Non-profit organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have requested a change to the “derogatory” definition of rat in a letter sent to the Cambridge Dictionary on Wednesday (09/04).

PETA has claimed that the present entry inaccurately associates rats with deceit and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about the creature, which they have deemed an “unfair” mischaracterisation. According to the organisation, this fuels the frequent use of rats in animal experimentation.

The letter, addressed to the Dictionary’s editor, Rachel Fletcher, takes specific issue with a lower definition of rat as “an unpleasant person who is not loyal,” which is claimed to misrepresent the “natural intelligence, communication skills and empathy” of rats. A PETA associate said: “The derogatory association fuels false perceptions about rats and promotes speciesism – the human held belief that other animals are inferior.”

The definition’s primary example reads that “rats carry disease” which PETA members also suggest perpetuates harmful, negative stereotypes. It also makes reference to the usage of rats in chemical testing, mentioning “lab rats”.

PETA’s vice-president of programmes Elisa Allen said: “Perpetuating negative stereotypes about rats makes it easier to justify their killing or usage in animal testing.” This is alleged as both an example of speciesism and an oversight of rats’ natural intelligence and sociability.

PETA have requested the removal of the “derogatory” definition in the name of both rats’ wellbeing and linguistic precision.

This follows on from World Rat Day last week (04/05), when the RSPCA urged people to “be kind to rats” and “ditch popular misconceptions” about their nature. On the day, the RSPCA called for greater public kindness towards the rodent.

The charity’s 2024 Animal Kindness Index report found that only a third of respondents believed that rats could feel pain whilst 52% believed rats could feel emotions.

The University of Cambridge was contacted for comment.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form.