Petra Stock
The Australian state of New South Wales is to become the first jurisdiction in the world to outlaw two invasive medical research methods used mainly on mice and rats.
Amendments to the state’s Animal Research Act – passed by the NSW Parliament on Thursday – prohibit researchers from carrying out the forced swim test or forced smoke inhalation procedures on animals.
In commending the amendment Bill to the house, independent member for Sydney, Alex Greenwich said: “the Bill is simple, it restricts animal tests that have significant adverse impacts on animal wellbeing and lack scientific evidence.”
The Bill was passed with the support of the Minns Government.
The state-wide ban follows statements issued by Australia’s top medical research body – the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) – highlighting significant scientific, animal welfare and ethical concerns relating to the two tests.
The forced swim test involves placing an animal – usually a mouse or rat – in a container of water out of its depth and unable to escape. The point at which the animal gives up swimming has been considered a model for depression in humans since the 1970s, and has been used in testing antidepressant drugs. However, according to the NHMRC: the scientific validity of the forced swim test for these purposes is not supported by evidence.
Forced smoke inhalation involves restraining an animal so that it inhales cigarette smoke or other hazardous substances directly via its nose or head. Sometimes this is referred to as ‘nose only smoke inhalation’, or ‘smoking tower’ due to the tower structure used for the test. “This is the most inhumane method for smoke inhalation,” according to a spokesperson for the NHMRC.
The law changes were first introduced into the NSW upper house by Animal Justice Party member Emma Hurst in September 2023, and successfully passed with the support of government members in February 2024.
Hurst said: “Forced swim and smoking experiments are incredibly cruel and unscientific, making them a prime area for reform.”
“These laws will stop the immense suffering of many animals. Imagine having cigarette smoke pumped directly into your nostrils, or being forced to swim until you are too exhausted to continue. This cruelty will come to an end in this state, and hopefully we will see more legislation worldwide,” she said.
Under the amended NSW law, a researcher using either method could face maximum fines of $3300 and/or 12 months’ imprisonment.
Bella Lear, is chief executive of Understanding Animal Research Oceania, an organisation established to explain why animals are used in science.
Rodent research: CSIRO says there are other ways
Lear said she is unaware of any researchers in NSW currently using the forced swim test and considers the legal ban an unnecessary step given the NHMRC statement effectively prohibits its use anyway as a model for depression and anxiety.
However, Lear said, in the case of smoke inhalation, at least one NSW-based medical research organisation, Centenary Institute, has ongoing research which is likely to be affected by the changes.
Centenary Institute uses smoke inhalation in research targeting diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other respiratory disorders.
It’s a controversial area of research, Lear said.
“Anything to do with smoke inhalation is always considered difficult, because people see diseases like COPD, as ‘lifestyle diseases’. The difficulty, of course, is that people don’t necessarily choose whether they contract a disease or not,” she says.
While rare internationally for specific medical research procedures to be banned in law, it is even more unusual when there’s active and ongoing research, Lear said.
She flagged the potential risk of “offshoring”, whereby researchers move their work to countries with more lenient regulations.
Centenary Institute was contacted for comment but did not respond by deadline.
In January, a spokesperson for the Institute said: “Our researchers are dedicated to helping solve deadly diseases such as [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] (emphysema), severe asthma, pulmonary fibrosis and other respiratory disorders. We do not take lightly the issue of smoke inhalation experiments involving animals but we do support its use when there are no viable alternatives.”
The legislative amendments provide for transitional arrangements. Institutions with an existing animal research authority can re-apply “once only” and have their authority re-issued.
While the NSW move to ban the two tests is rare in the context of medical research involving animals, it is not without precedent. For example, bans on testing cosmetics on animals are in place across 45 countries, including Australia.
The two banned procedures have recently been under the spotlight. In NSW, an inquiry in 2022 recommended rapidly phasing out their use.
In December 2023, medical research body, the NHMRC issued statements clarifying that the forced swim test “must not proceed”, and nose-only smoke inhalation procedures “must be phased out as soon as practicable” and not be used in any new projects.
Prominent New Zealand research institute AgResearch updated its Code of Ethical Conduct to prohibit the use of the forced swim test, in a decision expected to affect a third of local institutes using animals in research.
In the United Kingdom in March this year, Lord Sharpe – the minister responsible for the regulation of animals in science – accepted advice recommending the forced swim test be rejected as a model of depression or for studies relating to anxiety and its treatment.
The move to ban the forced swim test and forced smoke inhalation procedures has been welcomed by RSPCA NSW, which said passing the Bill “sets a global precedent for animal welfare in research”.
Steve Coleman, CEO of the animal welfare organisation, thanked the state’s parliamentarians for recognising the suffering endured by animals subjected to the two procedures.
“It is our moral and legal responsibility to ensure that all research is conducted in a humane, responsible and ethical manner. It is essential to employ alternative research methods that avoid such significant animal suffering,” he said.
