A recently published study, "Pathophysiology, blood biomarkers, and functional deficits after intimate partner violence-related brain injury: Insights from emergency department patients and a new rat model" (January 2025), has ignited ethical and scientific criticism by the national non-profit advocacy organisation Animal-Free Science Advocacy (AFSA). This research, which used a new rat model to simulate strangulation and brain injuries associated with intimate partner violence (IPV), has drawn scrutiny for its approach, methods, and implications.
The study involved inducing traumatic brain injuries on rats, subjecting adolescent female rats to non-fatal strangulation, and conducting behavioural and cognitive tests to assess post-injury impacts. Approved by the Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct Animal Ethics Committee and with investigators funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the study has sparked debate over its adherence to ethical standards and questionable scientific validity.
Key Ethical and Scientific Concerns
- Availability of Alternatives: The Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals in Scientific Research mandates that animal research be conducted only when no viable alternatives exist. This study simultaneously explored human biomarkers in emergency department patients, highlighting the feasibility of human-centric methods.
- Simulation of Violent Acts: Recreating IPV-related injuries on animals—particularly acts like strangulation—is ethically contentious. Strangulation is classified as a violent crime, and conducting similar acts on animals, even under scientific licenses, conflicts with societal expectations of humane treatment.
- Translation Gaps: Rats' neurological and physiological systems differ significantly from humans. Their simpler brain structure and faster recovery rates limit the applicability of findings to human IPV cases.
- Methodological Issues: The method used to inflict injuries does not replicate the dynamics of human strangulation events.
- Animal Welfare: Animals may experience pain, discomfort, or stress during and after the induction of injuries despite the pain relief administered. The treatment that these rats received was so severe that, as reported in the paper, some required resuscitation.
IPV is not just a physical condition; it is a complex, multifaceted issue involving socio-economic, psychological, and cultural dimensions that cannot be modelled in animals. AFSA CEO Rachel Smith commented: "This study exemplifies a deeply concerning practice of justifying unethical practices in the name of science. Simulating non-fatal strangulation on rats is not only ethically indefensible but also scientifically redundant when human-focused methods exist. The rat model of strangulation should never be repeated"
A Call for Survivor-Centric Research
Of concern, the paper advocates further use of the rat model and even modifying it in ways that would detrimentally increase the animal welfare impact by applying repetitive trauma and intentionally imposing additional stress.
This study highlights a critical need for ethical rigour and survivor-centred approaches in IPV research. Simulating violent crimes on animals, especially when alternative methods are available, undermines both scientific integrity and public trust. Public funding should support consumer-informed research that directly benefits IPV survivors, advancing ethical, impactful, and human-relevant solutions.
AFSA Recommendations
- Animal Ethics Committees to reject future research applications involving animal models for IPV.
- Scientific Journals to uphold stricter ethical standards and reject studies that replicate violent crimes using animals.
- Funding Bodies to prioritise survivor-focused, human-relevant studies over animal-based research.
- Public Policy Makers to channel resources toward improving healthcare, legal protections, and community support for IPV survivors.
Key Facts:
A recently published papers cites the development of a new rat strangulation model by Australian reseachers to investigate intimate partner violence
Strangulation was replicated using a rubber band applying 680g pressure to their necks
AFSA argues that there is no way to create a humane model of a violent criminal act such as stangulation
AFSA holds concerns over the ethical and scientific validity of the research and calls for an end to future research of this nature
Full media briefing available at Media-Briefing-Final-1.pdf
About us:
Animal-Free Science Advocacy (AFSA) is a national non-profit organisation which advocates for a future where no animals are harmed in the name of science, and scientific progress is advanced through animal-free research methods.
