Australian Regulation of Animal Use in Science and Education: A Critical Appraisal

Animal Models in Forensic Science Research: Justified Use or Ethical Exploitation?

A moral dilemma exists in biomedical research relating to the use of animal or human tissue when conducting scientific research. In human ethics, researchers need to justify why the use of humans is necessary should suitable models exist. Conversely, in animal ethics, a researcher must justify why research cannot be carried out on suitable alternatives. In the case of medical procedures or therapeutics testing, the use of animal models is often justified. However, in forensic research, the justification may be less evident, particularly when research involves the infliction of trauma on living animals. To determine how the forensic science community is dealing with this dilemma, a review of literature within major forensic science journals was conducted. The frequency and trends of the use of animals in forensic science research was investigated for the period 1 January 2012-31 December 2016. The review revealed 204 original articles utilizing 5050 animals in various forms as analogues for human tissue. The most common specimens utilized were various species of rats (35.3%), pigs (29.3%), mice (17.7%), and rabbits (8.2%) although different specimens were favored in different study themes. The majority of studies (58%) were conducted on post-mortem specimens. It is, however, evident that more needs to be done to uphold the basic ethical principles of reduction, refinement and replacement in the use of animals for research purposes.

Exploring the Use of Alternatives to Animals in Undergraduate Education in Australia

The replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use in education is part of the regulatory legislation in Australia, and requires the use of alternatives to animals where appropriate. The aims of this study were: a) to explore the extent of the replacement of animals when teaching life sciences to Australian undergraduate students; b) to understand which alternative models were being used, and the learning objectives covered; and c) to gain some insight into the circumstances facilitating the use of alternatives to animals in education. An anonymous online survey, consisting of open and closed questions, was conducted among faculty members that used either animal or alternative models in their teaching. A total of 27 faculty members participated, from eight universities. Human anatomy and physiology had the highest number of survey participants who had replaced animals entirely with alternative models. These subjects also had the highest number of participants that were using animal models. According to the participants, most learning objectives were met effectively by both types of model. Participants who only used alternatives were influenced by ethical considerations significantly more than those who used animal models and alternatives. We concluded that, while some participants have replaced animals successfully, others in the same field are still employing them, and that there appears to be a range of barriers to the wider adoption of alternatives to animal use.