Animal-based research in Australia doesn’t just wreak suffering on animals — it also destroys the environment with pollution and extraordinary energy and resource consumption.
How Animal Research Harms the Environment
Australian research and teaching uses approximately one animal for every three people — far more than other comparable countries1.
Pollution
Pollution already causes 16% of global deaths2, and laboratory waste adds to this burden. When lab waste is incinerated, up to 25% of it may be hazardous to humans, animals and the environment3, releasing particulates, toxic chemicals, pathogens and even radioactive materials into surrounding air and water. These emissions are linked to cancers, respiratory disease, pollution and greenhouse gas release. While incinerators are meant to control these risks, their effectiveness depends on flawless operation — and mishandling or spills can release even greater amounts of toxic material into the environment4.Breeding and genetic modification
Across Australia, animals are bred in large numbers purely to be experimented on—many of them genetically modified for scientific purposes. This occurs in industry owned5, government supported6 and university facilities7. Under the NHMRC Code8, both genetically modified animals and those who have simply been exposed to genetically modified materials are considered contamination risks. As a result, they cannot be rehomed or released after their use and must instead be destroyed. This includes incineration, autoclaving and other approved methods9. The cycle of breeding, genetic manipulation and destruction creates enormous biological waste and carries serious environmental risks, including accidental escape and interbreeding with wild or native populations10.Disregard for Life
Adolescence is a critical period for developing empathy and environmental values11, yet this is often when students are taught to dissect animals and view them as disposable learning tools. Framing sentient beings as objects during such a formative stage risks normalising disregard for life and weakening understanding of how human actions affect other beings and the environment. These early lessons can carry into adulthood, shaping long-term attitudes toward animals, sustainability and environmental responsibility.Hidden Resource Use
Australian research facilities can use up to 10x more energy per square metre than normal office space to house and maintain animal labs12.
Resource consumption
Australia already has one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints in the world13. As it strives to meet climate goals, animal research adds a significant and largely hidden energy burden. Under the NHMRC Code, animals must be kept in tightly controlled environments, requiring constant ventilation, heating, cooling and biosecurity systems. As a result, animal laboratories can consume up to ten times more energy per square metre than standard office buildings. Higher-security facilities demand even more power through independent buildings, air handling, exhaust systems14 and intensive cleaning15 — making animal research among the most energy-intensive forms of laboratory science. Reducing energy and water use in labs aligns with broader goals many Australians share around sustainability and responsible science.Waste
Just keeping animals alive in laboratories generates enormous amounts of waste, even before the experiments begin. Excrement, soiled bedding, and leftover food must be regularly removed and sanitized, creating huge volumes of biological and chemical waste. On top of this, single-use equipment like syringes and needles add further hazardous material16. After the experiments, animal bodies are classified as hazardous waste and are transported for destruction. Poorly managed disposal can contaminate soil and groundwater, compounding the environmental cost of animal research further.Chemicals
Why Animal-Free is Better for the Planet
Many animal-free research methods rely on computers, AI models, and cell or tissue cultures, which do use energy and require controlled lab environments. However, these methods eliminate the massive environmental costs associated with breeding, housing, sanitising, transporting and disposing of animals and their necessary infrastructure. Unlike animals, digital models or tissue cultures cannot escape, spread disease, or reproduce, and they can be continuously reused and modified without ecological or ethical consequences.
Small-scale bio-samples or ethically sourced cadavers may still require controlled storage or disposal, but the overall environmental footprint is a tiny fraction of what animal research generates. Additionally, incorporating virtual models and ecological education in training can reduce speciesism and foster awareness of how human choices impact animals and the planet.
What We Can Do in Australia
Support animal-free alternatives
In 2015, the UN adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)20, which — while not directly addressing animal protection — encourage improvements in health, innovation, and responsible production21,22. Australia can align with these goals23 by developing and adopting animal-free alternatives, boosting domestic manufacturing, and advancing human-relevant health solutions. Unlike animal-based research, these methods can simultaneously improve human, animal, and environmental health. Current SDGs don’t account for the ethical and environmental costs of relying on animals, but global frameworks like the UN Convention on Animal Health and Protection (UNCAHP) promote the 3Rs and the development of alternatives to animal use.
Support our work
Reduce the environmental harm from animal research by supporting our advocacy for animal-free research.
We are the only organisation in Australia advocating exclusively for this cause.
Sign our petition for policymakers to fund animal-free science:
Recycle and pay it forward to AFSA:
Residents in Melbourne can support AFSA using the VISY Container Deposit Scheme (CDS Vic). Just return eligible containers at VISY refund points (CDS Vic West, CDS Vic North and CDS Vic East). Every drink can, carton, glass or plastic bottle earns you 10 cents.
Donate – every contribution counts:
The most impactful contribution you can make to the animals is a donation to AFSA to fund our campaigns, actions and advocacy.
We receive no government funding and rely entirely on the generosity of supporters to continue our vital work.
The pursuit of human knowledge and scientific advancement will always come with an environmental impact. However, that impact can be significantly reduced by embracing energy efficient and ethically sustainable research methods and processes.
*A comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of animal use in Australian research and education does not currently exist, so our assessment draws on the limited published information available comparing the infrastructure and waste requirements of animal versus non-animal laboratory systems.
References
- Population of Australia (26,595,991 at February 2024) divided by the average approximate conservative number of animals used in Australia over five years 2013-2017 (10,075,222) equals 2.63
- www.thelancet.com/commissions/pollution-and-health
- pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23612530/
- Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005
- www.abr.org.au/
- www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/EPBC_Live_Primates_Bill/Report/c01
- researchdata.edu.au/national-non-human-research-facility/96736
- https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-care-and-use-animals-scientific-purposes#block-views-block-file-attachments-content-block-1
- www.adelaide.edu.au/staff/research/system/files/media/documents/2019-10/gmo-facility-guidelines-pc1.pdf
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25032294/
- www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=acwp_sata
- Cubitt, Steven & Sharp, G.. (2011). Maintaining quality and reducing energy in research animal facilities. Animal Technology and Welfare. 10. 91-97+117+122+127.
- ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita
- consteril.com/biosafety-levels-difference/
- www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/biocontainment
- www.medlabmag.com/article/1111/
- www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/1/1/14
- www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/766/784
- dissectionconnection.com.au/faqs/
- sdgs.un.org/2030agenda32 sdgs.un.org/goals
- unstats.un.org/sdgs/dataportal/countryprofiles/AUS#goal-9
- xcellr8.com/2023/03/31/united-nations-sustainability-development/
- www.uncahp.org
Other sources of information:
- AFSA’s bulletin on the environmental impacts of animal research (a printable PDF for educational purposes)
- www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019335512
- reneweconomy.com.au/australia-will-not-hit-its-2020-emissions-reduction-target-till-2030/
- www.tecniplast.it/au/company-profile.html
- www.advancetecllc.com/classifications/bsl-bio-safety-level
- www.medlabmag.com/article/1111/