A global shift in scientific and medical research is underway, with countries looking to phase out animal testing, but Australia risks being left behind.
The shift from the use of animals to alternative methods based on human cells, tissues, and data is driving multibillion-dollar growth in new technologies and techniques. But industry leaders and stakeholders warn Australia will miss out on these opportunities due to lack of funding, opaque record-keeping and national inconsistencies.
An estimated 192 million mice, rats, fish and other animals are used in research worldwide each year, and many countries in Europe and North America aim to reduce and phase them out. The picture of Australia is gray and hazy.
Unlike comparable countries, Australia does not have a national center or dedicated funding to replace animal testing, despite the recommendations of the 1989 Senate Inquiry, the 2022 NSW Inquiry, and the 2023 CSIRO Strategy. There are no national statistics on animal use.
Bella Lea, CEO of Understanding Animal Research Oceania, says people don’t know how many animals and what types of animals are used in research in Australia. “It’s an insane situation,” he said.
If passed, the US bill would require the Food and Drug Administration to support drug development methods that replace or reduce the use of animals. Similarly, the European Union wants to replace animals in research and eliminate their use in chemical safety testing.
Canada recently passed legislation to reduce chemical testing on animals, and the UK has pledged to phase out animal testing.
We have no idea about Australia’s national animal numbers Dr. Malcolm France
These measures are promoting the growth of “non-animal” technologies. According to CSIRO, the value of two major human cell-based models, organoids and organs-on-a-chip, is estimated to be valued at $1.7 billion in 2022 and reach $42.4 billion by 2040. .
Animal Free Science Advocacy opposes the harmful use of animals in science and says Australia needs better coordination nationally.
“In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the scientific, economic and ethical benefits of using non-animal approaches in preclinical research,” said CEO Rachel Smith.
The group said Australia lacks a central body supporting alternatives to animal testing and has no specific funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council or the Medical Research Future Fund to develop and test these approaches. It is said to be one of the few OECD countries that does not.
In addition to policy drivers, scientific and cost benefits, there are also ethical reasons for adopting non-animal techniques and methods, Smith said, including the desire to avoid unnecessary harm to laboratory animals. He said it reflected the aspirations of the people.
Even those promoting the benefits of animal research agree that Australia needs a more consistent approach to the issue, including national statistics.
Lear says a lack of data is a big problem.
“If you don’t know how many animals you’re talking about and which animals you’re talking about, it’s going to be very difficult to regulate nationally,” she says.
She explains that there are four main uses for animals. These include scientific understanding of biology; developing and testing new drugs, training surgeons and veterinarians; A model for studying disease. Chemical and environmental testing.
She says animal replacement is important but not always achievable. Improving animal welfare and reducing the overall number of animals used is equally important, she says.
Dr. Malcolm France, a veterinarian who has worked in animal research, says more transparency is needed. He said all states and territories except South Australia collect data on the use of animals in research, but only New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania publish the data. The problem is that the data cannot be aggregated because the formats are different.
“We have no idea about Australia’s national animal numbers,” he says. France is trying to address this problem by developing a national statistical option with the Australia New Zealand Research and Education Animal Welfare Council.
He said that in addition to public expectations for transparency in industries that use animals, Australia has “intentions” on policy and funding related to animal research, including measures to replace, reduce and improve the use of animals. “There is a lack of an informed basis for decisions,” he said.
Greg Williams, future director of health and biosecurity at CSIRO, said “non-animal models” based on human cells, tissues and data are increasingly being used around the world as an alternative to animal testing in drug development. He says there is. He says the alternatives offer quality, time and cost benefits. “There’s a lot to gain.”
The CSIRO Strategy proposes actions over the next five years to help Australia seize opportunities. Recommendations include national consortia to foster new technologies and methods, national standardized data on animal use, and shared infrastructure such as biobanking and tissue collection.
A spokesperson for the Therapeutic Goods Administration said there is nothing in the regulatory framework that mandates the use of animals or prohibits the use of alternative models.
Mr Williams said a concrete example of progress at the state level was the $4.5 million Non-Animal Technology Network in New South Wales, which aims to foster alternative technologies and methods through better infrastructure, regulation and research. He said it was aimed at He says this is a “great initiative” that will hopefully lay the groundwork for similar initiatives across the country.
Dr Shafagh Waters, a biomedical scientist at UNSW, is a participant in the NSW network. Her research is developing miniature organs known as organoids, a type of three-dimensional tissue culture based on human stem cells, to test treatments for cystic fibrosis patients.
Researchers collect biopsies from patients’ noses, lungs, and intestines and use them to create miniature versions of each organ. Testing treatments on these mini-organs can help patients avoid “gambling” whether a new drug will work or have side effects, she says.
Mr Waters said eight universities and medical research institutes were working together rather than in competition under the NSW initiative. She hopes this network model will be adopted by other states and become the basis for an Australia-wide approach.
Waters says organoids have ethical and technical advantages in his field of research. “I’m not a mouse and I’m not a monkey,” she says. “When you test a drug on animals and then take it to human clinical trials, you see a lot of drugs fail.”
This article was produced with the support of a travel grant from the Australian Society of Science Journalists.
