The document discusses the debate around the use of animals in scientific research in Australia. It describes how Charlie, a laboratory mouse, was rehomed by the Research Animal Rehoming Service (RARS) after being used for research. While some argue that animal research is necessary for scientific progress, others like RARS founder Emma Hurst believe it is cruel and advocate rehoming research animals when possible. The piece also examines the principles of replacing, reducing, and refining animal research, as well as alternatives being developed, but that animals are still widely used with millions employed annually in Australia.

1. 8 THE SATURDAY PAPER THESATURDAYPAPER.COM.AUMONTH XX – XX, 2014
Theuseofanimalsforscientificexperiments
isstillcommonplaceinAustralia,butjusthow
effectiveornecessaryisit?ElfyScottreports.
Hazel slips on a pair of thick black ski
gloves before we approach the cage. It’s
not so much a health precaution, I’m
told, as it is for the comfort of the eight-
month-old mouse inside.
Charlie looks and behaves much
like any other albino mouse. If not for the
small piece of ear skin that was apparently
lost while being transported from his
previous home with 42 other male mice,
there is no other evidence to indicate
where Charlie originally came from and
the rather remarkable transition this
small creature has undergone.
Until February this year, Charlie
was a laboratory mouse used for the
purpose of scientific research. But unlike
the approximately six million research
animals used in Australia every year, he
was rehomed by a small Sydney-based
volunteer group known as the Research
Animal Rehoming Service (RARS).
Hazel, a high-school teacher and
animal rights activist, ardently believes
that the use of animals in scientific
research is both outdated and cruel. “I can
see why people think it’s necessary, but I
personally don’t agree with it…” she says.
“I don’t think it’s justified to harm another
being for our benefit, and the overriding
thing with me is that it just doesn’t work.”
Hazel shares these beliefs with
Emma Hurst, the founder and curator of
RARS, who formed the organisation with
the intention of giving healthy animals
from research facilities a chance at life as
a companion animal.
Of course, rehoming animals that
were raised for the express purpose
of scientific research is not without
its complications. Charlie abhors the
touch of human skin due to lack of
socialisation so, for now, the ski gloves are
a prerequisite for handling him.
Since establishing the groundwork
for RARS last year, Hurst has managed
to rehome a small number of guinea pigs
and mice from two research facilities in
NSW. But there are strict legal obligations
that accompany this kind of work: Emma
is not allowed to disclose the names of the
research facilities, where they are located,
or what sort of testing procedures these
animals have undergone.
Generally, people accept the ethical
tradeoff involved in trading animals’ lives
to further human scientific knowledge.
Our compassion for other people
commonly outweighs our concern for
“lesser” species, so when we perceive that
science is sacrificing animals in order
to markedly protect or improve human
lives we are generally satisfied that this is
ethical behaviour.
However, this ethical satisfaction
is necessarily contingent on concepts
that can otherwise be defined as the three
R’s of animal research. In 1959, British
academics Russell and Burch published
The Principles of Humane Experimental
Techniques, in which they defined these
three R’s: the replacement of animals
with non-animal methods where possible,
the reduction of numbers used with
smarter techniques, and the refinement
of practice to minimise suffering. These
principals dictate the use of animals in
scientific research internationally.
They are ultimately emphasised
within the policies and guidelines created
by the Australian Animal Research
Review Panel, as well as within state
legislation. However, opponents of
animal research are quick to argue that
not enough is being done to ensure that
these principles are being instituted.
The sheer number of animals used
in research in Australia every year is
astounding in itself. In 2012, more than
3.5 million animals were used across New
South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania,
according to Humane Research Australia.
The national estimate was put at 6.5
million. Animal research traverses the
scientific disciplines and, while testing
for the cosmetics industry does not take
place on Australian soil, animals are used
across multiple scientific disciplines,
with the larger portion of animals used
in biomedical research. Among those
numbers are mice, rats, rabbits, cats,
dogs, cattle and primates. And while
most of these animals are sourced from
commercial breeders for the specific
purpose of scientific research, it is still
legal to source cats and dogs from pounds
for research and to import primates.
Greens senator Lee Rhiannon
introduced a bill into the senate in 2012
to ban the live importation of primates
for experimentation, but it dropped off
the live bills list during the last election.
The Greens are now working closely with
Humane Research Australia to reintroduce
it amid rumours live marmosets were
imported from France last year.
While all animal research conducted
in Australia must be approved by an ethics
committee, it is argued that the voices
of people with interests in the animal
welfare sector are seldom heard by those
on boards.
I spoke with an animal rights
activist who works between the ethics
committees for a biomedical research
facility on Sydney’s north shore and
for one of Sydney’s universities. As an
individual embroiled in animal rights,
he claims that the other members of the
committee largely eschew him. “There
is part of me that wonders if I’m just
helping prop up a broken, ailing system.”
He reports that a steamrolling of his
Health
andwelfareconcerns very often leads to a committee
stamp of approval on egregious and
unwarranted exercises, such as trauma
training for doctors, of which he does not
necessarily approve on moral grounds.
Animal welfare groups are
concerned that the “publish or perish”
mentality of universities often drives PhD
students to engage in research concerned
with such extraordinarily niche topics that
they fail to contribute meaningfully to
the broader field of science and yet waste
hundreds of animal lives in the process.
Dr Andrew Knight has become
one of the fiercest opponents to animal
research internationally, citing both
practical and ethical pitfalls. Along with
one of his classmates, Knight became
the first student in Western Australia to
qualify as a veterinary surgeon without
killing animals by establishing an
alternative surgical training program that
included the sterilisation of pound dogs.
The program was subsequently adopted
by Sydney University.
In 2011, Knight published The
Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments,
in which he reviewed more than
500 pieces of biomedical research in
scientific publications and asserted that
the physiological disparities between
humans and other animals render a vast
proportion of the research ineffectual for
use in human medicine. Knight stresses
instead that researchers using animal
testing methods “are greatly over-inflating
claims about the possible benefits of their
research in order to compete for funding”
and that, when this research is closely
inspected, “it’s clear that the vast majority
of basic animal research never produces
any tangible benefits”.
Knight advocates for the funding
and development of alternative methods
and claims that while the Australian
government “pays lip-service to the idea”,
not enough is being done to encourage
the replacement of animal research with
non-animal methods. Knight claims that a
mass reduction of the numbers of research
animals used could be achieved by
encouraging private chemical companies
to make existing data about chemical
compounds available in the public domain,
broader use of computer modelling
systems, cell cultures, cDNA microarrays
for genetic testing, and increased safety in
human clinical trials using micro-dosing.
While the contribution of
animal research to the development of
remarkable scientific advances such as
penicillin, vaccinations, anaesthetics,
organ transplants and insulin cannot be
denied, Knight believes it is no longer the
way forward. In order to facilitate change,
he says “we need to speak in the language
of scientists” and that clinical scrutiny
and examination of the empirical data
will lead researchers to stop relying on
animal models.
There is tendency for animal rights
and welfare groups to demonise bodies
of researchers that participate in animal
research – although the effectiveness of
this is questionable. After all, scientists
who dedicate themselves to the
progression of human medicine can hardly
be accused of being devoid of compassion.
In order to incite a cultural change in the
scientific community, gaps must naturally
be bridged between those dedicated to
welfare and those dedicated to research.
Enter Medical Advances Without
Animals. MAWA is based in Canberra
and believes that an open dialogue with
researchers to develop and institute more
widespread use of alternative methods is
better both for animal welfare as well as
scientific advancement. MAWA is not a
lobbying group and does not campaign. It
was established to encourage change from
within the system, providing funding in
the form of scholarships, research and
development grants for researchers
who refrain from using animals or
animal-derived products, as well as
paying for open sourcing of publications.
The organisation is constantly in
communication with scientists and has
established relationships with multiple
Australian universities for this purpose.
Research alternatives remain
expensive, largely inaccessible and very
much on the periphery of scientific
culture, however. For the moment,
Emma Hurst and the Research Animal
Rehoming Service will persevere and
save lives wherever possible, by forming
relationships with more research
institutions to rehouse research animals.
RARS are hoping these agreements expand
into the rehoming of larger animals, such
as dogs and cats. It’s not much, but both
Hazel and Emma are confident that simply
alerting researchers to the possibility of
rehoming the animals is itself beneficial, as
it forces scientists to increasingly consider
the value of each life used. It is possible
that animals such as Charlie – simply by
living – will make scientists more inclined
to seek out ethical alternatives. •
“IT’S CLEAR THAT
THE VAST MAJORITY
OF BASIC ANIMAL
RESEARCH NEVER
PRODUCES ANY
TANGIBLE BENEFITS.”
ELFY SCOTT
is a Sydney-
based freelance
writer and
journalist.