Ample evidence for fish sentience and pain: Response to commentary on Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial

Lynne U. Sneddon; David C. C. Wolfenden; Matthew C. Leach; Ana M. Valentim; Peter J. Steenbergen; Nabila Bardine; Donald M. Broom; Culum Brown

Ample evidence for fish sentience and pain: Response to commentary on Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial

Lynne U. Sneddon, David C. C. Wolfenden, Matthew C. Leach, Ana M. Valentim, Peter J. Steenbergen, Nabila Bardine, Donald M. Broom, Culum Brown

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/opinion › peer-review

Abstract

The majority of commentaries are supportive of our position on the scepticism that muddies the waters surrounding fish pain and sentience. There is substantial empirical evidence for pain in fish. Animals’ experience of pain cannot be compared to artificial intelligence (AI) because AI can only mimic responses to nociceptive input on the basis of human observations and programming. Accepting that fish are sentient would not be detrimental to the industries reliant on fish. A more proactive discussion between scientists and stakeholders is needed to improve fish welfare for the benefit of all.

Original language	English
Article number	17
Pages (from-to)	1-7
Number of pages	7
Journal	Animal Sentience
Volume	3
Issue number	21
Publication status	Published - 2018

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2018. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Access to Document

https://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol3/iss21/17/Licence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{3e9d7b1ab2a3437aa730e0a502c33697,

title = "Ample evidence for fish sentience and pain: Response to commentary on Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial ",

abstract = "The majority of commentaries are supportive of our position on the scepticism that muddies the waters surrounding fish pain and sentience. There is substantial empirical evidence for pain in fish. Animals{\textquoteright} experience of pain cannot be compared to artificial intelligence (AI) because AI can only mimic responses to nociceptive input on the basis of human observations and programming. Accepting that fish are sentient would not be detrimental to the industries reliant on fish. A more proactive discussion between scientists and stakeholders is needed to improve fish welfare for the benefit of all.",

author = "Sneddon, {Lynne U.} and Wolfenden, {David C. C.} and Leach, {Matthew C.} and Valentim, {Ana M.} and Steenbergen, {Peter J.} and Nabila Bardine and Broom, {Donald M.} and Culum Brown",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2018. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher. ",

year = "2018",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

pages = "1--7",

journal = "Animal Sentience",

issn = "2377-7478",

publisher = "Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy (HSISP)",

number = "21",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ample evidence for fish sentience and pain

T2 - Response to commentary on Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial

AU - Sneddon, Lynne U.

AU - Wolfenden, David C. C.

AU - Leach, Matthew C.

AU - Valentim, Ana M.

AU - Steenbergen, Peter J.

AU - Bardine, Nabila

AU - Broom, Donald M.

AU - Brown, Culum

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2018. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - The majority of commentaries are supportive of our position on the scepticism that muddies the waters surrounding fish pain and sentience. There is substantial empirical evidence for pain in fish. Animals’ experience of pain cannot be compared to artificial intelligence (AI) because AI can only mimic responses to nociceptive input on the basis of human observations and programming. Accepting that fish are sentient would not be detrimental to the industries reliant on fish. A more proactive discussion between scientists and stakeholders is needed to improve fish welfare for the benefit of all.

AB - The majority of commentaries are supportive of our position on the scepticism that muddies the waters surrounding fish pain and sentience. There is substantial empirical evidence for pain in fish. Animals’ experience of pain cannot be compared to artificial intelligence (AI) because AI can only mimic responses to nociceptive input on the basis of human observations and programming. Accepting that fish are sentient would not be detrimental to the industries reliant on fish. A more proactive discussion between scientists and stakeholders is needed to improve fish welfare for the benefit of all.

UR - https://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/policies.html

M3 - Comment/opinion

SN - 2377-7478

VL - 3

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Animal Sentience

JF - Animal Sentience

IS - 21

M1 - 17

ER -

Ample evidence for fish sentience and pain: Response to commentary on Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this