Australia has never published a national count of animals used in scientific research. That changed today with a pilot study by veterinarian Dr Malcolm France, commissioned by the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, which found 1,193,619 mice and 46,961 rats were used in research, teaching, and testing in 2024. The total excludes animals bred for research but never used — a shadow population whose size remains unknown. The count itself required a patchwork of methods including freedom of information requests. Only three states — New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania — routinely publish their animal use data. Other jurisdictions collect the numbers but don't share them; some don't collect them at all. This is the governance gap: not an absence of data, but an absence of the institutional habit of making it public. The United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand all publish national statistics on research animal use as standard practice. Year-on-year comparisons in those countries inform welfare priorities, resource allocation, and public trust. Australia, a significant biomedical research nation, has operated without this baseline. The study is framed not as an exposé but as an infrastructure project — building the measurement system that should have existed already. Bella Lear of Understanding Animal Research Oceania argued the data gap actively undermines Australia's competitive position. Without aggregate numbers, the country cannot demonstrate the scope of its research capability or the quality of its welfare practices to international partners and funders. The absence of transparency is not neutral; it creates reputational friction. The RSPCA's Dr Suzie Fowler noted that mice and rats are social, intelligent animals whose welfare can be significantly affected by research procedures. Some behavioural needs — nesting material for mice, social interaction for rats — can be met in lab settings. Others cannot. Without national data, the welfare conversation remains anecdotal rather than evidence-based. Paula Wallace of the Liberty Foundation, which opened Australia's first adoption centre for small research animals earlier this year, pointed to a practical downstream benefit: national statistics would help identify how many animals might be suitable for rehoming after research concludes. The count is the prerequisite for a functioning adoption pipeline. The pilot's narrow scope — mice and rats only, one year of data, no bred-but-unused animals — means this is a proof of concept, not a complete picture. Fish, rabbits, birds, and primates remain uncounted nationally. But the exercise demonstrated a viable pathway. The question now is whether Australian jurisdictions will formalize reporting or whether this remains a one-off effort sustained by a single researcher and an FOI request.
