Dissecting the lies: The language of laboratories

When we talk about animals in laboratories, the words we choose matter. 

Phrases like “animal models” and “test subjects” don’t evoke the kinds of vivid images we’ve all seen recently, with the release of new footage. Instead, these words create a cold, sterile distance designed to legitimise an industry that tells us animal testing is necessary – when it is not. 

Unlike the language of racing horses or the deeply entrenched euphemisms of farming animals, the language of laboratories is not deeply woven into the public imagination.  

That’s because we know animal testing is wrong. 

Because we know that dogs are not “models” and rabbits are not “specimens”. They are individuals who deserve so much better. 

Even the most severe experiments are filtered through neutral, technical wording. The restraint of monkeys in ‘primate chairs’ may be called “handling”. Imprisoning beagles in ‘metabolic cages’ (designed for the collection of urine and faeces) or confining rats in complete isolation for months, even years, becomes simply “housing”. 

As new footage shows, laboratories are not the neutral, controlled environment they’d have you believe. Animals struggle and scream, they fight and some have even escaped. 

For them, it’s always worth questioning what language is trying to hide.