Why Animal Experimentation Still Exists
Given that the argument against the use of animals in experiments is so strong, why is animal experimentation still happening?
The short answer is that logically, it shouldn't be.
The longer answer is that there are many barriers in place that are preventing progress!
THE BARRIERS
1. Outdated laws and regulations
There are still legal requirements for animal testing in NZ law. These are holding up progress. They leave no room for validated animal-free methods to be used. We are working to change this.
2. Available funding
Central government funding of science amounts to over 1 billion NZD per year, with total sector spending being about 4.5 billion NZD.1 There does not appear to be any government funding exclusively available for replacing the use of animals in science in NZ.
In 2020 alone, the NZ Government spent around 1.2 billion NZD on research and development in several sectors. NZ businesses spent almost double that. We have no way of knowing how much of this went into the use of animals – we did try and obtain this info with no luck! Via additional research we conducted, we were able to estimate that some universities spent between 5 to 14% of their research funds on the use of animals for science. Other universities had administration systems that would make this kind of tracking impossible.2
Foundations, charities and other institutions fund many different types of research. For example, the National Heart Foundation funded research projects with 4.6 million NZD in 2024.3
Dairy NZ regularly funds agricultural research to mitigate emissions, maximise production or minimise fertility issues within the dairy industry. Their last annual report (2023/24) lists research and development costs of 39.7 million NZD.4 There are several other organisations funding agricultural research, including Zoetis NZ, the Livestock Improvement Corporation Ltd and Meat & Wool New Zealand Ltd.
Foundations also fund lots of research, mostly specified for one research field, like the Foundation for Arable Research or the New Zealand Neurological Foundation. More general funding opportunities are given by foundations like the Marsden NHS Foundation Trust or the NZ Foundation of Research Science and Technology. Scholarships are made available by some organisations, like the C Alma Baker Postgraduate Scholarship or the Colin Holmes Dairy Scholarship.
Despite intensive research, we couldn't identify a single funding stream dedicated solely to animal-free research.
The only funding, we could find that mentions replacing the use of animals for science is the Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield Three Rs Award which provides 10,000 NZD every two years for a project that shows “significant commitment to implementing the [3Rs] principles.” This is an award for research that has already been conducted, rather than a fund for researchers to use or develop animal-free research methods. This award is funded by the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and ANZCCART (NZ).5
The Ministry for Primary Industries advised upon our request that funding for replacing the use of animals in science (or reducing and refining their use) is available via the Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures (SFF Futures) fund.6 However, this fund doesn’t mention anything explicit about replacing the use of animals in science. We have collected some international funding opportunities here.
3. How well hidden this industry is
If Kiwis could see what goes on in animal labs, then there would be public outrage. Our society wouldn’t permit it, and animal experimentation would lose its social license. This is why campaigns focusing on public awareness are important, and NZAVS works hard to raise public awareness for this reason!
This lack of transparency and openness also affects researchers. For example, there is no central hub containing all current or past research that has involved animals in NZ. Animal experiments could be repeated all the time and no one would ever know. Information about alternatives and replacement methods isn't shared either. We are also trying to change that, providing resources for researchers to find alternatives, access international funding channels and find like-minded experts and training.
4. Risk-averse policy and decision-makers
Our current laws and regulations aren't up to speed with current scientific knowledge. Decision-makers are hesitant to step away from the status quo and embrace animal-free and human-relevant science. The renowned quote by Grace Hopper explains this well - “the most dangerous phrase in the English language is: We've always done it this way."
This is also why animal-free methods are often required to be validated against animal-based methods before they are accepted by regulators. However, this could make them less accurate.7
5. Money
The animal experimentation industry is a global multi-billion-dollar industry, and there are many stakeholders that benefit. From suppliers of animals (those who breed animals to be used in animal-based research), and suppliers of equipment (such as cages, stereotaxic frames for animal surgery and behaviour testing chambers) to universities, and funders, many people are making a lot of money from this industry. According to Research and Markets, the global animal testing market was valued at over 10 billion USD (~ 16 billion NZD) in 2019 and is continuing to grow.8 These stakeholders want to protect their profit.
Even though the global market for non-animal alternative testing is growing too (and at more than double the rate of animal testing), it was still “only” valued at around 1.1 billion USD (~ 1.7 billion NZD).8 Replacement is happening, but it is slow (due to the many barriers listed on this page).
On an institute level, the initial investment to start Organ-Chip research, for example, is substantial. Meanwhile, their breeding units and animal research equipment are already there and running. The scientists are already familiar with the procedures and the animal caretakers know what to do. All this creates financial pressure to keep the old system going.
6. Misinformed views
Animal experimentation is often perceived as justified – that the death of a few hundred mice is worth it if it’s going to save people. In reality, this choice doesn’t exist. We do not need to choose between the life of a mouse or the life of a human. Not only can we both live but by removing animals from the equation and focusing on human-based research instead, we’ll inevitably be able to increase the chances of helping people in need. This misconception helps maintain the social license of animal experimentation.
This assumption stand regardless of research showing that over 90% of drugs developed with and showing incredible successes in animal models, fail when trialled on humans. Many of these failures are because of toxicities and many because the just don’t have the intended effect. We have more details on our page with examples of the 90% claim, which the animal research industry questions regularly, and explanations exactly how and why animal models are failing.
7. The ease of conducting research on animals
It is easier to publish animal-based papers than human-based ones as generally they take less time, often cost less, and ethics approval is easier to get. New Zealand institutions using animals for research, testing or teaching need approval by an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). These should oversee and guide the researchers and ensure that alternatives are considered. The problem is that the AEC applications forms we see contain one question in the realm of “Why are animal used for this project instead of alternatives?”. And the usual answer we see is that there are no adequate alternatives available and animals are needed in order for the full spectrum of biological function for the project. Something along those lines. The problem here is that these are just statements. They don’t require any proof, applicants don’t need to present the research they did into alternatives to make sure there really is nothing they could use instead of live animals.
Additionally, applications for ethics approval usually happen after project planning and funding stages.This means that if the funder already signed off on using animals,that is what the scientists will have to use, unless they want to start to whole planning process over again.
There is no law requiring an AEC to be knowledgeable about non-animal methods, and no need for anyone to check if this kind of project has been done before, making it redundant. AECs are also not required to watch footage of the animal use they are approving, which, we guess, would make some of the high impact studies we have been over the years less likely.
8. Publish-or-perish
Sadly, many scientific journals and funders of research encourage (or require) animal use in research.9 This makes funding and publishing animal-free research harder. Publishing papers can enhance the academic prestige and influence of the researcher. And while they do not earn money directly from it (the journals do through their subscriptions), the researcher risks to loose funding or a desired promotion if they don’t publish often enough. This is called the “publish-or-perish” paradigm,10 which can lead to research for publication rather than for scientific advancement.
9. Developing animal-free methods isn’t a priority
Members of the animal science and research community don't have many incentives driving them toward animal-free research. Available funding is a huge problem (mentioned above), and the absence of a unified direction is another — there is no overarching strategy to replace the use of animals in science wherever possible. So members of this community have nothing to look to for guidance.
This point is interlinked with all the above points. With the amounts of money to be earned in the animal research market, laws still requiring it, the ease and often incentive to use animals, it is not surprising that the eagerness of scientists currently using animals to move away from the concept is low.
THE GOOD NEWS
This is changing. Slowly.
Some journals acknowledge the validity of animal-free research, and there are even journals specialising in new methods. Researchers become more open to changing with animal-free methods outperforming animal experimentation.
There are more funding opportunities specifically aimed to enhance animal-fee research worldwide.
There is hope for a better future — we created our Bright Future Report, outlining some of the exciting new technologies and possibilities in science that leave the animals alone while creating equal or better results.
