- This is a Media Briefing from Animal Free Science Advocacy Australia on the shocking use of animals to study interpersonal violence, and is another example of the failure of the present system of ‘ethical’ decisions from universities and research centres.
- A recent study, “Pathophysiology, blood biomarkers, and functional deficits after intimate partner violence-related brain injury: Insights from emergency department patients and a new rat model” (January 2025), raises significant ethical and scientific concerns and underscores inherent failings in the Australian regulatory system governing animal use in research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159124006342
- The Study
- Concussion in intimate partner violence (IPV) often involves a concomitant strangulation and this research sought to investigate this association. The researchers developed a rat model to simulate brain injuries akin to those sustained during IPV. This model involved subjecting rats to mild traumatic brain injuries to mimic the conditions of head trauma often reported in IPV cases and developed what is described as the first rat model of non-fatal strangulation (NFS), examining the consequences of strangulation and concussion in isolation and in combination on pathophysiology, blood biomarkers, and behaviour at 2 hours and 1-week post-injury. The study involved:
- Inducing brain injury via a metal plate. Subjecting 6-7 week-old female rats (comparable to human adolescents) to non-fatal strangulation using a rubber band applying 680g pressure to their necks. Strangulation lasting for 90 seconds, a duration that would be lethal to humans
- Behavioural and cognitive testing post-injury included maze assessments to evaluate memory deficits and anxiety-like behaviours. Neuroinflammation, cognitive deficits, and histopathological changes were measured.
The study was conducted with ethical approval by the Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct Animal Ethics Committee, with participation from researchers at Monash University and the University of Queensland and raises concerns about adherence to ethical standards and the scrutiny applied during the approval process. Investigators received funding via the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). While the study aims to address gaps in research on intimate partner violence (IPV)-related brain injuries, its use of animal models to simulate non-fatal strangulation is unjustified on scientific or ethical grounds. The justification is lacking due to several apparent failures to meet the requirements of the Code:- The use of animals when non-animal methods could have been used
- Failure to apply best practice to minimise pain and distress
- Failure to ensure ethical justification
- Failure to ensure scientific integrity in the study design
1 Key Ethical Concerns
Alternative Methods are Available
The Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals in Scientific Research (2013) states that animal studies should only be conducted when no alternatives exist. Advanced human-based approaches, such as anatomical and functional and human biomarker studies, can provide more relevant insights without ethical compromises. Indeed, the study simultaneously investigated human biomarker from patients presenting to an emergency department within 72 h of concussion, demonstrating the feasibility of human-focused research. Public health research focusing on improving healthcare access, community support, and legal protections for IPV survivors offers more immediate and impactful benefits.
Simulating Violent Acts
NFS is one of the most potentially lethal forms of intimate partner violence and is classified as a violent crime in all Australian states and territories. Strangulation would also be classified as an offence under animal protection legislation, but an exemption to such offences is permitted if the research is conducted under a scientific license with the approval of an animal ethics committee. However, conducting research that simulates this act on animals could be viewed as incompatible with societal standards for addressing IPV and may breach community expectations of humane treatment.
Key Scientific Concerns
The findings are not directly translatable to human experiences due to species differences and the artificial nature of the injuries and are of limited relevance to human IPV survivors. For example:- Rats’ brains are structurally different, lacking the complex neocortex found in humans. There may be a faster recovery and greater neuroplasticity compared to humans. Differences in immune responses and injury mechanisms reduce translational validity. Biomarkers are known to be altered in persons with PTSD and persons experiencing strangulation will often experience symptoms of complex trauma, post event: PTSD, chronic insomnia, depression, suicidal ideations, memory problems, nightmares, anxiety, severe stress reaction, amnesia, and psychosis. The experience of being strangled during an assault is clearly traumatic irrespective of physical injury and these uniquely human circumstances cannot and should not be studied in animals.
2 The use of juvenile rats, which are more physiologically vulnerable to trauma, further raises questions about the validity of the model.
Confounding Methodologies:- Anaesthesia used during the experiments altered neuroinflammatory and stress responses, rendering results incomparable to conscious human experiences. The absence of a psychological component in the rat model—critical in IPV-related trauma—further limits its relevance.
- The method used to inflict injuries does not replicate the dynamics of human strangulation events, which involve varied and unpredictable forces. The strangulation force is approximately three times the rats’ body weight and would correspond to 180kg on the neck of a 60kg human.
- The injuries simulated are unrealistically severe; strangulation lasting 90 seconds under the applied forces would not be survivable for humans, further reducing the model’s utility. Rats were anesthetised during the procedure, which eliminated their ability to struggle or display stress responses that are integral to understanding human IPV scenarios.
- The paper indicated clear methodological shortcomings. For example: – The human and rodent biomarker data were… analyzed on different platforms that used different antibodies and have different sensitivities” The “rat study only included two recovery times, neither of which directly aligned with the human study of 72 h”.
“It would also be highly speculative to suggest that the rat behavior tests we employed to detect motor and cognitive abnormalities are the translational equivalent to self reported human symptoms.”
Animal Welfare Concerns:- The animals might experience pain, discomfort, or stress during and after the induction of injuries. Cognitive and behavioural impairments observed in the study suggest suffering.
- Minimal analgesia was provided post-procedure using bupivacaine and buprenorphine, drugs with delayed onset and limited effectiveness for managing severe pain.
- The choice of analgesics was potentially inadequate, failing to pre-empt pain effectively and compounding post-procedural suffering. The paper does not indicate where it was administered, nor does it indicate the amount or area over which it was administered. The post-injury phase may still involve lingering pain or discomfort as the brain heals or fails to heal properly.
3 Value of Research Findings:
It could be argued that the research findings could have been predicted without conducting the animal procedures. For example, the paper reports that “the NFS method was successful in reliably reducing cerebral blood flow and blood oxygen saturation”. Given the severity of the airway and cervical vascular occlusion to which the animals were subjected, these changes are readily predictable. Similarly predictable is one of the paper’s conclusions that the combination of mTBI and NFS “exacerbates functional deficits, neuropathophysiology, and blood biomarkers in rats”.
IPV is not just a physical condition; it is a complex, multifaceted issue involving socio economic, psychological, and cultural dimensions that cannot be modelled in animals. Animals should not be used in any research re-creating violent criminal acts. The study authors states that there is insufficient human data to validate the rodent model of NFS. This raises a further question about ethical justification: if it was already known that the model could not be validated, why was it approved?
AFSA urge:
- Animal Ethics Committees: To reject applications which use animal models for IPV research.
- Scientific Journals: To establish stricter ethical standards and reject studies that use animal models to replicate violent crimes, particularly when alternative methodologies are available.
- Funding Bodies: To commit to funding survivor-focused, human-relevant studies.
The NHMRC must enhance oversight to ensure ethical compliance. - Public Policy Makers: To prioritise initiatives that improve healthcare access, legal protections, and community support for IPV survivors over funding animal-based research.
- This study highlights the need for ethical rigor and survivor-centred research in IPV studies.
- Simulating violence in animals, particularly when human-based methods exist, undermines both scientific integrity and public trust. Public funds must be allocated to advancing ethical and impactful research that directly benefits IPV survivors.