Te Herenga Waka Quietly Bans Controversial Animal Test

For years, researchers at Te Herenga Waka, wanting to study depression in rats, could dunk them in a tank of water and watch how long they struggled before giving up. The Porsolt Swim Test (PST)—also called the forced swim test—was a standard tool in preclinical drug research for decades. Now, the University has made its position explicit: it won't approve the procedure anymore.

VUW’s Animal Ethics Committee updated its website to formally reflect what had already become practice in the lab, late last month releasing a statement “We recognise that scientific understanding evolves, and with it, the appropriateness of certain methodologies. Procedures that are no longer considered valid (such as the use of the Porsolt Swim Test for depression research) or relevant within the context of contemporary research will not be approved for use.”

When I spoke with  Adrian Bibby, Secretary of the Animal Ethics Committee at Te Herenga Waka, they told me that no application to use the test had been approved since 2018, and the last time it was actually carried out was 2017. 

Bibby explained  this is because often both researchers and the committee remain committed to ensuring robust results that do not need unnecessary repetition, thus “Researchers often move away from outdated methodologies proactively, without the need for the Committee to formally ban specific tests.”

Put simply, researchers move away from the PST far earlier than it needs to be banned. The reason for its obsoletion, according to Bibby, is that the test had become outdated and controversial within the scientific community. What happens to a rat forced to swim doesn't tell us nearly enough about what's happening in the brain of a person living with depression. 

Bibby informed  me that both the University and the Animal Ethics Committee “remain committed to being open about how and why animals are used in research.” As such, the broad and diverse membership that make up the committee inform their opinions based on a range of sources such as “members’ expertise, guidance from the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, resources on alternatives to animal research, and emerging scientific knowledge.” Bibby makes a point to inform me that consideration for such tests are not tied to fixed review intervals but instead are considered based upon "Scientific validity and ethical acceptability.”

When asked whether the Animal Ethics Committee is focused on reducing further animal testing within the University, Bibby stressed that “the term ‘animal testing’ is often used to refer specifically to regulatory toxicity testing, which the University does not undertake.”

VUW requires all researchers to consider the 3R’s, “reduction—how the number of animals can be reduced to the minimum necessary; refinement—how methods can be refined to minimise impact and enhance animal welfare; replacement—how they can use alternatives wherever possible,” and as such Animal welfare is one of the highest concerns for the Animal Ethics Committee.

However, in a statement, the Animal Ethics Committee did admit that “The Committee acknowledges that, despite significant advances in alternative methods, certain complex biological processes and integrated physiological responses currently cannot be adequately studied without the use of living animals (in vivo).”

Approximately half of the University's animal research is conducted concurrently within conservation biology programmes. That means that the study of wild animals within their natural habitats is focused on non-invasive and non-harmful methods.

Ultimately, VUW’s quiet shift away from the Porsolt Swim test reflects a broader change  already underway in scientific research: a move towards methods that are more ethically sound and scientifically reliable. The evolving standards on the committee are ever-changing and we should look to them keenly as current scientific approaches change. This is a win for both the Scientific Community and for animal ethics as a whole.