Talk:Pain in fish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shark finning

I have removed the following section which contained no references to pain and so was not relevant to the article:

Shark finning refers to the removal and retention of shark fins and the discard at sea of the carcass. The shark is most often still alive when it is tossed back into the water. The finless sharks are unable to swim and sink to the ocean bottom and die. Shark finning has increased over the past decade due to an increasing demand for shark fins for Chinese shark fin soup and traditional cures, improved fishing technology, and improved market economics. Over 38 million sharks are killed for their fins, annually. It is a billion dollar industry.

16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pain in fish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I think this article has a lot of potential. For the most part the prose is great, easy to understand. The refs are great and the article is extensively referenced. The research section does a good job of detailing some important findings. I'm sorry but I'm going to fail this article for GA this time around because I don't think there's enough here to meet the comprehensiveness criterion, and I'm also concerned that some of what's in the article isn't focused enough; i.e. it isn't related closely enough to the phenomenon of pain in fish (see below).

Here are some suggestions for improvement, I'm sure you can get this up to GA status with some work. Please let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything.

Lead

• Please see WP:LEAD; the lead should summarize the topic. In this case I think it's good the way you've introduced the topic and given historical background, but the lead should also summarize the sections giving info on neurobiology, important research, and the ongoing debate.
• Find an excuse to link pain and fish in the first para.

Background

• Most of the background section deals with how animals feel pain differently from humans, not fish per se. I think the Des Cartes info is good, but the general should flow into the specific, rather than leaving off with general info about all animals.
• This sentence is a departure from the others in this para: Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority one. How did this change come about? There must be missing here, we were just reading about how this was not the case as recently as the 1980s. Were there some seminal experiments or changes in public sentiment that brought about the change? Also, who is Carbone? When using a term or name that's probably unfamiliar to the reader, introduce it, e.g. "Olympic gold medalist Edward Carbone writes..."
• This sentence does not belong in this section: Veterinary medicine uses, for actual or potential animal pain, the same analgesics and anesthetics used in humans. If it is not specific to fish, I think it could just be taken out. If it does mention fish specifically in the source, how about moving it to the last section? Or it might be advisable to have a separate "biology" section that summarizes the biology of pain as it relates to fish. (e.g. where pain centers are located in the brains of animals we understand to feel pain, how these differ in fish).
• A couple more minor problems with this sentence: some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined. First, use of "some" is so vague it's unhelpful: how many? If it's a strong camp or a significant minority, that's more useful info. Second, "critics" sounds a little POV, and I think it's one of the Words to avoid.

Research findings

• Minor point, but the noun + ing construction is awkward: "resulted in fish rubbing their lips along the sides and floors of their tanks." You could say "in response to... the fish rubbed..."
• This sentence is too vague: One researcher argues about the definition of pain used in the studies. What does that mean? One researcher objected to the conclusions because of the definitions?
• This section seems disorganized. I think it would help to explain the relevant neurobiology, e.g. neocortex, then in a new para or another subsection (or even a new section) cover the debate about whether awareness is necessary for the perception of pain. That way you could have a more logical flow: "they have some of the same anatomy as us, but lack this and that. They display these reactions to stimuli. However, there's this debate about whether they have awareness and whether it's necessary for pain."
• External links should not be in the article's body: The Norwegian Research Council is funding a...
• The last para kind of falls flat because it doesn't deal with a finding, just states that they're going to carry out this research. How important is this? Maybe it would help to explain how this will affect the state of research.

Laboratory fish

• This section seems to have the same problem as the Background section: It doesn't relate too closely enough to pain in fish. The first para lists model organisms and the second deals with pain in lab animals. It's possible that a few more sentences could tie this info together, but currently the section doesn't relate closely enough to the article's topic.

General

• The lead alludes to an ethical debate, to implications of the presence or absence of the ability to suffer in fish (e.g. fishing laws). There's not supposed to be anything in the lead that's not in the article. How about a "societal implications" section or "Ethical debate" section? This could detail laws such as those brought up in the second para of the lead, and other social implications.

• I think a few sections should be added. How about this for the layout of the article:
  • Lead
  • Definitions (explaining what is meant by terms like "pain", "nociception", and "suffering" and explaining the point of view that awareness is necessary to suffering, thus relating the discussion to fish) This is important because it seems like a lot of the conclusions depend on the definitions. I found some definitions here, p. 448.
  • Biology (describing the neurobiology of pain and how it relates to fish, e.g. pain centers in their brains) The same book, p. 449, discusses the presence of neuromodulators and neurotransmitters in fish. You could also discuss the evolutionary significance of pain responses and explain the state of research on how that relates to fish (e.g. "it's currently understood that lower vertebrates evolved the ability to sense this and that at this point, fish among them").
  • Research findings (with the info in this section)
  • Societal implications and ethics (you may find a better name for this) This section can subsume some of the laboratory fish section (perhaps as a subsection) if the info in that section can be tied more closely to the article's subject. I think the section also needs more discussion, e.g. about the ethics of and laws relating to fishing.
• Of course during researching this you may find a better way to organize this, that's fine.

I'm sorry to fail this straight off, but I think my concerns about comprehensiveness and focus will take longer to fix than is usually allotted for the GA review process. But I do hope you'll keep adding to it, I think you'll definitely be able to get it passed with some improvements! delldot ∇. 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Research findings

Experiments by William Tavolga provide evidence that fish have pain and fear responses. For instance, in Tavolga’s experiments, toadfish grunted when electrically shocked, and over time they came to grunt at the mere sight of an electrode.

1. Seems OK. 68.51.74.223 below makes a good point. The above represents Tavolga's view, but is by no means scientific consensus.
2. No it's not- Conditioned responses exist in earthworms^[1]- that doesn't mean they feel pain. It just means they feel something that results in a grunt reflex, and are so conditioned to expect the grunt when electrodes are present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.74.223 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional tests conducted at both the University of Edinburgh and the Roslin Institute, in which bee venom and acetic acid was injected into the lips of rainbow trout, resulted in fish rubbing their lips along the sides and floors of their tanks, which the researchers believe was an effort to relieve themselves of pain.[13]

1. The ref' here is wrong. It points to an internet magazine, Buzzle.com, with nothing about the subject. I guess it should point to Sneddon, Braithwaite and Gentle (2003) from Roslin, but which Edinburgh study?

One researcher argues about the definition of pain used in the studies.[14]

1. The ref' is wrong; it should point to Rose (2003), and more than one researcher criticises her on this ground: ([1] and AD Craig does, but I couldn't tell you where). Saying "one researcher" may convey the impression that criticism is minimal.

...the brains of fish fire neurons in the same way human brains do when experiencing pain.

1. This is pretty imprecise, and what study does it refer to?

Professor James D. Rose of the University of Wyoming criticized the study, claiming it was flawed, mainly since it did not provide proof that fish possess "conscious awareness, particularly a kind of awareness that is meaningfully like ours".[17] Rose argues that, since the fish brain is different from ours, fish are probably not conscious in the manner humans are, and while fish may react in a way similar to the way humans react to pain, the reactions in the case of fish have other causes. Rose had published his own opinion a year earlier arguing that fish cannot feel pain because they lack the appropriate neocortex in the brain.[18] Studies indicating that fish can feel pain were confusing nociception (responding to threatening stimulus) with feeling pain, says Rose. "Pain is predicated on awareness. The key issue is the distinction between nociception and pain. A person who is anaesthetised in an operating theatre will still respond physically to an external stimulus, but he or she will not feel pain."[19] However, animal behaviourist Temple Grandin argues that fish could still have consciousness without a neocortex because "different species can use different brain structures and systems to handle the same functions."[16]

1. Seems OK.

In a 2009 paper, Janicke Nordgreen from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Joseph Garner from Purdue University, and others, published research which concluded that goldfish do feel pain, and that their reactions to pain are much like those of humans.[20] "There has been an effort by some to argue that a fish's response to a noxious stimuli is merely a reflexive action, but that it didn't really feel pain," Garner said. "We wanted to see if fish responded to potentially painful stimuli in a reflexive way or a more clever way."[21] The fish were divided into two groups, one given morphine and the other saline. They were then subjected to unpleasant temperatures. The fish that were given saline subsequently acted with defensive behaviours, indicating anxiety, wariness and fear, whereas those given morphine did not.[21] Nordgreen said that the behavioural differences they found showed that fish feel both reflexive and cognitive pain. "The experiment shows that fish do not only respond to painful stimuli with reflexes, but change their behavior also after the event," Nordgreen said. "Together with what we know from experiments carried out by other groups, this indicates that the fish consciously perceive the test situation as painful and switch to behaviors indicative of having been through an aversive experience."[21]

1. It did not conclude "that goldfish do feel pain, and that their reactions to pain are much like those of humans". It concluded "The results presented in this paper support the hypothesis that goldfish perceive increasing heat as aversive, as other vertebrates are known to do."
2. The second source is a news item from the Purdue University website, an unreliable source. It claims Nordgreen said observed behavioral differences showed that fish can feel both reflexive and cognitive pain. But, earlier in the article it explains, correctly, that a "reflexive response is similar to a person involuntarily moving a hand off a hot stove with which they had come into contact. The reaction happens before a person actually experiences pain or understands that they have been hurt." That is, a reflexive response is independent of feeling (awareness).
3. As for the assertion that fish can feel "cognitive pain", that "Together with what we know from experiments carried out by other groups, this indicates that the fish consciously perceive the test situation as painful," that is an extremely bold claim, supported by an unreliable source.

The Norwegian Research Council is funding a three-year research project, scheduled to end in December 2011, into whether cod can feel pain. The researchers will use fMRI and EEGs to study how the cod brain works. The aim of the study is to identify the parts of the cod brain that activate when cod are exposed to potentially painful stimuli, and how those signals are processed.[22][23]

1. Seems OK.

You've taken on a challenge here! A darn good review by some academic demi-god published in a stone-tablet journal would be good to find. But I guess there isn't one yet. Such an important subject, too. Can I suggest that you make it a bit clearer that Sneddon and Nordgreen see an elaborate response to noxious stimuli as proof of pain, (Sneddon cites someone for this notion in her paper, perhaps you could include that) whereas their critics see this nose rubbing, rocking, and eating delay, though it involves brain processes such as memory, as nevertheless just unconscious, automatic behaviors, because no neocortex, no consciousness - no consciousness, no pain. Anthony (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

To supplement what Anthony has said, I think a neuroanatomy approach would be appropriate here:

• A good Edinburgh paper that focuses on neuroanatomy.
• Brain mechanisms in lower vertebrates

Neuropsychology:

• Neuropsychology of learning and memory in Zebrafish

Behavioral perspective:

• Chandroo, KP. Can fish Suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear, and stress Xurtio (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

RSPCA line in opening

This is misleading and worse it's already been featured as a factoid. The RSPCA is a regular old charity and has no official 'authority' whatsoever. It can't prosecute animal abusers any more than you or I can. Perhaps we might state the RSPCA's stance on the issue, but the original source link is broken so I've removed the sentence for now. 93.96.199.108 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious?

"The presence of pain in an animal, or another human for that matter, cannot be known for sure" What the? Sidelight12 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a core philosophical issue, with a vast literature where it has been debated for millennia. The issue underlies all research on the notion of pain in animals. If you read the article you will find the central researchers are drawn up in opposition to each other precisely on this point. If the issue has been finally resolved then a revolution has occurred, but you need to provide reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I need a reliable source that you can't feel pain, because I have no proof. Sidelight12 (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the article's lead in an attempt to get the true state of affairs to come through more clearly and to avoid expressing controversial points of view. Does it work better now? Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's an an improvement Looie, though I'm not sure whether bringing "introspection" into it helps. Back in the 1960s when Ryle and Wittgenstein were influential (I'm out of date) there was a view that mental states were a disposition to do certain things and make certain utterances. In this way, emotional or private introspective states could be regarded as behavioral "dispositions. I'm not sure that resolves anything. If you are personally experiencing suffering and don't comment on it, then it begs the question to say you have a "disposition" to comment on it. More fundamentally, the issue applies to consciousness itself, as a prerequisite for experiencing pain. How can we say a fish is conscious if the fish cannot report on how it experiences itself? Even if it did report on its subjective experiences, how could we check it wasn't just robotically making it up? In the article, Rose opposes the view that fish can feel pain or suffering on the grounds that we cannot prove that fish are conscious. What science can do is show whether or not the behavioral and neurological correlates and pathways that we accept are normally associated with consciousness or pain or suffering are present in fish. But however thoroughly those correlates might be established, researchers like Rose will always be able to drive their truck labeled "No proof they are conscious" right through the evidence. The issue is particularly relevant when it comes to establishing whether certain commercial practices in handling and killing fish are ethical. About a year ago, I started (and abandoned) a stub called animal awareness with the vague aim of eventually writing it properly. But I have no idea what to do with it really. Sidelight12 commented in their edit summary "ridiculous first sentence, no patience for that". While the issue may be inconvenient, it cannot, as the example of Rose shows, just be wished away like that. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm basically aware of the issues. What we need to do here is to find some wording that is valid but also makes sense to readers who haven't done deep reading in philosophy or psychology. If we say things in a way that seems prima facie ridiculous to many readers, and don't clearly explain why it has to be said that way, the article doesn't serve its purpose. Regarding introspection, the basic point is that there is no way of judging pain in humans that is accepted as better than the judgement of a person concerning his own pain -- that's what has to somehow be gotten across. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete section on laboratory fish

I propose to delete the entire section on Laboratory Fish. At the moment, it adds little, if anything, to the topic of Pain in fish. It also implies that pain in laboratory fish is somehow different from pain in non-laboratory fish. The content could be used as the stub of an article on Animal testing in fish to join a small suite of "Animal testing in ....." articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the accompanying photo, with its caption indicating analgesics and anesthetics seem to work, is worth retaining. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup - I agree with that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Descartes' image

I don't agree, at all, with the removal of Descartes' image. Animal pain is a multidisciplinary topic, and many disciplines other than ethology or animal behaviour have important inputs. For example there are significant inputs involving neuroscience, neuroanatomy and ethics. In particular, there are controversial and still unresolved philosophical issues. Descartes had a profound and perhaps pernicious influence on thinking about animal sentience. The presence of Descartes' image, to me, established a measure of visual balance in the article across the various disciplines, which has now been lost. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is rather ironic! I deleted the image precisely because it kept appearing in animal pain articles and I felt it was redundant! However, you make an excellent argument above and I will reinstate it. All the best.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested input

@DrChrissy: you requested input to this article at WikiProject Fishes. You were so busy with the article, I thought I'd give you a free run before adding my own input. I have little time at the moment, but I will contribute what I can. Some initial impressions:

• The article strays occasionally from specific issues to do with fish.
• the philosophy section does not really reflect the concerns of academic philosophy. It needs expanding into that area, since there are significant unresolved philosophical issues that, in my view, should underpin the article.
• you have done an impressive job pulling together material on fish behaviour in connection with pain.

It is a difficult article because so many other disciplines are also relevant, such as the neuroscience of pain and animal ethics. Hopefully other editors who can offer useful input will turn up. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this - much appreciated. I think the "straying from fish" is because I was really thinking about a general discussion of pain in non-human animals and developing a section that could be lifted and adapted to other classes/taxa. Once again - much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

I have made a rather bold edit of moving fairly substantial passages to a new section called "Controversy". I have done this for several reasons. First, this material was previously under the "Research findings" header but in fact, it is argument based on reviews. Second, Rose's standpoint appears to be a minority one - this is my own OR of course, but happy to discuss. Third, and perhaps most importantly, some of the sources in this section (on both sides of the argument) are not what I would call reliable. For example, one Sneddon reference is a paper "in press", but I can not find it's ultimate publication. One/several of Rose's statements appear to be non-peer reviewed and I feel we should be looking for more robust sources (if these exist). Happy to discuss any of this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very appropriate to bring the controversial issues together in their own section. Your general expansion of the article has been good as well. I will add material to the controversy section when I have the time. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)#

Cheers Epi. Much appreciated. I know this is OR, but the Rose camp have brought nothing new to the table in over a decade (Sneddon might have said this), so I do feel it would be out of balance to just leave their opinions in amongst the scientific text. What do you think about the long-term possibility of trying to make this a GA?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your decision to do this has greatly subtracted from the objectivity of the page. Deletion of key facts on nociceptors and removing scientifically robust information on relative % of c-type fibres in elasmobranchs vs teleost fish vs humans with congenital insensitivity to pain, and placing other scientifically indisputable facts on C-type nociceptors in fishes and elasmobranchs into the controversies section, right at the bottom, smacks of censorship and/or an underlying agenda. These data are easily obtained from the peer reviewed scientific literature (see Rose JD et al.(2014). Can fish really feel pain ? Fish and Fisheries 15: 97-133), and as they are critical to the debate on this issue, they should probably be placed right up front, rather than censored and/or sidelined. Reviews like Rose et al. (2014) and Key (2015) of the "fish pain" scientific literature are needed in this field because the results of many of the individual research papers have been misinterpreted, not replicable (which brings real warning bells for scientists) and/or taken out of context in the media. To discount reviews which have actually been appreciated by the vast majority of the scientific community (as they provide much needed perspective on the issue), and trying to pass them off as a minority view demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the issue and does little for the credibility of this page. Indeed, I would strongly advise putting the controversies section right up front so laypeople who log onto the page hoping to learn something quickly realise that the issue does not have scientific concensus at this time, rather than the current situation that basically drives an agenda and ignores or sidelines any science that puts the agenda into question. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits by an IP

The IP 124.170.97.78 has made a number of uncited changes. They also left a comment here which I have moved so it is immediately below, since this is a more appropriate place:

Unfortunately, tecent changes to this fish pain article have made it unbalanced and many do not accurately reflect the scientific state of play of the current debate on the issue. Key information (e.g. on % of nociceptors in mammals vs humans with congential insensitivity to pain vs fish) have either been deleted or placed in the "controversies" section, when these data are simple scientific facts. The whole page now needs a proper cleanup in order to regain some credibility.  - 124.170.97.78 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)  

They have also tried to centre the article around the IASP definition of pain. That is hardly a relevant or useful definition in the context of investigating pain in fish. For example, one of the three key points of the IASP definition is that "pain is always subjective". The IASP is an organisation dedicated to the medical relief of human pain. It is not an organisation dedicated to advancing knowledge about pain in animals, and I doubt it has anything useful to say about pain in fish. Given the current intrusions of medical politics into some Wikipedia animal articles, is is important to keep an appropriate distance between this article and medicine. Accordingly, I have reverted the IP's edits. The IP is welcome to discuss the issues further here, and seek wp:consensus for the changes they would like to see. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The changes which were made were not uncited, they were all scientifically valid issues covered in more detail in Rose JD et al.(2014). Can fish really feel pain ? Fish and Fisheries 15: 97-133, and were referenced as such. Similar points were also raised in Key 2015) Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness. Biol Philos (2015) 30:149–165. Those interested in this topic (including those editing this wikipedia page) are encouraged to read and UNDERSTAND both these papers before they do anything further. The recent changes to the page by others demonstrated those people did not have a full understanding of what pain is and, more importantly, what it is not. This is why the IASP definition was included as it is extremely important to know what pain is NOT before you start to review the literature on whether fish can experience it. The way the wikipedia page is written now there are fundamental issues surrounding what is defined as a fish - as the scientific literature shows elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) are certainly fish (cartilaginous ones), but the scientific literature also points out that sharks and rays appear to lack the C type nociceptors that are required to begin the process of trauma detection that leads to emotional detection of pain in higher vertebrates such as birds and mammals. In other words, they do not even have hardware to start the process - perhaps because it would be counterproductive for them to evolve the ability as mating in many sharks involves biting the other partner to allow copulation to occur. So in harbouring such glaring errors of fact, the wikipedia page on "fish pain" is now worse than misleading, it is now scientifically incorrect on this and many other points, which make is a much less useful page than it was before the more recent editorial changes were made. I strongly suggest this page gets some professional help to at least ensure that it is scientifically correct on critical neurobiological points. This can be done without even touching on the various philosophical and anthropomorphic arguments that will inevitably come with this territory. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So the first step towards "concensus" on this page would be to reinstate the changes I made earlier (e.g. reinstate the IASP definition and also the other text that was entered that put other statements in the page into the correct neurobiological context). Your statement that the edits were uncited are incorrect, they were scientifically valid points raised in Rose et al. 2014, and other recent reviews, so there is no reason for the edits to be deleted.124.170.97.78 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your concerns help focus some key issues. I would like to see the article focused more explicitly on the controversy between those who believe that fish feel pain and those that don't. It would be good if you can skilfully play devil's advocate on this talk page to the idea that fish experience pain, but waiting for "professional help" may be as forlorn as waiting for Godot. Wikipedia articles are not based on professional help but on neutrality and verifiability. Note that while as editors we may present original research as arguments on this talk page, we may not include original research within the Wikipedia article itself. This talk page is a place to thrash out differences and see if we can reach agreement on how the article should be written. I agree entirely that there "are fundamental issues surrounding what is defined as a fish". Enormous species diversity exists among fish, a term which includes pretty much all aquatic vertebrates apart from amphibians and tetrapods who returned to the sea. That's half of all vertebrate species. The article should make it clear that findings among say ray-finned species are not necessarily going to indicate anything about cartilaginous species, and vica versa. The IASP definition of pain, focused as it is on the medical relief of subjective pain in humans, seems to me detached from issues to do with pain in animals. I don't understand why you think it might be privileged in this context. Some of the points raised by Rose in 2014 and by Key in 2015 have already been discussed in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just realised I should reply to defend the IASP definition. Are you saying that humans aren't animals ? The key is, to experience pain there need to be more than nociception. Once nociceptive signals are made, there needs to be an emotional response generated in the brain that is recognised consciously as pain. This is why the IASP definition is a good one as it describes this very clearly, not only for humans but in other animals too. Some of the current wording of this page suggests there is a blurring of understanding of nociception vs pain - they are two very separate things and a clear working definition is required to show this. Professor Pelagic (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

heres an easy one - external links

Now, for an easy one, right at the end of the page, there are the external links - both pointing to sources that lean towards the "pro pain" side of the debate. I could go on and discuss the veracity of the sources, why they were chosen, etc, but all I am pointing out is again, only one side of the issue is being presented to the external sources, so biased, not a NPOV. To balance this up, I suggest adding 2 links to the most recent peer reviewed scientific reviews that suggest the alternative. These ones are as good as any http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9797948/Fish-cannot-feel-pain-say-scientists.html

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2015/01/grey-matter-matters-when-it-comes-feeling-pain

If these are included, I believe the external links section would be balanced.Professor Pelagic (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Prof, I am a little confused. In your posting to NPOV noticeboard you stated that we should not rely on Newspaper articles, yet your first suggested external link is to the Telegraph?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Both are external links to news items that discuss peer reviewed scientific papers - they refer the reader to the papers for more details. You can include them if you choose to leave the other external links in, or leave them out if you choose to remove the other external links. Seems you have chosen the latter. I concur that sections that do not contribute to the discussion should be removed - shorter is better. Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never really been a great fan of external links. In the present case, they were not of the best quality, one was even a blog! So rather than trying to equalise numbers/arguements inn this section, I have been bold and deleted the entire section. I hope others agree, and we can move onto the next concern.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Harking and Key (2015)

In relation to the issues raised by Dr Chrissy and Epipelagic, I strongly suggest that both read the following papers:

Browman, H.I. and Skiftesvik, A.B. (2011) Welfare in aquatic organisms – is there some faith- based HARKing going on here? Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 94, 255–257.

and

Key 2015) Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness. Biol Philos (2015) 30:149–165

The relevant sections are:

from Browman and Skiftesvik (2011). Kerr (1998) reminds us that scientific research is based upon the hypothetico-deductive approach: one deduces or derives an explicit and testable hypothesis from prevailing theory. He defines HARKing as ‘…presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e. one based on or informed by one’s results) in one’s research report as if it were, in fact, an a priori hypothesis’. It should be clear to any objective reader that there is a lot of HARKing going on in the welfare literature"

and from Key (2015). Modification of behaviour with drugs does not necessarily demonstrate pain

It has been proposed that if an animal’s behavioural response to a noxious stimulus is attenuated following administration of a drug known to be an analgesic in humans, then it is likely that the animal can feel pain. However, it needs to be pointed out that analgesics can be active at multiple sites in the neuroanatomical pathways associated with noxious stimuli. If an analgesic blocks or reduces neural activity in the spinal cord (Yaksh and Rudy 1976) it can subsequently attenuate neural responses in the brainstem and telencephalon. Similarly, if an analgesic works at the level of the brainstem it can modulate both brainstem and higher-order brain responses (Pert and Yaksh 1975). If an analgesic is active at the level of the telencephalon and reduces behavioural responses (Xie et al. 2004) then the animal, at least, has the possibility of feeling a noxious stimulus as painful (however this interpretation is dependent first, on the behaviour being non-reflexive and second, on the existence of the necessary neural hardware; see below). At present, the inference that fish feel pain because behavioural responses to noxious stimuli are attenuated following systemic administration of morphine (Sneddon 2003) is weak, particularly given that both the site of action as well as the physiological role of this drug in fish are unknown.

It worries me greatly that the persons editing and gatekeeping this page are apparently not aware of the literature I am pointing out - perhaps this is why the page is currently biased. Because of this, and until there is evidence that this other literature has been read and included in the page, I strongly suggest that the NPOV tag is reinserted onto this page to alert readers of this discussion. If there is edit blocking by some which is removing scientifically valid points supported by peer reviewed references that are being included to try to rebalance this article, people should know why.124.170.188.144 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

References

• So what specific changes would you like to see? The article on aquatic animal welfare is a broad opinion piece, not a research paper or a detailed review. I agree with much of what is said there, particularly about research that uses terms like "suffering" but does not define them operationally. But the essay does not address problems with specific research articles about pain in fish. If you want to add something about systemic bias in the literature on pain in fish, then you need more sources than just this one.

The paper by Key has already been referenced three times in the article. I have no objection if you want you want to add something to the section on the opioid system such as: "According to Key, it does not necessarily follow that pain was present just because behavioural changes occurred after taking drugs". --Epipelagic (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I suggest to the IP that they stop snipey little comments like calling me a layperson as if they are an expert, talking about edit-blocking and "gatekeeping"; such comments are creating a rather adversarial atmosphere which is not needed. Please try to limit your comments to content rather than editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Key 2015 Please read the section by Key again. The vast majority of the information in the paragraph relates to where in the neuroanatomy an analgesic has its effect - it does not directly describe behavioural output (it also uses references from the 1970s!) These huge generalisations also do not take into account species-specific responses to pain. Some animals (usually social or predatory animals) show highly overt signs of pain or distress (e.g. vocalisations) whereas others (usually prey animals) are more stoical and hardly show any signs of pain (e.g. compare pigs and sheep). Back to the Key article - it is only the last sentence that addresses behavioural output, and this is used to criticise just one study (published in 2003), using one species of fish, and one analgesic (morphine). If there is to be any insertion of this "finding", its limitations should also be addressed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Browman, H.I. and Skiftesvik, A.B. (2011) Thank you to the IP for bringing this to my attention - it nicely summarises several of the concerns of scientific publishing in animal welfare. Unfortunately, this paper is so general I am unsure of its relevance here. Please note the article discusses "marine organisms". It does not state it is about fish - in fact the word "fish" is not used once in the text. The article does not even state whether it is discussing vertebrates or invertebrates, or both.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Kerr (1998) Again this is a generalist paper and is certainly not specific to pain in fish - it would need examples to support the contention of publication bias related to the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest assured, Browman and Skiftesvik were very specific and if you correspond with them they will tell you they are talking specifically about the alleged pain papers for both fish and marine invertebrates (crustaceans, molluscs).Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you are simply making things up. They were not specific in the slightest. The closest they come to being specific is in the last sentence where they talk about the welfare of aquatic animals - presumably they are being specific here in discounting aquatic plants! This sort of editing is becoming borderline disruptive. Please stick to discussions of content and furthermore, content that is verifiable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but just look at their reference list - they talk specifically about fish pain and fish welfare articles in their paper, and they refer specifically, right up front in the opening paragraph, to the fact their paper follows a previous one they published as editors of a special issue of the Journal Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, the special issue being on welfare in aquatic organisms http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/dao/v75/n2/. So if you think Browman and Skiftesvik were not being specific and inclusive of fish pain articles when they talk about harking and underreporting of negative results, perhaps you should contact them and see what they say. They were editors of a whole special journal issue on the exact topic we are discussing here, so if you did not know this, I am beginning to think you have not read very widely in this area. Professor Pelagic (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

PS, I would also think the title of the journal both Browman and Skiftesvik articles appeared in speaks to the subject - Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. Enough said. I would think that articles about aquatic animal welfare in aquatic animal journals are the most eminently verifiable references I can provide for you.Professor Pelagic (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So what specific changes to the article would you like to see?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion section was initiated in response to your requests for supporting information. My requests for specific changes to each section of the article are contained in the relevant discussions for each section.Professor Pelagic (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your tendency to reply with a wall of words covering any number of issues and extremely sweeping (unverified) statements is becoming very time consuming to reply to. When combined with your refusal to use threads and indentation in the conventional way, it is nearly impossible to conduct these conversations. I suggest you start a new section for each edit you wish to make and learn threading.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wider issues on pain in animals

Recent themes on this talk page are as relevant to the more general article on Pain in animals as they are to fish. That article needs overhauling as well, and I don't think we can satisfactorily rewrite the article on pain in fish until we have settled what should be said about pain in animals generally. We could extend the scope of this discussion to include the more general article. We could also look at seeing if we can establish a consistent structure for the other sub articles in the series on pain in animals. For example, various versions of the table on criteria for pain reception could be used in all the articles. On the other hand, it might be better to try and deal as far as we can with the fish article first. But we could keep the wider issues in mind. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this - and I have borne this in mind when I recently created Pain in amphibians.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

another easy one - section on scientific statements

Ok, as we discuss the trickier sections, its good to get some easy ones under the belt and out of the way. The section on scientific statements is woefully unbalanced. Only 3 statements from groups that think there is evidence that fish feel pain. No balance at all with statements from the scientists who think there is insufficient evidence or that the current evidence is flawed. This section needs to be either rebalanced with statements from the review papers that point out the various issues with the evidence, or deleted, or replaced with another section that is needed, perhaps something on comparisons between Teleost fish vs elasmobranchs.Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please suggest specific edits so we can discuss these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest remove this section entirely as its contents are covered elsewhere.Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose removal, but feel free to suggest other material.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, here are some other scientific statements that should be included from "the other side", so readers can get a better feeling for the current state of the science of this topic.

In 2011,Browman and Skiftesvik wrote "Much of the literature on aquatic animal welfare is flawed by 4 non-mutually exclusive (and often inter-related) biases: under-reporting/ignoring of negative results, faith-based research and/or interpretations, Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (HARKing), and inflating the science boundary. These biases have an insidious impact on the credibility of the ‘science’ surrounding aquatic animal welfare. While concerns about the welfare of aquatic organisms are valid, research on this topic should be grounded in the scientific method, embrace negative results, avoid faith-based interpretations of experimental results and/or HARKing, and strictly respect the science boundary."

In 2014, Rose et al. wrote "We review studies claiming that fish feel pain and find deficiencies in the methods used for pain identification, particularly for distinguishing unconscious detection of injurious stimuli (nociception) from conscious pain. Results were also frequently misinterpreted and not replicable, so claims that fish feel pain remain unsubstantiated. Comparable problems exist in studies of invertebrates."

In 2015, Key wrote "A set of fundamental properties of neural tissue necessary for feeling pain or experiencing affective states in vertebrates is proposed. While mammals and birds possess the prerequisite neural architecture for phenomenal consciousness, it is concluded that fish lack these essential characteristics and hence do not feel pain."Professor Pelagic (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Dr Chrissy, I see you have been back here but have not replied to this. However, as I cannot see how the page can be considered neutral without including the balancing scientific statements from "the other side", I will take the liberty of including these ones listed above.Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

At the moment there seems to be a tussle going on here between the "fish feel pain" camp and the "fish don't feel pain" camp. To declare my personal bias in the matter, I don't belong to either of these black and white positions. I belong more to the "In what sense can it be said that fish feel pain?" camp, and I do not see a collection of extremist quotations from both sides of the divide as contributing to the debate. It is empty and aggressive posturing that just gets in the way of clarity. Pain in fish, if it is a viable concept, is going to be different from pain in humans. We need to explore and honour that difference. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Professor Pelagic: I do not agree with your addition of the Browman and Skiftesvik quote into the article. That paper is about broad issues in the welfare of aquatic organisms, not about pain in fish. The appropriate article for that quote is Animal welfare, not here. Also, you didn't wait for consensus before bulldozing your preference into the article. Please be patient. You should signal on this page if you intend to make a controversial change, and then if there is agreement, or if there are no objections for several days, you can reasonably make the change. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my thoughts about this section and tend to agree that it is really polarising rather than adding to the story. I would now support deletion of this section.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree to deletion if that is what others want. I am actually equivocal on the issue myself, but knowing the evidence on the table for "both sides" and being a fan of good quality science, I have become very sensitive to assumptions that the whole issue is done and dusted either way. What is important for an online reference like wikipedia is , however, to provide both sides of the debate, otherwise the readers are not provided with a neutral point of view on the subject. That is all I am ensuring here. As for changes, I think that works both ways too - there have been some changes, like new tables etc, that have been put up recently by others without full agreement on the contents therein. Regardless, I think we are making reasonable progress. The page is already starting to look a bit more balanced.Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

analogy table

I very much welcome the recently inserted table - thanks User:Epipelagic, however, it has some inaccuracies which I fear might devalue it's use here. The most startling cell in the table I saw immediately was the one which says insects have no brain. Think of a bee! Indeed, our own own Brain article begins with "The brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals." FWIW, I started on a very similar table solely for invertebrates some time ago - I have moved this to the top of my sandbox for anyone that might be interested. For the current fish article, I wonder if the table should be trimmed to include only vertebrates. In that way, it makes the point that fish probably feel pain and avoids the "messiness" of invertebrates.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dr Chrissy, when you say "fish probably feel pain" you must not have understood (or read about) the fundamental scientific issues raised in peer reviewed scientific literature such as Rose et al. (2014) and Key (2015) that suggest otherwise. I think this is the reason why recent edits on this page have resulted in it losing its former balance as an informative learning tool. Deletion of key facts on nociceptors and removing scientifically robust information on relative % of c-type fibres in fish vs humans with congenital insensitivity to pain, as well as sidelining scientifically indisputable facts on C-type nociceptors into the controversies section are but some of the reasons why this page no longer exhibits its former balance. These issues should be remedied ASAP if the page is to retain credibility as a useful learning tool.124.170.97.78 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see Varner just asserts earthworms and insects lack brains without discussing what he means by a brain. He has another table further on which includes leeches and snails. I've inserted that temporarily into the article so you can see what it is. Then I agree we might as well delete the stuff on invertebrates. Do you have other concerns? If the vertebrate part has significant problems we could still retain the structure of the table but source the table cells individually. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know all that much about leeches, but snails can do some pretty cool things - see Pain in invertebrates#Learned avoidance. I'm not sure about the ? in cells for amphibians, reptiles and birds. I'll search out some references and perhaps we can put linked notes into the cells. I don't want to trash the whole table as it adds balance that some people, even in 2012, have concerns.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I found these refs regarding the ? cells. I'm not entirely happy with the last one (Mosley). The author is an established expert, but this article might not be peer-reviewed. I'll look for a better one, but I'm sure this will be OK for the moment.

Amphibians:Effects of analgesics.

Amphibians:Nociceptors and brain linked.

Reptiles:Effects of analgesics.

Reptiles:Nociceptors and brain linked.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

This is the way I envisage the table might look with the additional references introduced. Happy to discuss.

Argument by analogy
Property
	Fish	Amphibians	Reptiles	Birds	Mammals
Has nociceptors	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Has brain	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Nociceptors and brain linked	Y	? / Y	? / Y	? / Y	Y
Has endogenous opiods	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Analgesics affect responses	Y	?	?	Y	Y
Response to damaging stimuli similar to humans	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

Notes

DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

• That's good. Varner wouldn't have seen the 2013 source when he wrote his book, and may well not have seen the 2011 ones either. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have the #Criteria for pain reception, this table could be aligned with that. So this table will provide a comparative pain ethology and neurology for vertebrates. The fish column could be represented by the bony fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Overview

Following is a draft overview of the main issues involving pain in animals. It can be clarified and improved. Please feel free to add comments to each bullet point and edit the bullet points themselves if you think there is agreement. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Draft overview

• 1. Philosophical issues

Comment: Influential philosophers like Dennett and Caruthers argue it is likely that animals lack the phenomenal consciousness necessary to experience pain. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 2. Methodological issues: In particular, avoiding subjectivity and anthropomorphism.

Comment: Only operational criteria should be used for determining whether an animal is experiencing subjective feeling states, such as "suffering" or "emotion". Such terms, unqualified, should not included in a functional definition of pain in animals. Anthropomorphic confusion occurs, for example, if animals are expected to possess the same neural equipment and the same neural correlates required for experiencing pain as humans. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 3. Neural equipment associated with pain (neuroanatomy)

• 4. Neural behaviour associated with pain (neurophysiology)

• 5. Animal behaviour associated with pain (ethology)

• 6. Comparisons across different taxa

• 7. Evolutionary pathways for pain and its correlates

• 8. Ethics and welfare

Comment: If, for example, fish feel pain, then there are ethical and welfare consequences running across huge commercial enterprises. But that is really the main point to make here. Details of just what the ethical and welfare issues are don't belong in the pain articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Note: The table above on "Criteria for pain reception" could be extended and refined to include criteria commonly used across all taxa in bullet 3, 4 and 5 above. The same criteria could then be used in all animal pain subarticles. This would bring a lot of consistency across the articles, and make bullet 6 comparisons more transparent. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent overview of the main issues and I fully support its inclusion. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Another easy one - Further Reading

As another easy way to restore neutrality to this page, lets also consider the last section on further reading. I see that now it only contains no less than 8 papers published by authors relating to only one side of this debate, but none from the other side. I suggest that the further reading section is balanced by removing 3 of the existing papers (8-3 = 5) then including these 5 following references (in alphabetical order).

Browman, H.I. and Skiftesvik, A.B. (2011) Welfare in aquatic organisms – is there some faith- based HARKing going on here? Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 94, 255–257

Diggles, B.K., Cooke, S.J., Rose, J.D. and Sawynok, W. (2011) Ecology and welfare of aquatic animals in wild capture fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21, 739–765

Eckroth JR, Aas-Hansen O, Sneddon LU, Bicha H, Døving KB (2014). Physiological and Behavioural Responses to Noxious stimuli in the Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua). PLoS ONE 9(6): e100150. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100150

Key (2015) Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness. Biol Philos (2015) 30:149–165

Rose JD, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Diggles BK, Sawynok W, Stevens ED, Wynne CDL (2014). Can fish really feel pain ? Fish and Fisheries 15: 97-133. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The last three references are already used in the text and are correctly cited in "References" - therefore, they should not be used again in the "Further reading" section.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, you are arbitrarily giving non-neutral advice about what people should read and what they should not. You are only providing "pro pain" articles, which is extremely biased. If that is the case, there are grounds to delete the whole further reading section as it will not meet NPOV rules. I strongly suggest including those references I have suggested as they are the most appropriate for people who are interested in both sides of the topic, and they are also freely available on the web. I am sure, Dr Chrissy, if I deleted the current further reading list in its entirety and replaced those references with others of my own choosing, that you would probably get very upset and cry foul. That is essentially what you are doing here with my suggestions.Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is rather dangerous ground to start publicly predicting what another editor will do - you can not read my mind. I propose that the "Further reading" section is deleted (I have often thought if the sources in those sections are that important they would be included in the references).DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should delete the section. Generally I only use a section for "Further Reading" when I haven't gotten round to incorporating the sources in the main article. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

agreed then, please delete. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)