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 journalComment/opinion


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 languageEnglish
Article number17
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalAnimal sentience
Issue number21
Publication statusPublished - 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.

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Ample evidence for fish sentience and pain: Response to commentary on Sneddon et al. on <i>Sentience Denial </i>'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this