From Victim to Victim: How IPV Research Betrays Ethics and Science

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a form of sustained, coercive abuse involving power and control, often with devastating impacts on survivors’ autonomy and psychological wellbeing. It is paradoxical — even grotesque — to investigate such a subject by replicating coercion and harm on vulnerable sentient beings. This approach betrays both scientific responsibility and ethical decency.

From a bioethics standpoint, the recent experiment simulating non-fatal strangulation in rats to model intimate partner violence (IPV) is a clear ethical failure — one that should never have been approved.

As someone who has served on an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC), I’ve seen firsthand how little critical attention is paid to whether research proposals genuinely adhere to the 3Rs: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Too often, applications pass with minimal scrutiny of whether the number of animals could be reduced, whether the method could be refined to minimise suffering, and more specifically, whether animals could be replaced altogether. In this case, alternative human-relevant research methods are available and should have been prioritised. The Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes sets out the legal and ethical standards for animal research in Australia. It requires that animals only be used when no alternatives exist, and only when the potential benefit clearly outweighs the harm. I have concerns about whether this research fully aligns with the ethical and legal standards outlined in the Code.

The psychological and social dimensions of IPV are inherently human — shaped by language, history, trauma, gender norms, gender inequality, power structures, and cultural contexts. These cannot be meaningfully or ethically reproduced in rats. Using rats to simulate such a human-specific experience is not only scientifically weak; it is morally incoherent.

Worse still, this research involves the intentional infliction of harm on sentient, non-consenting beings. It violates foundational ethical principles — particularly the duty to avoid unnecessary suffering (nonmaleficence). Inflicting suffering on animals to study human abuse is rather paradoxical and ironical — it uses violence as a means to understand violence, reinforcing the very harm it aims to prevent. This not only undermines the integrity of scientific inquiry but also risks normalising violence within the research process.

Most people in the community are unaware that animal experimentation like this continues in Australia. When they do find out, they are shocked — and rightly so. Approving this kind of research not only harms animals; it deeply undermines public trust in animal ethics committees and the research institutions that enable them.

AECs must remember: Upholding the Code requires more than a perfunctory, box-ticking approach; it demands genuine ethical scrutiny and courage. This research should have been rejected.

Natalie Lock,
Bioethics Advisor