In December last year, New Zealand quietly crossed a line few people noticed.
New statistics released by the Ministry for Primary Industries showed that 602,318 animals were used in scientific research, testing and teaching in 2024 — the highest number recorded since reporting began in 1987.
On its own, that headline is confronting, but the real issue isn’t just the number. It’s what the public can’t see behind it — and what policymakers still aren’t being equipped to act on.
As someone who works closely with scientists, research institutes and ethics systems, through a new collaborative charity called Beyond Animal Research (Bar), I want to be clear about one thing upfront: not every animal counted in these figures is used in a harmful way.
Some animals are involved in genuinely non-harmful activity such as observing wildlife behaviour, checking nests to count eggs or participating in simple food-preference studies with companion animals.
Lumping these activities together with invasive or lethal procedures obscures where harm actually occurs and that’s precisely the problem.
What do the numbers tell us?
In 2024, nearly 250,000 animals died as a result of science in New Zealand.
According to the MPI data, 110,245 animals were killed for, during or after scientific use and 139,686 animals were bred for science but never used, then killed as "excess".
That second figure alone should give us pause. Animals bred only to be euthanised — "born to die" — raises serious ethical questions, as well as points to inefficiencies that scientists themselves increasingly want to address.
The overall increase in animal use is also heavily driven by specific factors, particularly the high number of fish used in 2024 and the way multi-year projects are reported, which can cause sharp spikes when studies conclude.
This is why single-year totals, without context, are a blunt tool. Sure, they generate outrage or dismissal, but rarely an understanding of the issues that lie beneath the headline.
Transparency isn’t anti-science — it’s essential to it.
New Zealand’s animal research, testing and teaching system relies on public trust. That trust depends on transparency — not just about how many animals are used, but how, why and with what level of harm.
Right now, the public only gets to see a single headline number. Policymakers only get to see an incomplete picture and scientists doing responsible, non-harmful work are often lumped in with practices that deserve much closer scrutiny.
Better reporting, including clearer distinctions between non-harmful and harmful procedures, would benefit everyone: the public, who deserve honest information, policymakers, who need meaningful data to guide reform, and scientists, many of whom want to replace harmful animal use but face structural and funding barriers to change.
The timing matters. The release of a government report just before Christmas could be viewed by some as a way to bury bad results under all the festive "noise", but to Bar the timing could not be better.
Only a few weeks earlier, the United Kingdom government released a national roadmap to phase out animal testing, backed by more than £75 million ($NZ172m) in funding to accelerate alternatives. New Zealand, by contrast, has no equivalent plan.
With an election year approaching, these latest New Zealand figures should be a wake-up call.
We have world-class researchers, innovative technologies and growing international momentum towards more ethical and effective science that does not involve harming animals.
What is missing is co-ordinated government leadership, a shared vision that brings scientists, regulators and the public along together.
New Zealand can continue reacting to annual statistics with surprise and discomfort. Or we can do the harder, more constructive mahi: building transparency, investing in alternatives and creating a roadmap that allows science to thrive without harming animals.
The numbers released last year don’t tell us everything, but they tell us enough to know that standing still is no longer an option.
• Tara Jackson is the co-founder of Beyond Animal Research.
