Talk:Covance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Humans

This article doesn't even mention they conduct testing with human volunteers. Any information on that?

[edit] Neutrality

FYI: POV tag was added by User:Idleguy saying not neutral. caveat: I'm not a fan of any corporation nor do I like animal torture. but this article is more on their torture and less on the company!

I basically agree that it could have more info on the company. However the company does get publicity mostly through its scandals, keeping low profile otherwise. Therefore I do not think that the weighting is that wrong. Maybe someone could find some more info on the company profile. -- Ravn 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I removed it because we don't allow drive-by tagging. Editors who want to tag it have to say here what needs to be changed exactly, and the changes have to be consistent with our policies. Anyone who thinks it needs more information on the company should simply add some. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you really think that the weighting of an article should be determined by a company's "publicity"? Is that what an encyclopedia is about? --Wikismile 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to "Criticisms of Covance". It is extremely unbalanced. --Wikismile 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article could present a more balanced picture of Covance. I'm going to do some research and either update the article tonight or later in the week (whenever I get the time). I think Covance just released a new annual report, so some of the company stats can probably be updated too. If anyone has info on Covance's response to the various allegations, jump on in. -- Orcar967 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added my changes. Be gentle. Hopefully the new edits will bring the balance everyone's been talking about. -- Orcar967 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality in Vienna, Virginia case

I added a neutrality tag to this section. All of the cited information seems to be coming from the animal rights group, PETA. Not trying to insult PETA here, but they are prone to sensationalism and simply can't be considered an independent and reliable source on this issue. We at least need some opposing comments to balance the article. As Gary asked (below), do we have any referenced info from Covance on this subject? Actually, I think that statements from an independent and relevant organization like the USDA would be preferable. I'll do some Google work and see what I can come up with. Jay†Litman 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited information is coming from the former Covance study director, not PETA. By all means add Covance's response if you can find one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I removed the tag because you've not said anything else about this, or found more references. How would you like to proceed? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did find some referenced material containing Covance's responses. However, I had been waiting for a response from the USDA's FOI office regarding animal welfare inspections at the Vienna location. The inspection reports are available but would run anywhere from $25-$99. I'm not about to drop that much cash for a wiki article, so we'll have to settle for Covance's responses. :) I'll try to work those into the article when I have some free time. Jay†Litman 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covance's reaction

Has Covance issued any statements in defense? It seems like such a large company should say something about all these allegations. Is there any more information about the lawsuit? Gary 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sentences

I have an issue with the wording of the following two sentences in the lead:

"Under the name Covance Research Products Inc. (CRP) based in Denver, Pennsylvania, the company also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals for clinical testing as required in the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s drug approval process and by other regulatory agencies."

This makes it sound like Covance imports and sells animals because they are required to by the FDA. That simply isn't true - they import and sell animals because their clients pay them to.

"It owns two dog-breeding facilities, two primate centers, and a rabbit-breeding facility as it is the federally-mandated practice for companies to test drugs in two species (one rodent, one non-rodent) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of new medicines."

Again, Covance does not own the facilities because of mandated drug testing. It owns them because their clients are required to test their drugs on two species, and therefore the clients pay Covance to do the testing. It's almost like a corporate PR person is trying to put a spin on the article to make it sound like this is not a purely commercial enterprise.

I propose removing the phrases "...as required in the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s drug approval process and by other regulatory agencies." and "...as it is the federally-mandated practice for companies to test drugs in two species (one rodent, one non-rodent) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of new medicines." respectively. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess no one cares. I will remove the phrases. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Spike. They were violations of WP:SYNT. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of neutrality

While I'm new at this, I'm struck by the fact that negative information greatly outweighs any positive or neutral information. It reads as if it was written for PETA propaganda or something. While that's hardly the fault of the initial posters since negative information is much easier to come by, I think the article would certainly benefit from more balanced information. Would anyone take issue with more general company information being added? --Bejshepherd 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead, Bej, and thanks for offering to do it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried fleshing out the article previously but goofed it up. I didn't realize some of my edits were violations of WP:SYNT. Here are some links I found in my research that provide more general info on what the company does and their history that may help things out:

[edit] Sources

Parkeak, where does the source you're using say: "Covance's animal testing programs and facilities are AAALAC-accredited, ISO 9001:2000 registered, OLAW-assured, and USDA research registered. "About CRP" SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, cancel that. I was looking at the wrong link. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)