Transcript
Di: Just the mere active housing animals in a laboratory environment has negative welfare impacts. So whatever happens to these animals as part of a study adds to this stress and suffering.
Brian: Hello and welcome to RSPCA Australia's Great and Small Talk, where we discuss the pressing welfare issues animals face in Australia. I'm Brian Daly, and today I'm joined by veterinarian and Senior Scientific Officer at RSPCA Australia, Dr Di Evans, to discuss the plight of animals used in research. Di, welcome back to the podcast.
Di: Thanks, Brian. It's great to be here.
Brian: Every day across Australia, millions of animals are used in research and many people may not realise the breadth and scope of animal use occurring for research purposes. Di, can you tell us the species of animals used and what purposes they're used for?
Di: There's many different species of animals used for research purposes, with the most common being mice, rats, and many people may not be aware that, in fact, huge numbers of fish are also used, but the other species include rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, horses, farm animals and monkeys. And these different species are used for a whole range of different purposes, including things like basic research, where this will involve trying to understand better how the animal body responds to stress or disease, or there may be particular types of rodents that are developed, and this is mainly where genetic manipulation comes in, and this is to mimic some human diseases for researchers to study. But in addition to research associated with human diseases, of course, animals are used to study animal diseases and for the development of medicines, including things like vaccines. But if we look at farm animals such as sheep, pigs and cattle, in general, most of these studies aim to improve production, and this might involve assessing different types of feed or improving management. And in the case of wild animals, the main focus is generally on conservation of endangered species. So there's many different reasons for using animals, but one of the major problems in Australia is that we don't know exactly how many animals are used and for what specific purpose. And this needs to change. One thing's for certain, and that is that the research sector must be more transparent and accountable.
Brian: There's obviously a range of welfare impacts for animals involved in this research. Are some methods or areas of research more harmful than others?
Di: Firstly, can I just say, as someone who's had various roles in overseeing the welfare of animals used in research over many years that just the mere active housing animals in a laboratory environment has negative welfare impacts. So whatever happens to these animals as part of a study adds to this stress and suffering, and this is why it's so important to replace the use of animals with alternative methods. But just to provide a bit more detail on some of these specific welfare risks, firstly, being housed in small, barren cages where there is little opportunity to perform natural behaviours which are important for physical and mental wellbeing, and this includes just being able to exercise freely at will, also being housed separately from compatible animal companions. This can be for many valid reasons, including preventing fighting or disease transfer. But laboratory animals are sometimes housed individually, purely just to enable data to be collected, and whilst it's important to ensure that research data is reliable and reproducible, this can come at the expense of the ability to meet the physical and mental needs of animals being used. But of course, we have to remember that housing animals in pairs or groups can only be done safely, and this involves taking into account species specific and individual requirements. Another welfare risk is just being handled frequently for various procedures, and this might include injections or collection of blood or tissue samples, which are both stressful and painful. But in terms of high impact procedures, there's quite a few that have received considerable recent media attention. For example, mice being subjected to the forced swim test, and this particular test has been used to recreate depression in humans. But given that depression in humans is a very complex condition, the validity of this test has been increasingly challenged. Basically, this test involves putting a rodent into a transparent cylinder of water where they're unable to stand and so they're forced to swim and/or attempt to climb up the walls of the cylinder for a period of time before basically giving up and becoming immobile, and as you can imagine, being subjected to this causes considerable panic and stress. The other one is the smoke inhalation procedure, and that involves mice being repeatedly exposed to smoke, many cases, cigarette smoke, and this is done either through a cone over their nose, known as cone only, or within a cage, and that's known as whole body. And this can range from the smoke exposure from several minutes for several hours on a daily basis, and can be for several months. And the reason for this is to induce lung disease. Obviously, this is going to cause significant stress, pain and suffering, but there is some light on the horizon with the New South Wales Government prohibiting the forced swim test and cone only smoke inhalation procedures. The other step in the right direction is that the National Health and Medical Research Council has also issued guidance to significantly limit these procedures, including where Council funding is provided. And these are really important changes, and the RSPCA hopes that other jurisdictions and funding bodies will do the same. But we mustn't forget that there are other procedures which should be recognised as being not acceptable as part of research studies, such as brain interventions, physical trauma, including burn studies and projects involving causing disease.
Brian: So there are laws and standards, and as you say, they are developing ... to dive into that a bit more, how is the industry regulated?
Di: So every state and territory have their own laws which spell out specific requirements for the use of animals in research and teaching. And the core aspect of this includes a national code of practice, which is mandated under animal welfare legislation, and this is commonly referred to as the scientific code. So this code requires that any institution using animals for research and teaching must have activities approved by a properly appointed animal ethics committee. Now most people wouldn't know about these committees, and although they play a really important role, there are many aspects which need to be improved to ensure research animals are managed and used in a manner which avoids pain and suffering. But in terms of cross checks and balances, it is a requirement of the scientific code for an independent external review of the operations of animal-based research. And in some states and territories, there's also a separate audit when licences are issued by the regulator for these institutions. But there is a problem, and in some jurisdictions, an inspector authorised under animal welfare legislation can only carry out an investigation in response to a cruelty report, so in effect, there are very few investigations. On the other hand, unannounced inspections by the regulator to check compliance with the scientific code would help to increase public confidence that there is appropriate oversight and actions being taken to safeguard the welfare of animals being used for research.
Brian: You've listed a few very harrowing scenarios of what these animals go through. What are the most serious welfare issues that need addressing by the research industry?
Di: Firstly, if I digress just a little bit, there's a set of principles that are well recognised by the research sector and relevant stakeholders, and these are known as the "three Rs": replacement, reduction and refinement. They're all important to improve welfare outcomes for animals, but obviously the most important one is replacement, and put simply, by not using animals at all, this avoids all the pain and suffering. And although there's been some progress made in terms of refining procedures to help reduce pain and suffering, there's still a long way to go in the pain management side of things. But if we look at the most serious welfare issues, the RSPCA believes that more needs to be done to discontinue using those highly invasive procedures that I've just mentioned. Another important issue is to stop the over breeding of animals, because we know that many are not used, but instead suffer through being retained in small, barren cages for what can be quite extended periods only then to be killed. And this is not just a welfare issue, it's an ethical issue. And finally, to see studies that involve inducing disease or administration of a poison, or if these really have to be carried out, then total pain relief must be provided to help prevent suffering. But pain isn't the only issue here. There will be suffering for other causes. For example, animals might feel nauseous, they might feel breathless, or experience fear and anxiety. In these types of studies, these negative impacts are very significant, and because they're difficult to prevent, more and more questions are being asked as to the justification for subjecting animals to such suffering.
Brian: It sounds like a harrowing experience for these animals, but what happens to the majority of animals once they are no longer needed?
Di: Yes, so this is a big concern, as the vast majority are humanely killed, and this could be for different reasons. So such as you know they need to collect samples at the end of the study, or they're no longer needed once the study finishes, or they're being bred in surplus. So one positive is that in New South Wales, a recent law was passed requiring the rehoming of cats and dogs used in research after a maximum of three years, although we are concerned that a request can be made by the researcher to extend their use. But it is important to note that the rehoming of research animals is receiving considerable attention, and this is likely to increase in the future. And I think the other part of this is that where there's more questioning of researchers about the fate of animals that are being used, this will put more pressure on them reducing the numbers being used, and also looking for non-animal alternatives. So there will be some other benefits, not just for those animals being used, but I think it will help you know, overall.
Brian: Why is there such a reliance on animals for research purposes?
Di: So a lot of this relates to researchers following previous work that's involving the use of animals so that they can make comparisons or they want to explore further aspects of a particular study. Another reason is the legal requirement for animal testing of medicines to receive registration for approval to use. This mainly relates to safety aspects and can be for either humans or animals. This area is a huge concern, as worldwide, it involves millions of animals. But what is encouraging is that we are starting to see some countries change this requirement for certain products, and this is coinciding with the development of non-animal methods for testing. So we do have a little bit of positive things happening.
Brian: So there is some progression within the sector towards better practices?
Di: We are seeing some progress, but it's slow, and more needs to be done. It is disappointing, especially when there's so many opportunities to make meaningful improvements which could significantly improve animal welfare. Some changes have occurred subsequent to parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales a couple of years ago, including the prohibition of things like the force swim test, as mentioned previously. But another example is a recent initiative introduced by the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching. And this is called the Australian Animal Research Openness Agreement, and it's a positive step in encouraging transparency and accountability. So far, a number of universities have signed up to the agreement, but many haven't, and this is disappointing, but we're seeing more join as signatories each year, so it is moving in the right direction. Also this council is involved in the development of a national system for collating and publishing data on animals used in research. You know, animal advocacy groups, including the RSPCA, have been calling for this for years, and we know that government agencies in New South Wales and Tasmania published some statistics, but they're in the minority. And this has to change, because Australia is actually lagging in relation to publication of national use statistics when compared internationally. At the moment, there's no mandatory requirement for the number, species, types of interventions carried out, and the outcomes for animals to be reported, particularly those used in research by institutions either on a state or territory level, or as national figures, and releasing these statistics would be a really important start. But in the long term, it would also be good to see individual project summaries openly published, which describe how animals are used in projects, as well as the results from these studies, and this would help provide greater transparency and accountability on how and why animals are used to the general community. Another step in the right direction is the development and implementation of training programmes, mainly for animal technicians and carers. But again, more needs to be done, but I'll mention a couple of other issues that need to be addressed and haven't the first one is the development and regulation of mandatory species-specific animal welfare standards for the housing, for the care, for the breeding, for supply and transport of animals used for research and teaching, this would mean that you would have specific standards for all of those species I mentioned, and because they do have different needs, both physical and mental. The other important one is the use of non-human primates. And in Australia, rhesus monkeys are the main species used in that category. And this is really important because it's very difficult to meet their physical and psychological needs. And it is very disappointing that we have not seen a commitment by government or the research community to phase out the use of non-human primates in research in Australia, and where RSPCA continues to advocate for this.
Brian: And recently, on that point in the US, I've noticed there's been raids on using beagles for testing. And the US FDA has announced a new roadmap to reduce and replace animal testing in drug development and regulation, as you mentioned. So there are obviously alternatives to using animals, and how available and/or viable are these alternatives?
Di: So firstly, the RSPCA strongly supports the development and use of non-animal methods in research, testing and teaching. And the good news is that there are many existing and emerging technologies that can replace the use of animals, and these include things like human cell and tissue culture, biological organisms, you might have yeasts or other organisms, models, so inanimate models, human volunteers, video and computer aids and mathematical modelling as well. But the thing is that each one of these only have specific applications. It's not like a one size fits all, and they also have some restrictions. But fortunately, we are seeing some progress in Australia, but it's piecemeal, it's slow and it is limited. For example, some universities are funding projects to develop non-animal methods, and in a couple of jurisdictions, organoid hubs have been established. Now, these involve the use of human cells and tissues from different body organs to study disease progression as well as effectiveness of treatment. And of course, this is instead of using live animals, and to date, the most common tissues being used for organoids are skin, lung and liver. This has been expanding all the time and being enhanced technology, which is great.
Brian: What's holding back the adoption of these alternatives?
Di: Look probably the biggest barrier is lack of specific funding being available. The knock on effect is that this can lead to a lack of confidence from the academic community to transition to new technology, where their research has been based on animal methods. So they want to have validation of these methods. They want to have other studies, comparable studies, and so on. It's a sort of road test at all, and you can't do that without funding. So really specific funding would be a considerable driver to change and promote the validation of these and in many cases, to replace these animal models, which are in many cases less accurate and really do have limited translatability to human conditions.
Brian: That's the discussion that's been going on for many years now ... it's high time that that investment was made in alternate methods.
Di: Yeah, look in the USA, UK and Europe, the uptake of the "three Rs" that I mentioned earlier, replacement, reduction and refinement that has been increased through the the establishment of what they've been what they call three R centres, and they are there purely to promote and support the three Rs. So the RSPCA has advocated over many years for a similar establishment and with a particular focus on non-animal alternatives in Australia. And the reason why is that this could contribute greatly to replacing the use of animals in research, thus achieving significant gains in improving animal welfare, but it would also attract international recognition for Australia's work to implement the three Rs. At the moment, it's it's a huge gap. A really important step in relation to this was a report that was released by the CSIRO a couple of years ago, and that identified a heap of opportunities for Australia to enhance capacity, to develop non-animal models. And it's not just about the animals here. It's about investment, and it's about return on investment. And so you know, if we had the capacity to develop new and better non-animal methods, we can export that to the rest of the world. So it's actually got so much exciting potential. So you know, really, now's the time for the research sector and government, both federal and state, to commit to investing, to establishing a three R centre to promote national leadership and coordination on this area.
Brian: So that's the future, and that's where we need to get to. But how today, can people avoid using products that are tested on animals?
Di: Yeah, look, this is a really important question, and one that's being asked more and more, which is good because it needs to be asked. But unfortunately, there's no simple solution to avoid animal testing, but there are some things that we can do to help reduce the amount of testing that's carried out, such as avoiding buying, and I've put this in inverted commas, "new improved formulations", and checking labels to see if a company makes claims about animal testing and what the claims might mean. And in this regard, there's three important criteria for an effective cruelty-free testing policy that these companies should be adopting. Firstly, the company manufacturing the product doesn't originate or endorse or finance any form of testing on animals, and that includes testing by the company themselves or through contractors at any stage of that product development, production or even marketing. Secondly, the product must not contain ingredients tested on animals by or on behalf of the company after a fixed cut off date, and this means that the company uses only established ingredients which need no further animal testing. We can't change what's happened in the past. That's happened, but what we need to look forward, we need to look at the present, and avoid further animals being used in this way. The other thing that the company can do is to have a policy which includes a commitment to take reasonable steps to achieve a reduction in or eventual ending of animal use in regulatory testing and product development, and part of that is funding research into non-animal alternatives to animal testing in a way to help achieve this. So if you look at cosmetics, because that has been quite a strong focus, the Australian industry is competitive and responsive to customers, and there is plenty of choice in the market for consumers who want to go cruelty-free and buy products that have been ethically produced. So currently, most cosmetic products sold in Australia will contain ingredients that have at some point in time been tested on animals. In another country, we recommend that consumers who wish to avoid purchasing products containing ingredients that have been tested on animals should only purchase products with the claim "not tested on animals" and avoid products with claims such as "we have not tested this on animals" or "not tested out on animals by us". So just look for that not you know, it's very simple statement. It's got four words, "not tested on animals". And look to be certain, the best thing is to look for the bunny logo of the established certification body Cruelty Free International. And as their products with the logo have been independently assessed, so they're they've been a great watchdog in this space.
Brian: Well, thanks for the insights today, Di, it's to be honest, it really disturbs me thinking of what these animals go through in the name of research. But as discussed, you know, the advances in technologies we're seeing, let's hope that we do swiftly adopt these new methods of testing without animals, so these sentient creatures can, once again, be allowed to live out their lives as nature intended. Thanks again for your time.
Di: Thanks, Brian.
Brian: We've been talking today with Dr Di Evans, veterinarian and Senior Scientific Officer at RSPCA Australia. If you would like any more information on animals used in research, you can visit the RSPCA website at rspca.org.au. You can also subscribe to the podcast series at the website, or all the usual podcast suspects. I'm Brian Daly, and I look forward to your company next time on RSPCA Australia's Great and Small Talk.
