Is wildlife research justified if it’s to benefit the species?

When most people think about animal experiments they envisage mice, rats or monkeys kept in laboratory housing, induced with diseases or cancer and injected with vaccines. While this is true of some forms of medical research, the issue of animal experimentation actually covers a much wider spectrum. Many animals are used for agricultural research – intended to increase productivity or improve welfare standards – and are often studied on (factory) farms. Many more are used for environmental and wildlife studies and the general perception is that such research is perhaps more justified considering the procedures are less invasive and the outcomes are to benefit the animals themselves.

One of the major arguments against the use of animals in research is ‘species differences’. Data cannot be extrapolated from one species to another with sufficient accuracy due to anatomic, metabolic and genetic differences. Of course this argument becomes invalid when research is conducted on (for example) a platypus in order to learn more about the platypus. Does this therefore mean that it’s acceptable to conduct research on wildlife if it is to benefit that species?

Some years ago, I attended the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare’s Scientific Seminar which was about this very topic. My concern was that wildlife research was not as benign as most people are led to believe. My concerns were verified at this seminar.

In order to study a species – even in its natural environment – the animals must be located, identified and monitored; all of which can involve risk to the individuals. The collection, taking, trapping, marking and banding of wildlife, however, are exempt from licensing by the state department. Licensing IS required when other procedures such as taking samples are carried out.

Trapping of animals can lead to stress and injury. Problems can include the animals being impaled by bait hooks or catching their eye sockets as they become distressed, panic and thrash around the cage. They must also be monitored regularly as small animals can quickly lose body heat throughout the night and be dead before they are collected in the morning by researchers, or suffocate in the heat of day if left for too long without water. Leghold traps, still legally used in Victoria (under certain specifications) can render prey animals vulnerable to predators.

Traps also carry the problem of missing the target species and capturing ‘pest’ animals. This leads to the further dilemma of wasted lives as it is considered illegal to release them and there are poor procedures for dealing with what are considered ‘by-catch’.

According to Dr Kath Handarsyde of Melbourne University Zoology, studying wildlife gives rise to other biological variables that are not applicable to a controlled laboratory setting. These include: no previous knowledge of the underlying health status; no clear understanding of the biology which leads to uncertainty over which anaesthetic is best nor how they will respond; and wild animals don’t have food and water ad-libitum and there is therefore need to be conservative, eg by reducing sample volumes.

There was further discussion at the seminar about the difficulties in monitoring and protecting animals upon release, control of infectious disease, poor understanding of methods of anaesthesia and the use of spotlights causing damage to sensitive and nocturnal eyes.

Even non-invasive techniques such as the use of ‘hair tubes’ have caused death to smaller animals due to the strength of the adhesive used to capture hair from animals without having to trap them.

While all of these risks need to be considered when weighing up the justification of wildlife research, a closing comment from Max Campbell (DPI Wildlife and Small Institutions AEC) summed up the issue very well, when he acknowledged that all wildlife is struggling to survive and asked whether we actually need the information obtained from the research or will it simply sit in a library of data. This, I believe, is a pertinent question for all forms of research – is it justified in the first place or is it being done simply out of curiosity, because ‘curiosity’ is not a justification for harming or killing.

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust