Animal sentience, categorising crustaceans as animals and rehoming lab animals are all on the table as the Australian code for animal research is scrutinised for the first time in a decade.
More than 845,000 animals – including mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits and primates – are used in laboratories in Australia each year, based on data from Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. An estimated 192 million animals are used globally.
In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council code sets the rules for their use, requiring researchers to minimise animal suffering and ethics committees to weigh harms against benefits before approving research.
Bella Lear, chief executive at Understanding Animal Research Oceania, said there had been major shifts in policy and science since the last major update in 2013 – including breakthroughs due to Covid-19.
Robust policy and clear guidance, including on issues like animal sentience, was needed to “protect animals, and also the people working with those animals”, she said.
She said enshrining the collection of animal numbers and data under the code would also be “very, very valuable”, as Australia had no nationwide statistics.
The RSPCA said recognition of animal sentience, the inclusion of crustaceans – not currently defined as an animal – and greater support for non-animal alternatives were priorities.
Cephalopods were added to the definition of “animal” in the seventh edition of the code, published in 2004, which also includes fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
The RSPCA was also seeking a greater focus on monitoring and enforcement of laboratory animals – including inspections.
“In general, government animal welfare officers only inspect research institutions in response to a cruelty complaint. To our knowledge these are rare, mainly due to research activities being behind closed doors and only being witnessed by those involved and so this creates a conflict of interest.”
The University of Melbourne’s Prof Christine Parker, who specialises in animal welfare law, said there was increasing recognition of animal sentience among scientists and the public, which was reflected by laws in New Zealand, the UK and European countries.
“The care and consideration that we should be giving to animals should be in tune with our changing understanding of their sentience, and therefore how much they suffer and how much their wellbeing and having a good life is important to them.”
Parker said the code relied heavily on self-regulation by researchers and institutions. “There’s no real external enforcement or monitoring and accountability”, an approach that was “out of step with how much Australians care about animals”.
Animal Free Science Advocacy was seeking clear prohibitions on experiments involving primates, and “high harm” procedures that caused severe or prolonged distress, including those replicating violent acts.
They would like to see an end to the use of animals in teaching, particularly in high schools.
Chief executive, Rachel Smith, said the organisation was also seeking more stringent rules for animal care, including a requirement that surgery only be performed by veterinarians – reflecting the standard expected for pet dogs and cats at a vet clinic.
“I don’t think there should be an exception where a researcher or an animal technician [is] able to perform surgery.”
There should also be a greater onus on researchers seeking approval to explain why they are not using available non-animal alternatives, she said.
First published in 1969, the most recent edition of the code dates to 2013, apart from a section added on cosmetic testing in 2021.
The code is adopted under state and territory welfare laws and also covers animals used in teaching, and wildlife, feral animals and livestock in environmental and agricultural studies.
The review is inviting feedback until 16 February, with further consultation on a revised draft code expected in the second half of 2026.
