Animal Testing: Unethical, Unjustifiable, and Endlessly Repeated

A study that strangled rats to simulate domestic violence injuries should never have been approved. But it was. Just like countless other experiments where animals are used as disposable tools, despite the existence of superior, human-relevant alternatives.

Strangling Rats in the Name of Science

An Australian-led study subjected adolescent female rats to 90 seconds of non-fatal strangulation using a silicon band weighed down by 680g - three times their body weight. Others were subjected to traumatic brain injuries inflicted by a high-speed projectile to the head. Some endured both. Anaesthetic was given before the procedures, but painkillers only after. If that sounds barbaric, it’s because it is.

The rats were then subjected to a series of tests, forced to walk and perform memory tasks just minutes after their injuries. And then, predictably, they were killed.

The study, backed by Monash University and Alfred Health, aimed to improve detection of brain injuries in survivors of intimate partner violence. The justification? The supposed lack of a human-relevant alternative. The reality? The biomarkers of brain trauma are already established in humans, making these animal-based replications redundant.

Despite securing $1.9 million in funding from the Australian government, the study’s ethics approval process remains opaque. No documents were made public. No explanation was given for why this research was necessary when we already have clinical trials, neuroimaging, computational models, and organoid studies that do not involve suffocating rats in the name of progress.

The Deep-Rooted Issue: Speciesism and Power

Why does this continue? Because animal testing is rooted in speciesism - the belief that humans are entitled to exploit other animals for their own ends.

Research shows that men are more likely to support animal experimentation than women, a trend that dates back to the 19th century when anti-vivisection movements began. The reason? Lower empathy, a higher tendency for social dominance, and an ingrained belief in human superiority over other species. Men, statistically speaking, are more likely to engage in other forms of animal exploitation too - eating animal flesh, hunting, supporting bullfighting. Animal testing is just another manifestation of the same mindset that views animals as resources rather than individuals.

A recent study of over 1,000 participants confirmed what other research has long shown: the more empathetic a person is, the less likely they are to support animal experimentation. The more they subscribe to the idea that humans have the right to dominate others, the more likely they are to endorse it.

And yet, despite overwhelming evidence that animal testing is ineffective and unnecessary, it persists - largely defended by those who stand to gain from maintaining the status quo.

The Myth of Ethical Approval

The existence of ethics committees does not make animal experiments ethical. Research institutions claim that every project undergoes a "rigorous" approval process. But what does that really mean? It means a handful of people - some of whom are directly involved in the research - decide whether an experiment is "justified" based on a cost-benefit analysis that never considers the interests of the animals being used.

In the case of the rat strangulation study, approval was granted because the committee determined the suffering inflicted was outweighed by the supposed benefits. But those benefits are theoretical at best, while the suffering was very real. No member of the public got a say in whether this was acceptable. No transparency exists in these processes. The assumption that these animals' lives are worth sacrificing remains unchallenged within these institutions.

The Way Forward: Abolishing Animal Experimentation

The world is moving away from animal testing. Human-relevant research is advancing rapidly, but some countries lag behind, continuing to pour funding into outdated methods instead of investing in progressive, cruelty-free science.

For animal advocates, the path forward is clear: dismantle the belief systems that uphold these practices. Arguments about cruelty alone don’t always resonate - especially with those who justify animal experimentation as a necessary evil. Instead, exposing its inefficiency and lack of scientific validity is a powerful tool. Speciesism, like other forms of supremacy, is learned. Targeting children with education about animals as individuals, not as test subjects, could be key to shifting attitudes in the long term.

The rat strangulation study is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a broader system that continues to sacrifice animals despite better alternatives. Until speciesism is dismantled, experiments like this will keep happening, with animals suffering in silence behind closed lab doors.