(and I’m tired of pretending there is).

If you’ve been to any of our workshops, read our social media posts, or downloaded any of our resources, you may notice we use inverted commas when we write animal ‘models’.

There are two reasons for this:

• A mouse model isn’t a model of a mouse; it’s using a non-human animal in an attempt to model a human.
• Models are simplified copies or representations of something real; an animal is already its own real, sentient being, not simply a tool to imitate humans.

Sometimes, we get push back on this. The argument is that it betrays bias on our part. It’s not impartial phrasing so it could put our scientific credibility at risk. We disagree.

Animal model is equally as biased as animal ‘model’. Neither statement is impartial, one’s just the norm.

The reality is true impartiality doesn’t exist because we live in a world of systems, and systems enforce values. Because society is already biased, sticking with the default settings isn’t neutral. Still, maintaining the status quo is often misprescribed as impartiality.

Labelling a new way of discussing the same fact as “biased” allows us to dismiss the message without ever having to confront the discomfort.

At this point, our work is still just on the edges of the overton window. Because people aren’t used to our phrasing it can’t be taken in stride.

Who benefits from impartiality?

No one who wants change, that’s for sure.

A study by researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research looked at people with decision-making roles, like judges and loan officers. They found that people were much less likely to make the same decision two or three times in a row purely because it LOOKS wrong.

Innocent, innocent…. Oh, this might look dodgy… Guilty!

In attempting to show how unbiased they are they do something incredibly illogical in their own self-interest. They also do something that is clearly and powerfully against public-interest by putting perception above reality.

What we really want is fairness. But what fair even looks like can vary from person to person, depending on your beliefs, values, and priorities.

We have a job to do

We’re not a neutral charity.

Our language isn’t impartial and we’d never claim it is. Frankly, we wouldn’t be doing our job as Replacing Animal Research if we kept to the status quo.

We have a vested interest in human-relevant, non-animal research. It is our entire purpose.

But our lack of impartiality doesn’t make us wrong, or even out of the ordinary.

Someone who’s comfortable with status quo language is equally biased, it’s just less obvious.

When animals are referred to as ‘test subjects’ or ‘research models’ – this language is not impartial. We’re reducing a living creature to a tool for human use. We are using language to normalise hierarchy and how we treat non-human animals by describing them only in the ways we can use them.

Here’s what we do claim: We’ll be open, listen, and never use offensive or derogatory language towards those with whom we disagree.

How impartial can you be?

It’s estimated, worldwide, around 190 million animals are used in experiments every year.

This is a fact. A neutral statement that, if read on its own, is as close to impartial as you can get. If read in the context of this blog, admittedly, not so much.

But it doesn’t invoke a neutral reaction in me. Never has, never will. For others, it’ll be a sentence they read and never think of again. We all have our soft spots.

We care. We care deeply, and that is not a flaw. Caring does not make our work less serious, less scientific, or less right. It just makes us human. Exactly like you.

Want to stay part of the conversation? Join our newsletter to follow our work, get early access to resources, and help us shift the narrative.