'Who benefits from sacrificing voiceless animals?': Ajay Joe raises questions over new lab testing draft

Animal activist and rescuer Ajay Joe has raised concerns over India's proposed laboratory animal-testing rules, warning of weaker oversight, open-market sourcing and questions over animals' care after experiments. The public can submit suggestions and objections by November 5.

The Indian government has proposed a new set of draft rules governing the use of animals in laboratory experiments. The proposals have raised concerns over how animals may be sourced, tested on and cared for. The draft is open to public suggestions and objections, with the deadline set for November 5. Critics have questioned whether the changes could weaken safeguards for laboratory animals and make it easier for more animals to be used in experiments.

Animal activist and rescuer Ajay Joe has raised concerns over several provisions, including the role of laboratory committees, the possible use of animals from open markets and the treatment of animals after testing. In an interview with India TV, Joe argued that the draft could increase animal suffering while making oversight less effective. He also called for greater investment in alternatives such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, saying India should move away from animal testing rather than make it easier.

'We are going back to 18th-century testing'

One of Joe's central concerns is the proposed role of internal committees within laboratories. He said earlier rules were stricter, while the new draft could allow laboratories to establish their own committees and appoint members to decide how experiments are conducted.

"We are going back to 18th-century testing," Joe said, describing the proposal as a step backwards. He questioned whether a committee made up of people connected to a laboratory could provide independent oversight.

Joe also raised concerns about inspections. According to him, laboratories would be informed before inspectors arrive, giving them time to prepare. "What kind of inspection is it if you tell the lab beforehand that you are coming to check?" he asked.

He argued that advance notice could undermine the purpose of inspections and make it harder to identify violations. The combination of internal decision-making and what he sees as weak oversight, Joe said, could leave animals more vulnerable.

Animals could be euthanised instead of receiving lifelong care

Joe objected to what he described as a shift in the rules governing animals after experiments. He said the earlier framework required laboratories to provide lifelong care and support to animals used in testing.

The proposed draft, he argued, could allow animals to be euthanised after experiments or used again for further testing. "The earlier rule was that you had to provide lifelong support to them," he said. "Now, you are saying that they should be euthanised. This is wrong."

Joe said animals should not be treated as disposable once an experiment is complete. In his view, laboratories should remain responsible for their care for the rest of their lives, rather than deciding that their use has ended.

The concern, he said, is not limited to the immediate effects of an experiment. It also involves what happens afterwards, and whether an animal's welfare remains a priority once it is no longer required for research.

Open-market sourcing could put street animals at risk

Joe warned that changes to animal sourcing could create opportunities for traders and intermediaries. He said the draft could make it easier for laboratories to obtain animals beyond approved breeding centres, potentially opening up a market for animals used in experiments.

He pointed to rabbits and rodents sold in markets, saying the proposed rules could encourage more trading. He also raised the possibility that animals could be captured from streets or other settings and supplied to laboratories.

"If the animals are not available from registered breeders, the lab may not know whether someone is breeding them or picking them up from the street," he said.

Joe said the inclusion of larger animals and wildlife raised further questions. He referred to street dogs, cats and cattle, as well as wild animals, arguing that laboratories could receive animals whose origins are difficult to establish.

He warned that traders could emerge and animals could be taken from their communities. "You are opening the market," he said.

'Pain is pain': Joe challenges the draft's suffering categories

The draft categorises experiments according to levels of pain or distress, including mild, moderate and severe. Joe questioned how these classifications would be determined and whether scientists could reliably decide how much pain an animal is experiencing.

"Pain is pain," he said, comparing an injection with a burn or the insertion of a tube. He argued that the experience of pain cannot be reduced to a label assigned by a researcher.

Joe also claimed that animals may be restrained or suspended during experiments and raised concerns about their ability to express distress. He alleged that animals' vocal cords may be removed in some cases, meaning scientists would assess their pain without relying on the animals' vocalisations.

He described testing involving cosmetics and perfumes, claiming that products may be applied to animals' eyes, bodies or private parts, with animals kept confined for months.

His broader argument is that a pain classification should not be used to minimise an animal's suffering.

Fear, stress and loneliness are being overlooked, he says

Joe said the welfare debate should also consider animals' mental health, including fear, stress and loneliness. He argued that animals may experience trauma in laboratories, but their feelings are often overlooked because they cannot communicate them in human language.

"We cannot understand the trauma they are going through," he said, adding that society has not adequately recognised animals' emotional lives.

He linked this to a wider separation between people and animals, particularly in urban environments. Joe said animals are increasingly confined to concrete spaces, while their natural surroundings and opportunities for companionship are reduced.

He referred to the removal of horses used for rides in New York City, saying it reflected a growing recognition that animals should not be exploited for entertainment. Similar questions, he argued, should be asked about the treatment of animals in India, including those living on streets and in laboratories.

Joe urges pharma companies to invest in non-animal methods

Joe said the draft should be considered alongside advances in non-animal research methods. He argued that where scientifically proven alternatives are available, animals should not continue to be used simply because testing on them is familiar or convenient.

He urged pharmaceutical companies and researchers to invest in technologies that could replace animal experiments. Joe also questioned whether animal testing consistently predicts how medicines will work in humans.

During the interview, he referred to a high failure rate for drugs that move from animal testing to human trials. The figure was not independently verified in the interview, but he used it to argue that animal experiments should not be treated as an unquestioned standard.

Joe said India should develop its own methods rather than wait for technologies to emerge elsewhere and then copy them. He called on pharmaceutical companies to consider whether they would invest in non-animal methods developed in India.

AI and robotics could make animal testing obsolete, Joe predicts

Joe argued that AI and robotics could accelerate the shift away from animal testing. He predicted that animal experiments could become outdated within two years, saying technological development was moving too quickly for regulators to ignore.

He contrasted his prediction with the US Environmental Protection Agency's stated goal of phasing out mammal use in chemical testing by 2035. Joe said he did not believe the world would need to wait that long.

His timeline is a prediction, not an established scientific forecast. Still, he said India should invest in research, companies and start-ups developing alternatives.

Joe argued that the issue was not only about technology or investment, but also about the willingness to think differently. "We are becoming a copy nation," he said, urging Indian researchers and companies to develop their own approaches.

Joe urges public to object before November 5

Joe urged members of the public to read the draft and submit suggestions or objections before November 5. He said consumers already check food labels for ingredients such as sugar and should begin asking similar questions about cosmetics and medicines.

He encouraged people to look for information on whether products have been tested on animals and whether they are cruelty-free. "If a product involves cruelty, I will not buy it or use it," he said, describing consumer choices as a way to pressure companies to reconsider their methods.

Joe also called for India to publish data on the number of animals used in experiments, pointing to the practice in the UK and European Union. He said India should not merely follow other countries, but set an example by promoting science without animal testing.

For Joe, the draft is not only a question of laboratory regulation. It is also a test of whether India will strengthen animal welfare protections, improve oversight and support alternatives to experiments on animals.