For decades, Queen’s has used animals for research and teaching, contributing to scientific advancements in medicine and other fields. While some argue animal testing remains necessary, it’s extremely unethical and inhumane.
In 2023, Queen’s used 29,038 animals across 124 research and teaching protocols. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC)categorizes animal research by levels of discomfort: little stress, minor stress, and moderate to severe distress. Concerningly, 36 per cent of animals at Queen’s fell into the most extreme category, enduring significant pain and suffering.
Comparatively, the University of Western Ontario uses 96 per cent small mammals, while Queen’s only uses 78 per cent, meaning a greater portion of its research relies on larger, more cognitively complex animals.
It’s important to acknowledge animal research remains a widely used method in medical and scientific advancements. While there is increasing pressure to reduce its use, completely eliminating animal testing is not yet feasible. In many cases, it remains one of the most reliable ways to test new drugs and research diseases.
That being said, animal research should be conducted ethically and, most importantly, transparently. Institutions around the world are moving toward reducing unnecessary animal testing by embracing alternative methods where possible. Queen’s should follow suit, ensuring animals are only used in research when necessary and students are fully informed about the extent of these practices on campus.
Advancements in research technology mean animal testing is no longer the only option—or even the most effective one.
Alternative methods such as the human-on-a-chip method, which mimics human organs and tissues in a lab setting, or the reconstituted human skin model method that uses artificial skin to substitute real flesh for the testing of reactions to medications and cosmetics, are up and coming in the medical field.
Institutions such as the University of Windsor’s Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods have already incorporated these strategies, proving large-scale research can and should move toward non-animal methods. They look at using human tissues in test tubes, computer-modelling techniques to test toxicity, and grow human cells in a way that mimics organic organ structure.
While these methods can be complex and expensive, there’s no reason why Queen’s shouldn’t be able to develop and implement these alternatives rather than continuing outdated practices.
Despite regulations such as Bill S-214, The Health of Animals Act, and CCAC Guidelines for Scientific Use, the ethical treatment of animals in research is difficult to monitor—especially when these studies happen behind closed doors.
In 2022, Queen’s faced scrutiny when a monkey, rescued from its research facility, ed away in a sanctuary. Reports revealed that rhesus macaques used in Queen’s experiments spent their entire lives in windowless cages, two floors underground in Botterell Hall. Many students were unaware this kind of research was even taking place on campus, let alone in the same building they have their lectures.
This isn’t an isolated case. In 2005, Queen’s prepared to euthanize a group of non-human primates after their research concluded. A Canadian chimpanzee sanctuary, Fauna Foundation, intervened and took in two monkeys. One of them, Darla, endured 15 years in a menstrual study, including a complete hysterectomy. Later, she was subjected to food deprivation as part of an eating disorder study, leading to violent outbursts among the animals—one of which resulted in the loss of Darla’s tail.
Darla was rescued in 2005 and lived 17 years in a sanctuary with her rescued partner, Newton. She ed away in a safe place in 2022, instead of in the basement of Botterell Hall, suffering and alone. Without being rescued, Darla would have been euthanized 17 years before her natural death.
The debate over animal research at Queen’s isn’t new. In 2013, the Queen’s Animal Defence Club launched a campaign raising awareness about the University’s animal testing practices. Posters were displayed around Kingston, detailing the use of specific animals in research. Despite this effort, little changed.
Concerns over the University’s lack of commitment to ethical research resurfaced in 2019, when The Journal reported Queen’s wasn’t interested in establishing an alternative methods section within its research programs. Instead, resources were directed toward a phenome center, reflecting a continued focus on traditional animal testing rather than investing in modern, non-animal research approaches.
Meanwhile, other institutions have taken steps to phase out the use of pain-based research models in favour of innovative, non-animal alternatives. Rather than measuring how much distress an animal can endure, some research centers have established programs that prioritize alternative testing methods from the outset. Yet, Queen’s continues to rely on a pain tolerance scale, with over 30 per cent of its research animals experiencing the highest levels of distress.
If Queen’s truly aims to uphold ethical research standards, why does it persist in using outdated and unnecessarily harmful testing models? The University’s reluctance to explore alternatives raises serious concerns about its commitment to reducing suffering in its labs.
This University has built a reputation as one of Canada’s leading research institutions, but its approach to animal testing doesn’t reflect the innovation and ethical responsibility expected of a top-tier university. The lack of transparency surrounding these practices makes it difficult for students and the broader community to hold the institution able. If Queen’s is to maintain its standing in the academic world, it must take responsibility for the ethical implications of its research.
The University should publicly disclose its animal research practices, making information accessible to students and ensuring that ethical considerations are at the forefront of research decisions. There must be a greater commitment to reducing reliance on invasive animal testing by actively incorporating and funding humane alternatives. Additionally, animals used in research, like Darla and Newton, shouldn’t be discarded once they’re no longer deemed useful. There needs to be clear policies to ensure research animals are given the opportunity to be placed in sanctuaries whenever possible.
Scientific progress shouldn’t come at the cost of unnecessary suffering. Queen’s has an opportunity to lead by example, embracing humane alternatives and prioritizing transparency in its research practices. If it truly values innovation and ethical responsibility, it must take meaningful steps toward reducing animal suffering and investing in modern, non-animal research methods.
Ethical science shouldn’t be a secondary consideration—it should be the standard.
Maya is a second-year Biology student.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].