Language that seems to be objective, free from prejudice, or stating plain facts may still perpetuate bias and harm against non-human animals used in research. For example, the term animal model could be seen as reductionist language portraying sentient beings as products from a biomedical catalog. The phrase "a cancer mouse model was produced using CRISPR/Cas9" conveys a scientific methodology in a straightforward way, but it hides the fact that the mice were genetically altered in utero and born to develop severe tumors that cause them pain, immobility, and lack of appetite and playfulness. Being aware of language’s hidden harms can begin to shift the narrative from laboratory animals as mere inanimate resources to one that recognizes their sentience and moral status. In addition to perpetuating biases, peer reviewers’ language can harm researchers. Peer reviews can sometimes contain condescending or excessively opinionated language. Reviews containing insulting comments or ad hominem attacks are unprofessional and authors should report these to journal editors.