Reasons to be skeptical about sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates

Benjamin K. Diggles; Robert Arlinghaus; Howard I. Browman; Steven J. Cooke; Robin L. Cooper; Ian G. Cowx; Charles D. Derby; Stuart W. Derbyshire; Paul JB Hart; Brian Jones; Alexander O. Kasumyan; Brian Key; Julian G. Pepperell; D Christopher Rogers; James D. Rose; Alex Schwab; Anne B. Skiftesvik; Don Stevens; Jeffrey D. Shields; Craig Watson

doi:10.1080/23308249.2023.2257802

Back

Reasons to be skeptical about sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Reasons to be skeptical about sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates

Benjamin K. Diggles, Robert Arlinghaus, Howard I. Browman, Steven J. Cooke, Robin L. Cooper, Ian G. Cowx, Charles D. Derby, Stuart W. Derbyshire, Paul JB Hart, Brian Jones, …

Reviews in fisheries science & aquaculture, Vol.32(1), pp.127-150

2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2023.2257802

Files and links (1)

pdf

Published 3.20 MBDownload View

Published (Version of Record)CC BY V4.0, Open Access

Abstract

Animal ethics

fisheries

aquaculture

sentience

suffering

welfare

verification

policy

The welfare of fishes and aquatic invertebrates is important, and several jurisdictions have included these taxa under welfare regulation in recent years. Regulation of welfare requires use of scientifically validated welfare criteria. This is why applying Mertonian skepticism toward claims for sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates is scientifically sound and prudent, particularly when those claims are used to justify legislation regulating the welfare of these taxa. Enacting welfare legislation for these taxa without strong scientific evidence is a societal and political choice that risks creating scientific and interpretational problems as well as major policy challenges, including the potential to generate significant unintended consequences. In contrast, a more rigorous science-based approach to the welfare of aquatic organisms that is based on verified, validated and measurable endpoints is more likely to result in “win-win” scenarios that minimize the risk of unintended negative impacts for all stakeholders, including fish and aquatic invertebrates. The authors identify as supporters of animal welfare, and emphasize that this issue is not about choosing between welfare and no welfare for fish and aquatic invertebrates, but rather to ensure that important decisions about their welfare are based on scientifically robust evidence. These ten reasons are delivered in the spirit of organized skepticism to orient legislators, decision makers and the scientific community, and alert them to the need to maintain a high scientific evidential bar for any operational welfare indicators used for aquatic animals, particularly those mandated by legislation. Moving forward, maintaining the highest scientific standards is vitally important, in order to protect not only aquatic animal welfare, but also global food security and the welfare of humans.

Details

Title: Reasons to be skeptical about sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates
Authors/Creators: Benjamin K. Diggles - DigsFish Services (Australia)
Robert Arlinghaus - Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries
Howard I. Browman - Norwegian Institute of Marine Research
Steven J. Cooke - Carleton University
Robin L. Cooper - University of Kentucky
Ian G. Cowx - University of Hull
Charles D. Derby - Georgia State University
Stuart W. Derbyshire - National University of Singapore
Paul JB Hart - University of Leicester
Brian Jones - Murdoch University, College of Environmental and Life Sciences
Alexander O. Kasumyan - Lomonosov Moscow State University
Brian Key - The University of Queensland
Julian G. Pepperell - Noosa Hospital
D Christopher Rogers - University of Kansas
James D. Rose - University of Wyoming
Alex Schwab
Anne B. Skiftesvik - Norwegian Institute of Marine Research
Don Stevens - University of Prince Edward Island
Jeffrey D. Shields - William & Mary
Craig Watson - University of Florida
Publication Details: Reviews in fisheries science & aquaculture, Vol.32(1), pp.127-150
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Identifiers: 991005609153007891
Murdoch Affiliation: School of Veterinary Medicine; College of Environmental and Life Sciences
Language: English
Resource Type: Journal article

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: InCites

Metrics

4 File views/ downloads

113 Record Views

32 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types: Industry collaboration; Domestic collaboration; International collaboration
Citation topics: 3 Agriculture, Environment & Ecology; 3.2 Marine Biology; 3.2.659 Decapoda
Web Of Science research areas: Fisheries
ESI research areas: Plant & Animal Science