How Language Justifies Animal Testing

Call a rabbit a rabbit, and people see a thinking, feeling individual. Call a rabbit a “test subject,” and suddenly, their mind disappears. That’s the unsettling conclusion of a new study showing how language shapes how we view animals - especially when they’re used in laboratories.

Every year, an estimated 125 million animals are locked in labs worldwide. Many people are against testing cosmetics on animals, but when it comes to drug testing, household cleaners, and skincare, the moral line blurs. People don’t want to think about animals suffering, so they find ways to justify it - just like they do with eating animals. Labeling animals as lab subjects is just another way to keep that discomfort at bay.

Seeing, But Not Seeing

Researchers conducted four online studies with over 3,400 participants to test how people perceive animals in labs. The first experiment compared reactions to three images: a rabbit in the wild, a rabbit in a lab with mild suffering, and a rabbit in a lab with severe suffering. Participants rated the rabbit’s mental abilities - whether they could feel fear, pain, or think.

The results? Rabbits in the lab were seen as less mentally capable than those in the wild. This wasn’t because people thought science had somehow drained their intelligence - it was a psychological trick. By stripping these animals of their perceived sentience, people could justify their suffering. The severity of suffering didn’t matter. Once an animal was labeled a test subject, their mind was diminished in the eyes of the participants.

The Personal Responsibility Loophole

Another experiment explored whether personal responsibility changed how people viewed lab animals. Participants listed their shopping habits - specifically their use of animal-tested products - before being shown an image of a beagle. Some saw the dog in the wild, some in a lab where they were told their choices played a role, and others in a lab where they were distanced from the responsibility.

The findings were consistent: once labeled a test subject, the beagle was seen as less sentient. Even when people were reminded that their purchases funded the suffering, it didn’t change their perception. The idea that animal testing is just “how science works” seemed to absolve them of any personal guilt.

A Hierarchy of Victims

The study also tested this effect across different species, comparing hamsters, beagles, and macaques. The trend held - the moment an animal was associated with a lab, people saw them as less intelligent. However, the shift was weaker for macaques. Being genetically closer to humans seemed to make it harder to strip them of their mental abilities.

But that raises an uncomfortable question: Why does an animal have to look like us for people to acknowledge their mind? If sentience is the reason we claim to protect some animals, why does it suddenly disappear when it’s inconvenient?

What This Means for the Animal Justice Movement

This study confirms what advocates have long suspected: language shapes perception. Call an animal a test subject, and people stop seeing them as individuals. That’s why the industry clings to terms like “research models” and “specimens.” It’s the same linguistic trick used to justify other forms of animal exploitation - cows become “beef,” pigs become “pork,” and rabbits become “test subjects.”

If people are conditioned to see lab animals as mindless tools, the solution is to shift the narrative. Advocates need to highlight their individuality, intelligence, and emotions. Instead of showing animals as passive victims in sterile cages, we should emphasise who they are outside of those cages. A rabbit exploring a meadow. A beagle playing with a toy. A macaque nurturing their baby. The more people connect with animals as thinking, feeling beings, the harder it becomes to justify using them as disposable test subjects.

Language has power. The industry knows this. It’s time advocates used it to expose the truth.

The post Labeling Animals As Lab Subjects Changes Perceived Sentience appeared first on Faunalytics.