Every year in Australia, more than 845,000 animals are used in scientific experiments that often involve high levels of pain, stress, or lasting harm. From dogs and rabbits to pigs, rats, and monkeys, many are subjected to invasive procedures, toxic exposure, and psychological distress. What happens inside these research facilities remains largely hidden, but the suffering is measurable—and for many, inescapable.
Over 845,000 animals are used in Australian research each year.
Lack of Oversight, Lack of National Clarity
Australia has no single, unified reporting system for tracking the use of animals in labs. Data comes from state-level reporting, which is inconsistent, incomplete, and difficult to verify. While some states like New South Wales and Victoria do publish annual figures, others do not. Without a federal register or national database, the full scale of animal use remains unknown.
Animal welfare advocates believe the true number likely reaches into the millions. According to Animal Free Science Advocacy, even when states report numbers, they often fail to include categories like animals bred for research but never used, or those euthanized before any experiment begins.
These animals are often subjected to painful and distressing experiments.
Animals Used in High-Harm Procedures
Within this patchwork system, one thing is clear: a significant portion of animals endure procedures that cause prolonged pain and distress. In some cases, animals are used in forced swim tests or subjected to deliberate infection, trauma, or restraint. These practices, described by the RSPCA, include experiments designed to induce stress or measure pain responses, despite the availability of non-animal alternatives.
Some are confined for months or even years, depending on the nature of the study. For those subjected to toxicity tests or surgical trials, the outcomes often include severe side effects or death, with minimal oversight into post-procedure care or recovery.
Internal Ethics and External Gaps
While the national research code aims to reduce harm and require ethical review, enforcement depends heavily on institutional ethics committees. These panels operate within the same organisations conducting the research, leading to questions about independence and accountability. According to reporting by The Guardian, inspections are often reactive, triggered by complaints rather than proactive audits.
Because there is no external body performing regular, unannounced inspections, it’s difficult to ensure that animals are treated humanely once protocols are approved. The same report also found that some research facilities had no published animal usage data for years, despite carrying out extensive work with live animals.
Australia lacks a national database tracking animal use in labs.
Alternatives Ignored, Progress Slow
Non-animal methods, including human cell cultures, computer models, and organ-on-chip technologies, are increasingly viable. Yet despite their promise, they’re often underfunded and underused. Advocates, including Animals Australia, argue that there is little incentive to shift away from entrenched animal models when no national mandate requires it.
Some experiments conducted on animals today would not meet modern ethical expectations if performed on other sentient beings. The prolonged suffering of research animals occurs not because it is always necessary, but because alternatives remain optional.
Reporting on lab animals varies widely between states.
The Public’s Right to Know
Australians consistently express support for animal welfare, but few are aware of how many animals suffer in labs behind closed doors. According to a survey reported by ANZCCART, the majority of people believe animal use should only continue when there is no other option and when welfare standards are transparent.
Without full public access to national usage data or procedural oversight, it is impossible to know whether that expectation is being met. In many cases, it isn’t.
Click below to make a difference.
