Don't Believe It

By Jim Edwards

Updated on: October 21, 2009 / 11:53 AM EDT / MoneyWatch

Novartis has again denied it uses Huntingdon Life Sciences, the animal-testing contract lab that is the focus of protests that have resulted in the torching of Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella's vacation home and the desecration of his family's grave.

BNET previously noted that although animal rights activists have targeted the company because they believe it conducts grisly live-animal experiments at Huntingdon, Novartis says it does not use the lab. One side in the battle clearly has its facts wrong.

In an attempt to figure out the truth, BNET contacted Novartis, HLS and Win Animal Rights, a group that protests again Novartis and HLS, and which claimed as recently as Oct. 12 that Novartis was an HLS customer.

A Novartis spokesperson said:

It's been years since we last worked with HLS ... it's the truth.

When asked to provide some evidence -- such as a contract termination letter -- the spokesperson said:

There isn't really any evidence I can provide, but Daniel Vasella has said this repeatedly, we haven't worked with them in years ... Ordinarily, when a CEO makes a statement it's not really questioned like this.

So why aren't the activists convinced by the denials? The spokesperson said:

I'm not sure they're not convinced. They're not rational people. They're extremists who have committed terrorist activities.

How many years ago was contact with HLS severed?

I don't think we're discussing an exact year.

Camille Hankins, an activist with Win Animal Rights, told BNET:

I can tell you that I have been protesting at Novartis locations and the homes of Novartis Executives for several years now and they have not, until recently, claimed that they have cut their ties to HLS. We have attempted to communicate with various Novartis executives with no response. Novartis is covered in a temporary restraining order, as an HLS customer, in HLS' civil lawsuit against WAR.

When asked to provide a copy of that suit and the restraining order, Hankins did not respond. BNET also contacted HLS, which also did not respond.

On one hand, Novartis not being able to produce some evidence that the relationship is over is problematic: Activists will no doubt allege that there is no evidence that Novartis doesn't use HLS.

On the other hand, Novartis is being asked to prove a negative: To demonstrate that something does not exist. The qualifier here is that Novartis and Vasella would be colossally stupid to make such specific on-the-record denials if they were false. Making false statements about publicly traded companies (both HLS and Novartis are owned by stockholders) is a good way to get sued by investors.

It's equally troubling that when activists are asked to produce evidence that Novartis uses HLS, they demur.

BNET's take: Until one side or the other can back up their claims with something more specific, it's difficult to conclude either way. The only thing is certain is that one side in this war has got it completely, utterly wrong. It would be nice to know which.

Note readers: BNET would love to hear from you if you have evidence to offer, for future items on this issue. Use the email link below.