Australia has the talent and technology to lead the world in animal-free science—but without dedicated funding from the Federal Government, we’re falling behind.
Australia can lead
We already have the infrastructure, expertise and public backing to become a world leader in animal-free science. What’s missing is targeted government funding. By committing dedicated funds—as other nations have done—Australia can:
- Drive medical breakthroughs with more reliable science
- End reliance on outdated animal models
- Create new industries and jobs in biotech
- Keep Australia globally competitive
Australia has an opportunity to become a pioneer in next-generation research—but only if the government acts now.
👉 Add your voice today and call on the Australian Government to fund animal-free research.
Want to do more? Explore our Political Toolkit for practical steps to engage with your federal MP.
The current situation
CSIRO’s report confirms Australia’s strengths in non-animal methods such as organoids and organs-on-a-chip, which are set to disrupt outdated animal models within the next 15 years. These methods are:
- Better for people: More accurate, human-relevant science.
- Better for the economy: Saving money by cutting costly drug failures.
- Better for animals: Reducing suffering in labs.
- Better for the environment: Avoiding the resource-intensive demands of animal labs.
2024
- The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) allocated $294M to grants involving animal use—but none specifically for animal-free research.
- The NSW Government committed $4.5 million to establish the Non-Animal Technologies Network (NAT-Net).
2025
- NHMRC grants that included research that proposed the use of animals were valued at a total of $225M across 133 grants.
- The Australian Research Council (ARC) awarded $5M to establish the ARC Training Centre for Microphysiological System Technology at Queensland University of Technology, with the grant description recognising the unsuitability of animal models for human applications.
2026
- NAT-Net published the article Building Australia’s non-animal technologies ecosystem: a national cross-sector mapping and strategic insights from the non-animal technologies network. AFSA subsequently sent a letter to request the article recommendations be acted upon urgently.
- Australia’s association with Horizon Europe will create new opportunities for Australian researchers to participate in internationally funded research on New Approach Methodologies. These opportunities will be co-funded by the NHMRC.
Despite some progress, Australia still needs ongoing national funding dedicated to the development, validation and implementation of non-animal methods of research.
Take action
Global momentum is growing
- US: US $87 million for organoid center (2025), Major NIH program (2024), US $31 million for organ-on-a-chip centres (2024) and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (1997)
- UK: £75 million to fund the roadmap to phase out animal testing (2025), National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (2004) with £20 million annual government support
- Netherlands: £214.5 million for a new centre for animal-free biomedical testing (2024)
Without dedicated funding, researchers face systemic barriers.
Why funding matters
- Scientific progress: 🔬 Around 90% of drugs tested safe in animals fail in humans (1). Non-animal methods can deliver more reliable results (2).
- Economic opportunity: 💰 Animal-free technologies could add $1.6 billion to Australia’s clinical trials sector (3).
- Public support: 👩⚕️ According to a 2025 national opinion poll, 71% of Australians support replacing animals in research with scientific alternatives and allocating a portion of medical research grants to developing those alternatives. (4).
- Environmental impact: 🌏 Animal labs consume up to 10 times more energy than office buildings, adding unnecessary costs and emissions (5).
…for me, as a researcher, if we apply for funding overseas the models are accepted. If I apply for NHMRC funding,
I get a comment, “You need an in vivo model. You cannot progress any work because you need an in vivo.”
References
- Ineichen BV, Furrer E, Grüninger SL, Zürrer WE, Macleod MR. Analysis of animal-to-human translation shows that only 5% of animal-tested therapeutic interventions obtain regulatory approval for human applications. PLoS Biol. 2024;22(6):e3002667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002667.
- Hutchinson I, Owen C, Bailey J. Modernizing medical research to benefit people and animals. Animals. 2022;12(9):1173. doi: 10.3390/ani12091173.
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Non-animal models: A strategy for maturing Australia’s medical product development capabilities. 2023 [cited 2025 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/csiro-futures/health-and-biosecurity/non-animal-models
- Animal Free Science Advocacy. Australians support replacement of animals in science. 2025 [cited 2025 Oct 22]. Available from: https://animalfreescienceadvocacy.org.au/australians-support-replacement-of-animals-in-science/
- Cubitt S, Sharp G. Maintaining quality and reducing energy in research animal facilities. Anim Technol Welf. 2011;10(2):91-7,117,122,127.