CAMP would be scientific if the research was done according to "rules laid down in exact science for performing observations and testing the soundness of conclusions." (Oxford Dictionary)

Drawing conclusions by standing staring at an already terrified dog for a minute is questionable science, as is removing food from a dog who may well be recovering from starvation, or dropping cans on the floor or blowing airhorns in a dog's ear. Doing things like this to hundreds of dogs is no more scientific. You can't extrapolate, diagnose, or generalise on the basis of a test like CAMP. It's unfair to many of the dogs being tested. I haven't even mentioned physical or emotional health problems that can affect dogs in high-stress shelter situations, which are not always taken into account. A lot of people don't like loud noises either. We'd be quite dismayed if a stranger removed our food when we were eating, especially if we were starving.

A lot of humans freak out in test situations too and we understand what is going on. Personally, I would rather rely on long-term observations made by skilled shelter staff or the judgements of an experienced foster parent rather than a one-shot test that can be used by local SPCA staff (or head office staff) to require that dogs be put down.

As for the "orange zone dogs", it's a matter of luck and numbers whether they get the opportunity to survive. They can go at any minute if there are any green-zone dogs who need space. Survival being a matter of luck- well this is hardly science either! It's just a conclusion drawn from a problematic test.