October 27, 2025

In response to an excerpt from the book, “Lab Dog: A Beagle and His Human Investigate the Surprising World of Animal Research,” published in STAT on October 14,  AMP emphasizes that specific terminology used in science and research protocols is embedded in a regulatory framework designed to protect animals and ensure consistent care. Read the full response here and below.

Melanie Kaplan’s recent opinion piece, an excerpt from her new book, “Lab Dog: A Beagle
and His Human Investigate the Surprising World of Animal Research,” raises an
important truth: Language shapes how the public understands science. The research
community hasn’t always done enough to explain the words we use or the safeguards
behind them.

However, the excerpt’s claim that this language “hides” reality to be secretive overlooks
important context and may lead readers to misunderstand its true purpose. In animal
research, terminology is not about softening or “soothing” reality; it’s about precision and
accountability. Words like “euthanasia” and “animal model” have specific scientific and
legal meanings that trigger defined welfare standards, training requirements, and
oversight mechanisms. For instance, when a protocol lists “euthanasia,” it activates a chain
of mandated veterinary review, approved methods, and public documentation.

Far from being euphemisms, these are terms embedded in a regulatory framework
designed to protect animals and ensure consistent, humane care. Animal research is
among the most scrutinized areas of science in the U.S. Institutions using regulated
species are inspected by the Department of Agriculture — often unannounced — and those
reports are posted publicly. Federal agencies publish annual counts by species and pain
category, and most major programs also undergo voluntary Association for Assessment
and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care accreditation, adding yet another
independent welfare audit beyond what the law requires.

Specialized language isn’t unique to research or animal-related fields. In aviation, for
example, a pilot might use terms like “controlled descent” or “runway incursion” — not to
downplay a problem or avoid plain words like “crash” or “near miss,” but because those
phrases are standardized codes that precisely define the risk and corrective process. They
enable experts, inspectors, and regulators to communicate effectively, allowing every event
to be traced, measured, and corrected under federal oversight, ensuring the issue doesn’t
happen again. Animal research terminology works the same way: it ensures that welfare
and procedural standards are met, not masked.

Nonetheless, the research community can and must do more to communicate
transparently. Scientists, veterinarians, animal care professionals, and compliance experts
share a duty to proactively explain their work and the compassion behind it. Clearer
dialogue that is grounded in facts, not fear, will strengthen public trust and safeguard the
scientific progress that benefits both human and animal health.

— Naomi Charalambakis, Americans for Medical Progress
Published: October 25, 2025