Talk:Pain in fish

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)

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)

Lead image

Is the lead image appropriate? Sailfish are not mentioned at all in the article and I can not see that the fish in the image has even been hooked. I'm not entirely sure what I would like to see replace it, but I thought I would raise the point.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had time to look for a few possibilities.

Pain in fish

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Pain in fish

Image 5

Image 6

Image 7

Image 8

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)

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)

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)

getting the balance right in instances with no scientific concensus

I have tried to remedy some of the biases and inconsistencies that have snuck into this page in recent revisions. reasons for the edits are explained below.

2nd paragraph Included: However, on the other hand science also shows there are also several neurobiological features in fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception, while modification of behaviour with drugs does not necessarily indicate pain (Key 2014).

Why ? To balance the content of the earlier paragraph in light of current scientific knowledge of the topic

3rd paragraph

Deleted: Both scientists and animal protection advocates have raised concerns about the possible suffering (pain and fear) of fish caused by angling.

Why ? Due to redundancies with previous paragraph (angling/sport fisheries mentioned twice) and the fact that Lynn Sneddons science group is the only one raising concerns about the need to use anaethetics while removing fish hooks etc. - by such statements they have proven they are also advocates - the vast majority of fish and fisheries scientists around the world have not raised such concerns.

Reptiles and amphibians:

Inserted: However, as pointed out by Key (2014), modification of behaviour with drugs does not necessarily indicate pain.

why ? because it is improper to provide a list of scientifically unvalidated criteria and try to pass it off as having scientific concensus when the problem is being discussed in the scientific literature.

Argument by analogy

Inserted: However, argument by analogy is recognized as a very anthropomorphic way of assessing animal behaviours, and thus is incapable of providing sufficient evidence in support of human-like attributes in animals Lehman (1997). Anthropomorphism and scientific evidence for animal mental states. In : Mitchell et al (eds). Anthropomorphisms, Anecdotes and Animals State University of New York Press, pp 104-116

why ? because laypeople/readers need to know this when you try to bring arguments by analogy into the debate.

The experience of pain:

To address this problem when assessing the capacity of other species to experience pain, argument-by-analogy is SOMETIMES used. This is based on the ANTHROPOMORPHIC principle that if an animal responds to a stimulus in a similar way to ourselves, it is likely to have had an analogous experience.

why ? As above, laypeople/readers need to know this when you try to bring arguments by analogy into the debate.

Removed: To address this problem when assessing the capacity of other species to experience pain, argument-by-analogy is used. This is based on the principle that if an animal responds to a stimulus in a similar way to ourselves, it is likely to have had an analogous experience.

why ? again, see above, argument by analogy is a very poor and anthropomorphic method which lacks scientific validity.

Added: A valid working definition of pain is vital for efforts to explain its underlying mechanisms. To this end, the key features of the definition of pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) are that pain is (i) an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage; (ii) pain is always subjective; and (iii) pain is sometimes reported in the absence of tissue damage and the definition of pain should avoid tying pain to an external eliciting stimulus. Wall (1999) emphasized, ‘…activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state.’

Wall, P.D. (1999) Pain: neurophysiological mechanisms. In: Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (eds G. Adelman and B. Smith). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1565–1567.

why ? People need to know what pain is , and what it is not, and the current page does not provide this

Physical pain

Added: However, the validity of these criteria for proving pain perception has been questioned by several scientists (Rose et al 2012, Key 2015)

Why: to retain balance and demonstrate the problems with these criteria. There is no scientific concensus that these criteria have been at all validated in fish

Research findings

Removed: ===Nervous system=== In 2015, Lynne Sneddon, Director of Veterinary Science at the University of Liverpool, wrote "The neurophysiological basis of nociception or pain in fish is demonstrably similar to that in mammals."

Why ? This quote by Sneddon is scientifically incorrect and used out of context – there are fundamental neurophysiological differences in nociceptors between fish and higher vertebrates (e.g. % of C type fibres vary by over an order of magnitude which is a critical fact often overlooked), only the basic pathway is the same. Nervous system is also a catchall phrase that adds little to the page, the more correct term in this context is nociceptive pathways and the relevant parts of those pathways are already discussed. So, remove as redundant and misleading.

Physical pain

Added: However, as summarised by Rose et al. (2014) and other scientists, these criteria are in themselves insufficient to determine whether animals experience pain, are frequently misinterpreted, and allegedly positive results for "pain" are not repeatable between research groups.

why ? to retain balance and demonstrate the problems with these criteria. There is no scientific concensus that these criteria have been at all validated in fish

Nerve Fibres

Added: As noted by Rose et al. (2014),humans with congenital insensitivity to pain only have around 24–28% C type nociceptive afferents in their peripheral nerves (Rosemberg et al. 1994). In contrast, cutaneous nerves in carp and rainbow trout have only 4-5% C-type fibres, indicating that teleost fish have 4-5 times lower numbers of trauma receptors than humans that cannot feel pain, while sharks and rays have fewer again.

why ? This information is critical anatomical information regarding nociceptive pathways - it is central to the topic and should not be sidelined (or censored) by trying to make out that basic anatomical differences are controversial.

Inserted from “controversy “ Based on these anatomical differences, several scientists have argued that the absence of C type fibres in cartilagenous sharks and rays indicates that signalling leading to pain perception is likely to be impossible, and the low numbers for bony fish (e.g. 5% for carp and trout) indicate this is also highly unlikely for these fish. Rose concludes there is little evidence that sharks and rays possess the nociceptors required to initiate pain detection in the brain, and that, while bony fish are able to unconsciously learn to avoid injurious stimuli, they are little more likely to experience conscious pain than sharks.

Rose et al. concludes that fishes have survived well in an evolutionary sense without the full range of nociception typical of humans or other mammals. Brain

why ? because we would like to think that the wikipedia page on fish pain should contain the relevant scientific facts in the relevant sections based on peer reviewed scientific literature, to let people make up their own minds with reliable facts rather than trying to hide facts at the very bottom of the page.

changed it SEPs in different brain regions, including the telencephalon[42] which may mediate the co-ordination of NOCICEPTIVE information.[37]

why : changed word "pain" to "nociceptive" to correct an inaccurate citation, the article cited relates to processing of nociceptive signals

removed: It has been concluded that the brains of rainbow trout fire neurons in the same way human brains do when experiencing pain.

Why ?: these claims by Sneddon have been not been shown to be repeatable by other research groups, see summary in Rose et al. 2014 and papers such as Newby, N.C. and Stevens, E.D. (2008) The effects of the acetic acid “pain” test on feeding, swimming and respiratory responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Applied Animal Behavior Science 114, 260– 269.

Newby, N.C. and Stevens, E.D. (2009) The effects of the acetic acid “pain” test on feeding, swimming, and respiratory responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a critique on Newby and Stevens (2008)— response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 97–99.

because these 2009 papers highlight inconsistencies in the scientific literature and are dated after the 2005 paper cited (Grandin and Johnson), it is not good practice to continue to promote discredited/outdated scientific information.

Effects of morphine

Added: However, when these experiments were repeated by Newby and Stevens (2008) side to side rocking was not observed, suggesting that it was probably due to recovery from anaesthesia, while the extreme overdose of morphine used by Sneddon in these experiments was also noted by other researchers

Newby, N.C. and Stevens, E.D. (2008) The effects of the acetic acid “pain” test on feeding, swimming and respiratory responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Applied Animal Behavior Science 114, 260– 269.

Newby, N.C., Robinson, J.W., Vachon, P., Beaudry, F. and Stevens, E.D. (2008) Pharmacokinetics of morphine and its metabolites in freshwater rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Journal of Veterinary Pharmacolology and Therapeutics 31, 117–127.

Why ? To put the previous paragraph in context. – there is no scientific concensus that Sneddons morphine experiments cited in the previous paragraph are at all reliable or validated.

 Protective responses

Removed:

Noxiously stimulated common carp show anomalous rocking behaviour and rub their lips against the tank walls.

Why : these behaviours were only observed in Sneddons experiments where anaesthetics were applied to rainbow trout and later, to carp. The rocking behaviour was not observed by other researchers working with the same species when anaesthetics were not used, suggesting rocking is due to recover from anaesthetic. Not good practice to try to promote experimental artifacts as validated behavioural responses....

When acetic acid or bee venom is injected into the lips of rainbow trout....etc...

Inserted: However, when these experiments were repeated by Newby and Stevens (2008) side to side rocking was not observed, suggesting that it was probably due to recovery from anaesthesia.

why ? as above

==Scientific statements==

The following was all removed:

Several scientists or scientific groups have made statements indicating they believe fish can experience pain. For example -

In 2004, Chandroo et al. wrote "Anatomical, pharmacological and behavioural data suggest that affective states of pain, fear and stress are likely to be experienced by fish in similar ways as in tetrapods".

In 2009, the European Food Safety Authority published a document stating scientific opinion on the welfare of fish. The document contains many sections indicating that the scientific panel believe fish can experience pain, for example, "Fish that are simply immobilized or paralysed [before euthanasia] would experience pain and suffering..."

In 2015, Brown wrote "A review of the evidence for pain perception strongly suggests that fish experience pain in a manner similar to the rest of the vertebrates."

Why ? because there is no mention of the fact that just as many other scientists disagree with these statements - there is no scientific concensus on the issue and if you are going to only display one side of the argument, it makes for a really biased page.

Societal implications Removed: Both scientists and animal protection advocates Replaced: Animal protection advocates

Why ? In reality, it is only one science groups (Sneddons) doing this, and they have effectively become advocates as they continue to try to push for radical changes (such as use of anaesthetics in fishing when removing hooks) based only on their own research that other scientists have shown to be non- validated and non-repeatable. The vast majority of scientists I deal with around the world have no concerns regarding this issue hence this line has been altered to reflect reality.

Other societal implications of fish experiencing pain

Replaced: that may relate to the question of whether fish feel pain

Why: the page must recognize the fact that there is no scientific concensus that fish feel pain. The previous statement suggests it’s a given they do, which is simply not the case.

Controversy section

Nervous system:

Removed and sections placed nearer the relevant sections towards top of page.

Why ? Because there is no controversy about the % of C fibres etc in fishes vs humans, these are simple anatomical facts that are nevertheless important and hence should be displayed further up the page in the relevant sections.

Brain

Replaced: Rose, several other scientists, and more recently Brian Key

Why? Because there are many, many other scientists who also consider that Rose brings up many very pertinent and scientifically correct and defensible points. It is not just Rose who doubts that fish can feel pain, and when you read the reviews of Rose et al. and Key theirs are valid arguments that can simply not be ignored if a scientifically based position on this topic is to be presented. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References

• You were asked above to discuss the changes you want so we could reach some sort of consensus before changing the article. Instead you have rushed in and tried to pre-empt the issue by rewriting the article in a single take. This is edit warring and makes it very difficult to address the numerous seriously slanted issues the article now presents. Consequently I have reverted your rewrite. I will, as I get time, comment on various points you raised above, and reinstate some changes you made that I agree with. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats OK, but surely there must be some deadline for this, as otherwise you are simply blocking legitimate scientifically correct editorial changes that are redressing the current woefully unbalanced version of this page. The easiest way to point out the flawed issues that have crept into the page is to address them chronologically and all at once, as I have done. This recent blocking of content from you two (Epipelagic and Dr Crissy) is interesting given the fact that I have contributed to keeping this page updated and relatively "on track" scientifically for several years. This recent blocking has coincided with the most recent very unbalanced "upgrade" of the subject matter towards a very much "pro fish pain" agenda. As I point out, you both fail to realise that the science on this topic is by no means settled, which makes your changes largely unsupported by rigorous science (for the reasons mentioned above) and thus merely opinion. I will expect to see many if not all of these changes I have indicated implemented within a very short time period, or else it will be evident you are blocking based on an underlying agenda. You are also encouraged to closely read the articles I recommend from Dr Chrissy below - it is rare in the scientific literature to have so much contrasting debate about a topic unless there are serious issues with the evidence, so read carefully and remember critical scientific thinking is needed and anthropomorphism does not help you here, only facts. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To the IP, I agree with Epipelagic about the way forward here. I would like to start with your statement "while modification of behaviour with drugs does not necessarily indicate pain (Key 2014)" which you have made (or similar) in several places. I am unable to find a 2014 reference for Key - please could you provide this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Key (2014) refers to the original version of Keys paper in DOI format for the journal Biology and Philosophy, which was first published in 2014. It is now fully published in 2015 as free access so even laypeople can access it to learn more about the topic (i.e. highly commended for you Dr Chrissy and other Wikipedia contributors). The full citation is now Key B (2015). Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness, Biology and Philosophy 30:149–165. For students who like to take the papers that "prove fish pain" at face value, I also recommend reading 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, as well as taking a graduate course on critical scientific thinking (not to mention Anthropomorphism 101) 124.170.97.78 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)