Talk:Pain in fish

Criteria for pain reception

The table in the thread #analogy table above uses 6 criteria for pain reception taken from a 2012 book by Varner. The 2014 paper by Sneddon et al [1] uses what is at base the same table, but extended to 17 criteria. I would like to see the current analogy table in the Wikipedia article extended, perhaps in the following manner, with separate columns for jawless, lobe-finned, cartilaginous and bony fishes.

Criteria for pain reception in fish
Criteria
		Jawless fish	Cartilaginous fish	Bony fish	Lobe-finned fish
neuro- anatomy	Has nociceptors			Y
	Pathways to central nervous system			Y
	Central processing in brain			Y
	Receptors for analgesic drugs			Y
behaviour	Physiological responses			Y
	Movement away from noxious stimuli			Y
	Behavioural changes from norm			Y
	Protective behaviour			Y
	Responses reduced by analgesic drugs			Y
	Self administration of analgesia			Y
	Responses with high priority over other stimuli			Y
	Pay cost to access analgesia			Y
	Altered behavioural choices/preferences			Y
	Relief learning			?
	Rubbing, limping or guarding			Y
	Paying a cost to avoid stimulus			Y
	Tradeoffs with other requirements			Y

I would also like to see some space made for a discussion on the evolution of pain. Jawless fish are of particular interest in that context, since they were the earliest of the vertebrates. Likewise lobe-finned fish are ancestral to the tetrapods and humans. It may be that there is not a lot of material specific to lobe-finned and jawless fish, but we can have a framework here which will hopefully become more complete over the next few years. Researchers recently have been identifying more and more behaviours that might be regarded as pain behaviours, and this accumulation seems to me building to a form of consilience. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is very, VERY interesting. I suspect there will be some permanent gaps here (I can not ever see a time when someone fills a coelocanth with morphine and then injects the lip with vinegar!) but I am sure there must be work out there on e.g. nociceptors in the agnatha. One or two of the categories appear to be duplicated, or perhaps need slightly tweaking to differentiate them, but on the whole, I think this would be an excellent summary table to include in the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Epi, I am currently writing a Pain in amphibians article in my sandbox here[2]. Would you mind if I lifted your table (remember, plaigerism is the best form of flattery!) and used it there for Anura (the frogs and toads), Urodela (the salamanders), and Apoda (the caecilians)? - I think it will be going mainstream in the next day or so.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not my table, though if it was you would be welcome to it. The table criteria, as they stand, should be attributed to Sneddon et al. There have been claims that an early lungfish is more likely to be the ancestor of humans than an early coelacanth [3], and research on extant lungfish is quite possible. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers - thanks for that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems with the table being included, provided each tick can be backed up by a suitable reference from the peer reviewed scientific literature. If a tick cannot be attributed in such a manner, it should not be ticked. I also think the column on insects should be included, as it is in Sneddon et al, so readers can compare the veracity of the criteria chosen.Professor Pelagic (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course each each tick can be verified - this information is already in the text, but it can be repeated in the table to make it absolutely clear. I do not see the point of including invertebrates - this article is about fish.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I think you are selectively taking information from her paper without giving readers the opportunity to have the whole story and make up their own minds about the validity or veracity of the criteria being used. Insects are essentially used as an outgroup in the Sneddon et al. 2014 paper - when you change the table and remove the outgroup it changes the meaning of the table. To maintain neutrality and accuracy of the citation compared to the original, the insects should be included in a column on the right hand side of the table just like in the paper. Otherwise the table should not be used. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply do not follow your logic. If readers want to judge the veracity and validity of these criteria, they can - as they pertain to fish. I simply do not see where invertebrates comes into this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious why you choose to select insects as the outgroup necessary for what you call "balance" in the Sneddon at al paper, when the table included five other taxa? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The use of insects as an outgroup is important as it is illustrative of the problems with the criteria themselves. Even Sneddon et al. (2014) state "With little neurobiological evidence for the existence of pain-like states in insects", but they still tick many of the boxes in the table. So what does this say about the criteria being used in the table ? I insist that the information on insects should not be deleted from the original table so people can be properly informed, and to maintain neutrality and accuracy of the citation compared to the original. Otherwise the table should not be used. Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This makes no sense in terms of biology, evolution, logic and editing. If you have concerns about the criteria chosen as they pertain to fish, please raise them. Otherwise, concerns about the criteria as they relate to invertebrates should be raised elsewhere.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense in relation to readers being able to assess the validity of the criteria. I do not have to raise concern about the validity of the criteria, the concerns have already been raised very clearly by Rose et al. and Key - that they are unvalidated and often misinterpreted for fish and could equally be measuring things like irritation, rather than pain. The fact that invertebrates such as insects respond in similar manner to some of the criteria is extremely valid as this is actually evidence that responses to such criteria are not necessarily due to pain (assuming insects do not feel pain, which Sneddon et al. 2014 point out is likely). What is needed, therefore, regardless of whether the insect outgroup is included in the table (which it should be), is a statement below the table that points this out by saying "Other scientists (Rose et al. 2014, Key 2015) point out that many of the criteria used in this table are unvalidated (and often misinterpreted) for fish and may instead be measuring responses other than pain". Also, why is the table already published on the page when we are still discussing these critical issues here ? Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You agreed to the Table being inserted in the article here[4] "I have no problems with the table being included, provided each tick can be backed up by a suitable reference from the peer reviewed scientific literature."DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That same statement also said "I also think the column on insects should be included, as it is in Sneddon et al, so readers can compare the veracity of the criteria chosen.". So this was ignored , selectively referenced, if you will. There is no consensus here on including the table without the information on insects as an outgroup. Professor Pelagic (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your logic here is deeply, deeply flawed. You stated above "The fact that invertebrates such as insects respond in similar manner to some of the criteria is extremely valid as this is actually evidence that responses to such criteria are not necessarily due to pain (assuming insects do not feel pain, which Sneddon et al. 2014 point out is likely)." So, invertebrates withdraw from noxious stimuli and mammals withdraw from noxious stimuli. Using your logic, because you are assuming invertebrates do not feel pain then because mammals behave in " a similar manner", mammals therefore also do not feel pain. We need to be looking at the overall table, not just one or two criteria in isolation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it is your opinion that is flawed. This is not what my statements say or imply. I am simply pointing out that there is scientific uncertainty and debate as to whether the criteria in the table are validated for measuring pain in species other than higher vertebrates. Including the insects outgroup as Sneddon et al. does in their paper allows readers to more objectively assess the merits of the criteria. Removing the outgroup from the table withholds critical information from the reader. I do not understand your continued objections to providing readers with critical information that would bring the page back towards neutrality and allow them to form a more informed opinion on the subject matter. Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since fish include half of all vertebrate species, I agree with a table comparing say the results for bony fish with the main tetrapod groups, but I think it is going too far to start comparing invertebrates as well. At that point we are starting to compare everything. That would more properly done in the general article, Pain in animals. The article Pain in invertebrates could also discuss the comparison with vertebrates, because the issue of pain in vertebrates is less controversial than invertebrates. This is not withholding "critical information from the reader", it is merely positioning it in more appropriate places. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:41, 5 November 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

thimb

• How about a cropped and flipped version of the image on the right --Epipelagic (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. Some people are against drawings as lead images, but I think communication of the article content should take priority. By the way - I don't think it needs cropping (not against it, I just don't think it is needed).DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In view of some of the evidence cited below, I question whether this photo is even appropriate in the context of the page. When Sneddon teamed with the Norwegians and stuck fish hooks into Atlantic cod , all they got was transient head shaking and "an almost complete absence of observable responses to punctate mechanical injury of the lip". Hooking is not injecting fish with acid or bee venom, its probably more like the control manipulations where fish supposedly behave normally after being stuck with a needle and injected with saline. I suggest remove this photo and replace it with something else. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The image is clearly not one of a cod. What image would you suggest?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A hooked fish is, I would think, the single image most widely associated in the general mind with the issue of whether fish feel pain. Having it as the lead image is neither endorsing nor rejecting the issue, merely highlighting what the issue is in an immediately recognizable way. The caption merely states it is a hooked salmon, and takes a neutral position. The image is a good one that stands out, and immediately connects most readers with the topic of the article. I don't understand your objection, unless you are trying to downplay the issue. I've changed the caption to: "Whether fish, such as this hooked salmon, feel pain or don't feel pain is much debated". Is that satisfactory? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually think there is no need for a change to the caption. However, if there is consensus that it is changed, I think the "much" from "much debated" should be dropped - it really is only a small handful of scientists that argue they do not feel pain.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I dropped the "much". But there is significant philosophical scepticism in the literature that is not really touched in our articles on pain in animals. Such inclusion needs to start with the article on Pain in animals, and I'm uncertain about how to do this. I don't think the issue of pain in fish is by any means done and dusted. I also feel uncomfortable with the approach Professor Pelagic seems to favour, starting with an anthropomorphic definition of pain, and then using that to proceed to a black and white conclusion about whether fish do or do not feel pain (in the ways humans do). Fish are different from humans and there may be ways in which fish can be said to feel pain, even if it is complex and different from the way humans feel pain. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a few more minutes, I now more strongly disagree with the change of image and caption. "Hooked Salmon" was a perfectly neutral caption and an acceptable image. I think that if Prof Pelagic wants a change, he should suggest an image and a caption with justification for both.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it your view that pain in fish is no longer debatable? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is my view that the consensus of scientific opinion is that fish DO feel pain. It is my view that it is just a handful of scientists that do NOT believe this. Of course it is debatable, but so is Evolution. I suspect there are many more scientists out there who do not believe in evolution (compared to scientists who do not believe in pain in fish), but the lead image of evolution does not state this is "debatable". I still think PP should put forward his own image and caption rather than just saying - "I don't like this". I raised this issue of the lead image, offered a few suggestions, and you (Epi) offered an even better one which I thought we had consensus on. We seem to be chasing our own tail here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel there is consensus that Chondrichthyes feel pain? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm....interesting question. Reading about the subject, there is a paucity of information specifically on Chondrichthyes and very few comments from the specialists in this area (unless we interpret the term "fishes" to automatically include Chondrichthyes). I think given this, I do not feel there is a consensus either way that Chondrichthyes feel pain or do not feel pain. But ask me "Do I believe that Chondrichthyes feel pain?" and I would give you a different answer  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about perhaps a photograph of fish being slaughtered in an aquaculture establishment, but agree that the photo is now less loaded and more neutral and representative of the state of the topic after the adjustments to the caption. However, statements alleging scientific concensus on the topic are way off the mark. For example, 9000 professionals in the American Fisheries Society are not convinced- that in itself is not an insignificant number of scientists who disagree. As Wilkes (2015) states “There is NO CONSENSUS about FISH”. Professor Pelagic (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Caption Given that the caption of the lead image may be the very first content that is read, I feel it should reflect why there is controversy - I suggest it reads - "...is debated by some scientists due to fish lacking a neocortex in the brain."

No, namless person, such a caption would be a severe oversimplification of the issue of the scientific controversy surrounding this topic and your proposed wording would simply create a straw man argument. The main scientific issues surrounding the topic have been highlighted by several scientists , to include HARKING, switching of the burden of proof http://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/the-reversed-responsibility-response-switching-the-burden-of-proof/ and under reporting of negative results that leads to cherrypicking of data http://scienceornot.net/2012/04/03/devious-deception-in-displaying-data-cherry-picking/ and confirmation bias http://scienceornot.net/2013/05/24/confirmation-bias-ferreting-favourable-findings-while-overlooking-opposing-observations/. Indeed, there are several scientific red flags http://scienceornot.net/science-red-flags/ raised in the science of this topic, not simply the lack of a neocortex. Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:19, 16 November 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" bias. 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)

PS, as the page currently stands, the recent rewrites are infringing on an fundamental principle of wikipedia, ie. they have contributed towards moving the page away from a neutral point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

All of my edits have simply been included to provide readers with examples that redress biased statements that have been put into the page, trying to move the page back towards a neutral point of view. So keep this in mind and make haste with getting up to speed on the issues raised so we can get the page back to a neutral point of view ASAP as I understand that the neutral policy is, I quote, NOT NEGOTIABLE and NOT SUPERSEDED BY OTHER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES. Remember, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another". Sage words indeed by wikipedia. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I switch off when confronted with self-righteous generalisations and patronising drivel. If you want a productive discussion then I suggest you stop the haughty grandstanding and confine yourself to specific passages you think should be included in the article. For example, DrChrissy below asked you a question about your statement that "modification of behaviour with drugs does not necessarily indicate pain". You ignored him and did not reply to his question at all. That is not the way to make progress. So far, from everything you've said, I gather you think that the only correct and neutral positions are those taken by Rose and Key. Is that a fair summary of your thinking? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"I gather you think that the only correct and neutral positions are those taken by Rose and Key. Is that a fair summary of your thinking ? " Actually, I think the best, most balanced and scientifically correct (i.e. best interpreted) papers written on this issue are from Newby and Stevens.

- 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

- 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.

- Newby, N.C., Wilkie, M.P. and Stevens, E.D. (2009) Morphine uptake, disposition and analgesic efficacy in the common goldfish (Carassius auratus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 87, 388–399

I am wondering why these papers are not being cited as much as the others by Sneddon ? This is why more balance is needed. Indeed, its worth noting that Stevens is also a co-author on the Rose et al. 2014 paper.

- 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.

If all we are capable of is going passage by passage, we will have to start at the top of the list and work down, as all the issues I have raised are relevant ones. " Sorry, I switch off when confronted with self-righteous generalisations and patronising drivel" Well well well, rest assured, the feeling is mutual. 124.170.188.144 (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• You mention three papers by Newby. Two of these papers have already been discussed in the article. If you look at Google Scholar you will find that the three papers you mention average 19 citations per paper. Now look at the papers written by Sneddon. The first three papers in the list (all about pain in fish) average 171 citations per paper). Not only has Sneddon published many more papers about pain in fish, but some of these papers have a citation rate an order of magnitude greater than Newby's papers. In short, the Wikipedia article as it stands, already has a reasonable balance between Sneddon and Newby. (Btw, would you please look at the source code so you can see how sequential colons (:) are used to indent comments) --Epipelagic (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As I mention below , this only proves you must read and understand the actual papers, not rely on google scholar citations to make up your mind for you - the Newby and Stevens papers and are critical to this page and the whole debate as they repeated Sneddons work and came up with different results and different conclusions, which Sneddon tried to explain away in a manner that was altogether unconvincing. The highly controversial nature of Sneddons papers alone can account for their high citation rate, as is the medias propensity to not let the truth get in the way of a good story - but surely we must be interested in the quality and veracity of the content therein ?? Or does that not matter anymore ? Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

For more on this, I refer to Browman and Stergiou (2008) Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely, , which is open access at http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2008/8/e008p001.pdf Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:05, 17 November 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)

After reading the wikipage on neutral point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, it appears to me to be very relevant here, so given Epipelagic has assumed gatekeeper status, but may not be in any rush to remedy the problems, I added and expect this message should remain to warn readers of this, until Epipelagic and DrCrissy address the biases their recent "upgrade" of the page have introduced and some concensus is achieved on the issues raised. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

talk, thank you for clarifying that you provided the incorrect reference - this was rather confusing - greater accuracy will be appreciated considering the number and complexity of points you have raised. I'm afraid I am not sure what you mean by "HARKing" - please explain if you wish. Please indicate a single aspect of your concerns above that you wish to discuss so that we can move towards consensus on edits. This thread is getting very long so I suggest you start a new one.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

A neutral point of view dispute was initiated 19 October 2015 in an attempt to remedy issues related with recent editorial changes to the fish pain page which contained bias, unvalidated opinion, gave only one side of a scientific debate, deleted scientifically supported references that were added by other editors to inform readers of alternative points of view, and other infringements of Wikipedias non-negotiable policy for providing a Neutral Point of View https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. 124.170.97.78 (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the NPOV hat. This should have been discussed here at the talk page first. There is currently no consensus for this hatting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The problems set out in the previous section "Getting the balance right in instances with no scientific concensus" are sufficient to initiate and uphold a NPOV dispute. The fact that we are discussing these issues here is exactly the reason why the page should be flagged NPOV, because as long as the facts that are listed in "Getting the balance right in instances with no scientific concensus" are not on display in the actual fish pain page, readers are not getting a neutral point of view on the subject as many sections give only one side of a scientific debate, scientifically supported references that were added by other editors to inform readers of alternative points of view have been deleted, and so on.124.170.188.144 (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

First, there is an entire section called "Controversy" - this surely indicates that a NPOV is being presented or at least developed. Second, to support your contention of NPOV you need to present evidence (diffs) of where you believe scientifically supported references have been deleted. Third, please make specific indications of material which you believe should be included or excluded. At the moment, you are simply providing arguments rather than material.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your request for specific examples. If you want a specific example of what I am talking about, by editing information on relative % of C type nociceptors in sharks vs teleosts vs mammals into the controversy section, instead of keeping them in the relevant sections where they should be (ie. the section on nociceptors), you have de-emphasised the importance of these data by trying to paint them as controversial when they are basic anatomical data of central relevance to the issue. To make matters worse, you then placed the controversy section very low down on the page, probably in a position where few will read it as most casual readers have probably moved on by then. In doing so, many readers would not even get the chance to view critical neurobiological information that they should know. I am not sure whether this is deliberate or not, but that is what happened. I would not have so much of an issue with this if the controversy section was placed much closer to the top, to warn readers of the lack of scientific consensus on these issues. Instead, you have buried these data right at the bottom of the page, and by also deleting my edits that tried to put them in context, therein lies a good example of the lack of balance I am talking about that put this page into a NPOV dispute.Professor Pelagic (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the prompting of the wilkipedia page to get me a user name finally wore me down, especially because it looks like we're in this for the long haul. The material you refer to above was provided in the talk section "getting the balance right in instances with no scientific concensus". I provided text that could be inserted into the page, together with supporting references, that would bring the page back closer to a NPOV by providing the readers with the appropriate information. When these edits were summarily deleted (which has never happened to me before), I looked up wikipedia policies and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: 1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Now, I know none of these conditions have yet been met, and since it looks like this will take some time, I will reinstate the NPOV alert - there is no consensus at this stage, which is the reason to keep it there, not take it down. I will then take the relevant sections I would like to see to balance the article one by one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Pelagic (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be clear here - Professor Pelagic, are you the IP who previously hatted the article with the NPOV template?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes.Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So you hatted the article as an IP, I unhatted it, then you replaced the hat using a newly acquired username?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I work on animal welfare committees etc. so was basically forced to know the literature on this topic. In the past I was just sitting in the background updating this page when new research came along, but reviewing its history I became concerned that there seems to be no history of my edits as an IP between 2010 and 2014 even though some of the words and references are still there. Now recently any and all of my edits as an IP were getting deleted entirely, which raises a big red flag for me. Wanting to ensure transparency and leave a record of the issues I have picked up upon recently, the only option seemed to be to finally listen to wikipedia's suggestions and become a registered member. Looking at your profile I can see you are very experienced at wikipedia editing, (and I learned you can be banned from topics etc, which seems a bit frightening to me), but in the process of becoming a member, I also learned that wikipedia values NPOV above most all else, and that its important to keep these pages neutral. I am sure we can get this fish pain page into a neutral state again that is also a much better/more informative resource for people, but this will need to start by balancing some of the recently edited sections. I don't like deleting other peoples inputs, but have tried to simply provide the balancing information where necessary. You just deleting the balancing information made me more determined to see it through. I will continue to suggest balance on a section by section basis until we can agree the NPOV is no longer an issue and that tag can be lifted. We have already got one section sorted, so we are making progress !Professor Pelagic (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Update Since the opening of these NPOV discussions, the following relevant edits have been made to the article -

• Deletion of "External links" here[5]
• Deletion of "Scientific statements" here[6]
• Lead image caption substantially changed starting here[7]
• Statement by Sneddon deleted here[8]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Removed statement about brain here[9]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• after discussion in talk inserted definition of pain here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish#The_experience_of_pain Professor Pelagic (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Update. Above point was subsequently removed from the page by others. The NPOV issues that still remain include lack of balance of opening statement, and the removal of information on %C type fibres from research into the controversies section. See talk sections on opening statements and research findings for suggestions on how to resolve these issues. Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

lets take it one section at a time - opening statements

OK, the opening statements in the page are fine for the first few paragraphs, then this one pops up with the following content that is "all one way"

"Fish fulfill several criteria proposed as indicating that non-human animals may experience pain. These fulfilled criteria include a suitable nervous system and sensory receptors, opioid receptors and reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics, physiological changes to noxious stimuli, displaying protective motor reactions, exhibiting avoidance learning and making trade-offs between noxious stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements."

Thats fine, but its not the whole story. To balance this one way traffic, and better reflect the current scientific non-concensus surrounding this issue, I consider the following facts should also be included here.

"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 2015)."

The latter statement is also backed up by Newby and Stevens (2008) who when criticised by Sneddon (for getting different results to her, mind you) noted that Sneddon in her trout experiments used anaethetics prior to treatments, which put her views contrary to those of essentially all researchers who study pain in animals. They also pointed out she also used an extreme overdose of morphine that would have been lethal to mammals - noting that this overdose surprisingly did not kill the trout but probably had unknown behavioural effects - all in all showing much doubt that the results of her study were at all reliable and repeatable. Thus lack of knowledge about pharacokinetics of morphine in fish lead Newby and Stevens to then investigate the effects of morphine on rainbow trout in another paper .

In other words, the way Newby and Stevens approached the issue upheld higher scientific standards to the work done by Sneddon, and surprise surprise, they came to different conclusions. The fact, (pointed out by Epipelagic) that Sneddons paper gets more citations than Newby and Stevens is not due to the formers paper being of higher scientific quality, its probably the opposite - its simply more controversial, while the fact that papers showing negative results are being ignored by the public is simply what happens when the media is after headlines - they don't let the facts get in the way of a good story and who wants to publish negative results ?. Anyway, lets see if you agree to my first suggested edit. Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Pelagic (talk • contribs) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not see it that way. I have looked closely at the articles and below I have pasted sentences I believe are relevant. Most are direct quotes. I would also point out this discussion appears to relate only to morphine - effects of other analgesics are in the article.

Newby and Stevens (2008) The effects of the acetic acid “pain” test on feeding, swimming, and respiratory responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114,(1-2), Pages 260–269 [[10]]

The purpose of the present study was to examine the response of rainbow trout that were not anaesthetised during the acetic acid test. Nine of the 16 fish from both acetic acid treated groups lost equilibrium for 1.7 ± 0.6 min before returning to an upright position swimming normally in the current. The respiratory frequency of all fish significantly increased by 69% (P < 0.001) after treatment; the saline and control group returned to their resting levels after 120 min while the acetic acid groups were 12% higher than resting levels 120 min after treatment until the experiment was terminated at 360 min. Food was presented 15 min after treatment and every fish ate immediately. Compared with two previous studies that used anaesthetised rainbow trout, the acetic acid test in the current study negatively affected the swimming behavioural response for a much shorter duration and did not affect the feeding behavioural response. However, results for respiratory frequency were comparable to those of anaesthetised rainbow trout in the other work.

On balance, I think this study provides excellent evidence for the experience of pain in fish and should be included as such, if we can overcome the ethical considerations.

Sneddon replies here[[11]]

Newby and Stevens’ (2008)... used a different protocol. 2% acetic acid topically destroys nociceptor output and the neuron effectively dies (Ashley et al., 2006, 2007). Therefore, the lack of anomalous rubbing behaviours and resumption of feeding in the Newby and Stevens (2008) experiment can be attributed to them injecting such a high concentration of acid. If no nociceptive information is being conducted to the central nervous system then no behavioural changes will be elicited. Sneddon further argues in a compelling way that the cylindrical tanks and barren conditions used by Newby and Stevens "may preclude the ability to perform behaviours such as rocking..."

DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That is interesting, because Newby and Stevens, if you correspond with them, they will tell you they certainly do not think their study provided any confirmation of a "pain" response. You are jumping to a conclusion that the authors did not make. The issues with the % of acetic acid used in the various experiments were discussed in Rose et al (2014) where they point out the most significant difference between the two studies (Sneddons vs Newby and Stevens 2008) was the use of anesthesia for injections by Sneddon (which masked some transient non-specific behavioural changes (loss of equilibrium)in the fish that were observed by Newby and Stevens), while the anaesthetic also confounded Sneddons results (i.e. rocking behaviors due to recovery from the anaesthetic were interpreted by Sneddon as being evidence of "pain"). Further, Rose et al. (2014) point out in a reply to the Newby and Stevens paper, Sneddon (2009) said that her 2003 study employed 0.1% acid injections and that the 2% injections used by Newby and Stevens would have destroyed nociceptive afferents, but her counterargument was contradicted by the fact that in the study by Sneddon et al. (2003b) 2% acetic acid was used because she said it had more sustained behavioral effects on rainbow trout than the 0.1% concentration, and Reilly et al. (2008a) used 5 and 10% acetic acid injections with carp and 5% injections with zebrafish Danio rerio (Cyprinidae). So you can now see that Sneddon contradicts herself - first she says 2% acetic acid kills the nociceptors, then she and her students use 2%, 5% and 10% in other experiments - so if this makes Newby and Stevens results invalid, does this make her other experiments invalid too ? The barren tank argument is simply a crock as well, why would that influence anything when fish have been held in bare experimental aquaria for controlled experiments since year dot. This is why the red flags go up when scientists start to review Sneddons work, the contradictions, inconsistencies, inability of others to get the same results when they repeat the experiments, and so on. So no, you cannot use those arguments here, as they have already been exposed as invalid in the peer reviewed literature.Professor Pelagic (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References

You are not using valid grounds for your dismissal of citation counts. You seem to think citation counts are the number of backlinks from newspapers and the general media, and so are a measure of exposure in the public press. They aren't. They are a count of the number of times a paper was regarded as sufficiently significant for another researcher to refer to in another academic publication. In general, citation counts are a very good indicator of how notable a paper or author is within the mainstream scientific community. It may be as you claim on this talk page that Newby's science is more rigorous than Sneddon's. But you cannot put that in the article unless you can cite a secondary source which says the same thing. Otherwise you are engaged in original research. When you are being a Wikipedia editor, you are playing a different game with different rules from being, say, a marine biologist. Both roles have different hats. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to assess which papers are "most scientific". A key policy on Wikipedia is verification. You could of course put on your biologist's hat, write a review article setting out your views and get it published by a reputable journal. Then you could come back here, put your Wikipedia editor's hat on, and cite your publication as verification. It's a game, and you have to know and play by the rules. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I worded a detailed reply to this last night, and placed it up here, but it is not here today so I must assume it has been deleted by someone else. I was not sure whether that is possible or not, but I guess it is ? In any case I do not have to write a paper on the relative merits of Newby and Stevens vs Sneddon, as this has already been done by others more qualified than me , namely Rose et al. 2014 . I also pointed out that the issue of under reporting of negative results in this field was discussed by Browman and Skiftesvik (2011) It is a sad fact that sometimes the most controversial papers get cited the most, and that sometimes the high citation rates are because of the controversy and are not related to the veracity of the science, especially when papers that present good science but negative results are by comparison "boring", and thus not cited as often. I also think older papers tend to have more citations simply over the course of time. So that has to be factored into the equation as well.Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this your missing edit? If so then no one deleted it. You put it in the wrong place further up the thread. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OK, it is in the right place, its just the same issues popped up twice. A hazard of having several conversations going at once with two other people.Professor Pelagic (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The talk pages are for discussing content of articles. Please indicate the specific changes you want to make.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just responding to requests to verify my statements. As for specific changes, I have looked again and think in the first section the last 3 paragraphs can be sorted out as follows:

Fish fulfill several criteria proposed by some scientists as indicating that non-human animals may experience pain. These criteria include a suitable nervous system and sensory receptors, opioid receptors and reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics, physiological changes to noxious stimuli, displaying protective motor reactions, exhibiting avoidance learning and making trade-offs between noxious stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements. However, other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception. Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic, which remains controversial.

Pain in fish has societal implications including their suffering when exposed to pollutants, in commercial and sporting fisheries, aquaculture, in ornamental fish and for fish used in scientific research.Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how this improves the article. We already indicate that some researchers believe that the absence of some neurobiological material means they believe that fish do not experience pain, but others argue against this. That is why there is a "Controversy" section.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My version improves the article as it economises the paragraphs, removes repetition and a misleading statement about scientists, and highlights both the controversy and why there is controversy in the appropriate paragraph. I don't see where the opening section mentions neurobiological material in the context of the controversy and nowhere does the current version mention the absence of scientific concensus on the topic. I have already pointed out that the controversy section, if it remains, is too far down the page as many readers will not get that far down. Commercial and sport fisheries are mentioned then angling is singled out a second time . Why the repetition ? I also have major concerns about the sentence including scientists in the bit about fears about angling. Sneddons data both for trout and Atlantic cod are equivocal about this point, - the control manipulations in her experiments are needles filled with saline - what is the difference between that and a hook ? Hooking is not injecting fish with acid or bee venom, its more like the control and the control fish in all her experiments are supposedly behaving normally even after being stuck with a needle and injected with saline. When Sneddon teamed with the Norwegians and stuck fish hooks into Atlantic cod , all they got was transient head shaking and "an almost complete absence of observable responses to punctate mechanical injury of the lip". Hardly convincing evidence that would have all scientists becoming concerned about angling. The way this section is currently written it gives the reader the view that scientists are with the animal protection advocates calling for bans on angling or use of lidocaine when removing hooks , which is simply false as the evidence does not support this being a problem. My version avoids all of these pitfalls, does not contain false or misleading statements and is altogether a more accurate and balanced way to end the introduction.Professor Pelagic (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is now much better, not completely as I'd like to see it, but an acceptable compromise. I still think the writing can be economised and the last sentence can be deleted if the following sentence is included at the end of the second last paragraph.

"However, other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception in a manner similar to mammals or humans. Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic, which remains controversial." I will take the liberty of putting that up there now so we can put a period on this and move onto the other sections.Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"...there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic..." is your opinion of this. Do you have a verifiable source for this statement?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rose et al. (2014) and Key (2015) are enough to show there is no consensus amongst scientists on this topic at this time, and indeed it is actually quite obvious this is the case when you contrast those papers to those of Sneddon and, more recently, others like Brown. Also, this lack of consensus is a very important point that should be made right up front where I had it (before it was removed again). For these reasons, I insist the following paragraph is put in there right up front; "However, other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception in a manner similar to mammals or humans. Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic, which remains controversial." If you do not flag this right at the start, you are not providing the balance that people require of an online encyclopedic resource. Professor Pelagic (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Another statement of evidence of no concensus is the following from The American Fisheries Society in their guidelines for use of fish in research: http://fisheries.org/guide-for-the-use-of-fishes-in-research#4.3 , section 4.3, Nociception and Pain, end of first paragraph "Overall, the weight of evidence in the fish species studied indicates that the experience of pain in mammals is not experienced in fish". This contrasts with statements to the contrary which are often made by other groups, such that I think we can safely say there is currently no consensus on the topic. Hence I would like to reiterate that the first section should have this paragraph inserted

"However, other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception in a manner similar to mammals or humans. Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic, which remains controversial." Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Those guidelines were written by Rose himself! How can that ever be seen as a balanced piece of writing!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, that document represents the position of the American Fisheries Society, a group of scientists and professionals around 9000 strong. So it is the viewpoint of a large group of professionals who study fish, not only of Rose. But if you really want only references that explicitly state what is regarded as common knowledge in the field, what is wrong with Wilkes (2015) on page 98 who states “Most are prepared to agree that dogs and dolphins, cats and cows, feel pain; yet there is NO CONSENSUS about FISH, reptiles, insects, amoebae or even plants”. Professor Pelagic (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really, really want to include a sentence that says there is no consensus that plants can feel pain? I would also argue about whether this author really understands the issues. Why is there no mention of amphibians? What about the Cephalpods? Why are just "insects" mentioned rather than all the other invertebrates. Was this written by a non-biologist with questionable appreciation of the subject matter?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have been requesting above the insertion of "Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic..." (my bold). You are moving the goalposts. Wilkes is talking about public opinion, not your scientific consensus.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Really.... I simply provided another reference as more evidence that there is no concensus, after you did not like my previous reference because you do not like one of the several authors of the reference. It is certainly looking like only references that Dr Chrissy likes can be used on this page. It is not a good look and its not hard to see how these NPOV problems started. As for scientific consensus, I reiterate, either you are insinuating the 9000 people in the American Fisheries Society are not scientists (they will like that), or you are simply trying to ignore information that does not agree with your opinion (non-NOPV again). I reiterate, to retain balance representative of the science on the topic, the opening section should include this statement "Other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception in a manner similar to mammals or humans. Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic, which remains controversial." Professor Pelagic (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And I reiterate, this needs a citation for the words "no scientific consensus" - otherwise it is simply your opinion and as I have already told you, your opinion does not matter here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion does not matter either, and it was your opinion that Wilkes was talking about public opinion and not scientific opinion, when it is abundantly clear that scientific opinion is divided as well as shown by the literature and statements by the American Fisheries Society. Anyways, if that is your only problem with the statement, there should be no problems then with the following "However, other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception in a manner similar to mammals or humans. Because of this, there is currently no consensus on the topic, which remains controversial." Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor Pelagic, is this the issue you mainly find troubling? It is highly anthropomorphic, working backwards from the human experience of pain, and you warned yourself earlier that anthropomorphic approaches could be inappropriate. I don't see the issues discussed by Rose et al necessarily preclude fish from feeling pain, though, contrary perhaps to DrChrissy, I do think further research and clarification is needed and the matter has yet to be definitively settled. The section in the guideline issued by The American Fisheries Society, presumably written by Rose himself, is: "Overall, the weight of evidence in the fish species studied indicates that the experience of pain in mammals is not experienced in fish". But even if that is the case, it still has to be established whether or not fish have an experience of pain that differs from the experience of pain mammals have. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wilkes' statement here[12] is totally unacceptable for us to make a statement about scientific consensus - and this articles is based on science. First, the Wilkes' statement about "no consensus" is linked to the previous sentence which is discussing "our intuitions"; this is clearly not intended to mean "no scientific consensus". Second, the statement states "Most are prepared to agree..." without any mention of scientists whatsoever; Wilkes' is clearly referring to lay readers in general. Third, although I have limited access to the book on-line, I can not find a single reference to a science article. In short, the Wilkes' item is not a scientific piece of work and can in no way be be used to indicate or imply anything about scientific consensus.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Epi, to make my position a little clearer. When I talk about "pain" in non-humans, I usually use this as short-hand to mean "an experience analogous to that of pain in humans". This is in the same way that I might talk about "vision" in animals with compound eyes. They are certainly capable of "vision", but this experience is almost certainly analogous to vision in humans, rather than being the same experience.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If people actually read the words used by Rose et al., they are very clear that they are debunking claims by Sneddon and others that fish are equivalent or very similar to higher vertebrates in response to nociceptive stimuli. Instead, they point out that whatever fish experience, the evidence suggests it is very different to the pain experienced by mammals and humans. All I am asking is for the first section to clearly reflect the current scientific debate on this point. For DrChrissy to suggest that there is scientific consensus that fish feel pain equivalent to mammals and humans is clearly wrong - thus there must not be scientific consensus and therefore this needs to be mentioned. Again, I am mystified why DrChrissy is so reluctant to provide readers with critical information which readers can use to make their own informed decisions on this issue. Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is another reference I found in my archives. "“In order to show that fish experiences pain, it is necessary to show that a fish has consciousness”, and “recent work regarding consciousness in fishes yields no consensus”. There are those words again, no consensus. Professor Pelagic (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is 10 years old! We should be giving the reader a substantially more up-to-date perspective than a sentence someone wrote a decade ago about a subject area that has been highly active since then.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hows this then, hot off the press. "In the meantime, its obvious there is no scientific consensus that fish (or invertebrates) can “feel pain.” " . I reiterate, the opening statement should have the following paragraph inserted: "Other scientists point out there are several neurobiological features in teleost fish and elasmobranchs that suggest they are unlikely to be capable of pain perception in a manner similar to mammals or humans. Because of this, there is currently no scientific consensus on the topic, which remains controversial." Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

But this author is clearly in the industry - they list their affiliation as "DigsFish Services Pty Lt". There is undoubtedly a COI here making it an unreliable source.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Why, PP, did you not also cite Callum's reply to your latest offering. Callum's position is that the issue is more political than scientific. It would be more balanced to leave the lead as it is, bearing in mind that the lead clearly states, "Pain in fish is a contentious issue". Indeed that is the very first sentence in the article. Then the caption of the lead image reinforces that position. What more can you want? This has the virtue of not attempting to adjudicate on whether the issues are primarily scientific or primarily political. Accordingly, I have removed your "disputed neutrality" tag on the grounds that it is inappropriate. As I said earlier, to properly resolve this issue we need to wait patiently until further scientific results come in. However, judging from the manner by which content builders like ourselves are treated by the administration on Wikipedia, we are assumed to be dimwitted, defective and wanting on many levels. You could perhaps achieve your goals here, whatever they may be, by ascending to an administrator position, a position which they will confer to you for the rest of your life. In return you have merely to support the administrative corps, wherever it chooses to go. I gather this elevation instantly confers the benefits of many extraordinary virtues and powers, including luminous and rapier-like intelligence and the satisfaction and security of knowing you will never be regarded as wrong in relation to content builders, no matter how unjustly you deal to them. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If only I had read this 6 months ago! Thanks.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Browns paper wasn't published when I looked. Looks like that whole journal is a moving feast. it seems the scientific debate is but one part of it - I agree that it ends up being a political issue rather than one based on science, a shame, but from reading Browns paper its also obvious the politics work both ways. This wikipedia page is much better balanced than it was when the NPOV issue was first raised, so I can live with lifting of the neutrality tag for now and hope it doesn't slump back into its previous condition in the future. Professor Pelagic (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of pain

There is a subthread on the definition of pain well above which is getting somewhat lost. I think this is a pivot issue. Accordingly I have restarted the discussion here under its own header, and transferred the first two comments below as reiteration of what has been said so far:

---

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... --Epipelagic (talk) 09:55, 14 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)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You point out reasonably that a "valid working definition of pain" is vital for efforts to explain its underlying mechanisms. But then you offer the key features of the definition of pain by the IASP. These are workable for humans. The first two features are: (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. So your "valid working definition" involves unpleasant emotional experience that are "always subjective". That might be a valid working definition for humans, because humans can self-report on private subjective states. But if a fish is experiencing an unpleasant emotion, how would you know? You can not ask it. In what possible sense do you imagine that definition can be a valid working definition for nonhuman animals that cannot self report?

Elsewhere you claim that pain can not be investigated by using analogies with human pain. You said it was anthropomorphic, which somehow means it is not valid. Yet here you are yourself trying to set up a wholly anthropomorphic definition for fish. I think it is okay to say something like "Here is a definition of pain in humans... " and then try an look for analogies in animals. I doubt you can at this stage come up with something so sweeping as "Here is the working definition of pain which applies to all animals... " --Epipelagic (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the term we should be using here is "anthropocentric" rather than "anthropomorphic". And of course the the ISAP definition is anthropocentric - they are concerned about humans and not other animals. To argue that we should be using their definition and saying fish do not feel pain is like arguing we should be using a human definition of vision based on the cornea, lens, retina and the rods and cones, then argue that dragonflies can not see because they do not have these!DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This starts to get to the nub of part of the scientific debate. The reason why the ISAP definition is relevant because pain is a word that describes a human emotion. That also means that the further away you get from humans, the less appropriate it is to use the word as you risk it becoming more and more loaded with anthropomorphic bias (human emotional baggage, if you will). Your example of vision in insects is not quite equivalent, as vision is a sensory function, not an emotion – it’s the equivalent of nociception, not the pain. While insects can on doubtedly see, who knows exactly what a dragonfly perceives – perhaps vision is not the right word - image processing and perception might be more correct. Sneddon, Elwood and co. have recently tried to grapple with this issue, (in response to the recent review papers outlining the scientific issues with their interpretations of their fish and crustacean “pain” findings in their previous pain papers), by publishing a paper entitled “Defining and assessing animal pain” in the journal Animal Behaviour . In the paper they declare “ Clearly animal pain behaviour differs from human pain behaviour, as does the underlying neuroanatomy”, and “although it cannot be proven that animals experience pain, it also cannot be proven that they do not”. This is good stuff but then they present criteria for fulfillment of “animal pain”, including such things as motivational tradeoffs that in many cases essentially lower the bar for the burden of proof of pain and extend the term for use in groups such as insects. I am not sure that this idea will fly (pardon the pun) in the scientific community, as the word “pain” is about emotion and the further away from humans you get, the less relevant or accurate the word becomes to the point that, in some taxa it surely must become redundant. Its certainly hard to see how insects might get emotional. Perhaps researchers in this field of study in lower animals and invertebrates need to develop new words to accommodate what they are seeing so as to avoid the problems with anthropomorphic use of the word pain (and all of the human emotional baggage that comes with it) within the wider community. Also notable is that Sneddon refers to the ISAP definition of pain in this paper too, and they state that it should be able to be applied to animals too. Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that everyone is aware of Sneddon et als 2014 paper, Sneddon LU, Elwood RW, Adamo SA, Leach MC (2014). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal behaviour 97: 201-212, they might want to revise this whole section here and in the other linked pages (crustacean pain, invertebrate pain) to take at least some of its contents into account ???? It is also a far superior assessment of the situation than the tired and discredited argument by analogy. Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References

• Contrary to the impression you are giving, the 2014 paper by Sneddon et al is already referred to in the article. When you don't like Sneddons work, you find her papers fail to uphold "higher scientific standards" and "red flags go up when scientists start to review Sneddons work". When you do like Sneddons work, you find it is "far superior". Can you can provide reliable sources for these sweeping judgements of yours? If you can't, please stop trying to bludgeon us with them. Just omit them. Your insistence on using the subjective ISAP definition of human pain and your view that pain is centrally "about emotion" puts you squarely in what you call the "tired and discredited" anthropomorphic camp of those who must argue by analogy. That said, I think the 2014 Sneddon paper is useful and could be referenced more widely in the article. I would like to see the statement "although it cannot be proven that animals experience pain, it also cannot be proven that they do not" highlighted as a stand alone quote, since this is at the hub of philosophical and methodological issues with pain in animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the insertion of the quote. It is a shame they did not say "currently" - would we be OK inserting this as [currently] into the quote?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"When you don't like Sneddons work, you find her papers fail to uphold "higher scientific standards" and "red flags go up when scientists start to review Sneddons work". When you do like Sneddons work, you find it is "far superior"" I simply treat each paper on its merits. There are good and questionable aspects of Sneddon et als. 2014 paper, but it is certainly a better set of criteria than argument by analogy. Can you please provide any proof whatsoever to your thesis that pain is not an emotion generated by the brain ? I would also like to insist that the other Sneddon quote is included too "Clearly animal pain behaviour differs from human pain behaviour, as does the underlying neuroanatomy". This is because it is a key quote as, for the first time, she has backed down, shifted the goal posts a little and makes a differentiation between "different types of pain". Professor Pelagic (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Professor Pelagic: You ask whether I have "any proof whatsoever to [my] thesis that pain is not an emotion generated by the brain". Where have I suggested anything remotely like that? If you can't be bothered to read what I say with some attention, then what point is there in me paying attention to what you have to say? To repeat my actual input, you cannot use subjective emotion as part of an operational definition for pain in animals, such as fish, because unlike humans animals cannot self report on the private subjective states they experience. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "(my) view that pain is centrally "about emotion" puts you squarely in what you call the "tired and discredited" anthropomorphic camp of those who must argue by analogy". Given that in humans pain and other emotions are generated solely in the brain (usually in response to external stimuli), and having you accusing me of anthropomorphism and arguing by analogy in the same sentence, you appeared to be insinuating that pain in other non-human animals is, unlike humans, more than just an emotion that is generated by the brain, so I simply asked where else might that pain be generated ? Sounds like you agree that pain is generated in the brain. Professor Pelagic (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be treating this page as a forum for anti-Sneddon rhetoric. A sentence should not be included simply because it is the first time a scientist has "backed down". Look carefully at the sentence. It is discussing "animal pain behaviour" and says this differs in non-humans. This is hardly surprising - we tend to vocalise when we are in pain, fish do not have vocal chords.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A very quaint anthropomorphism Dr Chrissy. Fish also have very low % of C type nociceptors (none detected in elasmobranchs), are poikilothermic, have relatively simple brains and have many, many other anatomical differences between them and mammals with vocal chords. The fact that the behavioural criteria that are chosen to "prove pain" in fish are unvalidated and could instead be proving something else, such as irritation, must not be overlooked. For example,the rubbing behaviour cited by Sneddon as behavioural evidence of "pain" is the same rubbing behaviour that is seen when fish are infected with protozoans such as white spot disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyophthirius_multifiliis. But in the 100's of years of history of science about this disease, not one fish health scientist has suggested that the white spot infection might cause pain. I think an ability to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of Sneddons and her colleagues papers is a fundamental prerequisite for anyone who has to work or communicate in this field. The 2014 review paper was the first time that Sneddon and co indicated they were not talking about pain criteria for fish that was equivalent to mammalian pain, or in some way analogous to humans. This is a big step forwards, perhaps tempered by the results of her work with the Norwegians on cod where the fish showed no sign of her definitions of "pain" or stress when they were embedded with fish hooks. Pity others such as Brown who you quote as saying "fish experience pain in a manner similar to the rest of the vertebrates" still continue to try to paint this "human-like pain and suffering" picture for fish. It really detracts from progress in the field. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And so what content would you like to change?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As Sneddon et al. 2014 also state that the ISAP definition of pain should be applicable to animals (p 202, definition of animal pain), it should be included. I suggest the following words are used in the article:

"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 this as, ‘…activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state.’ However, if you can find any references that support a view that the IASP definition should NOT be used for animals such as fish, please provide it to balance the article. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree, at all, with your inclusion of the above passage, which I see you have now added to the article. You have no consensus for this addition, and I invite you to revert until consensus has been reached. You did not signal your intention to add the passage to the article... you merely suggested the wording. It would be okay to add this definition providing you qualify it by pointing out it is a definition used in medical contexts and applied to humans. There is no way this is an appropriate definition for animals in general, and I don't understand how you can think that. At the very least, you need to explain how unpleasant subjective emotional experiences can be assessed in animals that cannot report on their subjective states. This is a loaded definition which sets a stage for people who want to proclaim that subjective emotional experiences cannot be scientifically demonstrated in animals, and therefore animals cannot be scientifically demonstrated to experience pain. In any case, you cannot claim on your own authority that this is a suitable definition for animals. That would be original research. The citation you give presumably refers to this rather obscure 27 year old article. A mere 8 academic publications cite this article, mainly articles by Rose and his associates. It is not my job to find "references that support a view that the IASP definition should NOT be used for animals such as fish". I'm not the one wanting it in the article. It is your job to find references (not just Rose and his associates) that do provide a rationale why the IASP definition should be used for animals such as fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I know you do not like including the IASP definition, but the scientists who work in this field of research in fish use it, so if you say that it is invalid, actually you are fabricating original research on your behalf. I assume this is because its inconvenient for you in relation to your activity on this and other pages you are active editing in relating to pain in non-humans. Since I am familiar with the fish literature, I am working on getting this right first, before looking at your other pages (which I'm not looking forward to). In fact, there may even be consensus on use of the IASP definition for fish, as both Rose et al. and Sneddon et al. use the IASP definition. The quote from Sneddon et al. (2014) is as follows "The International Association for the Study of Pain defined human pain as ‘An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage’(IASP, 1979, p. 249). However, the IASP (1979, p. 249) also refers to adults unable to communicate, neonates and infants and adds that ‘The inability to communicate verbally does not negate the possibility that an individual is experiencing pain’ and so we believe THIS CAN BE APPLIED TO ANIMALS." So if I'm not allowed to quote Rose et al., then yes, Sneddon et al. also think it can be applied to animals, so you indeed have to provide proof that the IASP definition is NOT applicable to animals, otherwise you cannot defend your decision to exclude it from the page. So find your references. Professor Pelagic (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again you are just making up straw men and knocking them over. There seems little point continuing this discussion if you do not bother reading what is actually said. If you do bother to read what was said above, you will read things like:

I think it is okay to say something like "Here is a definition of pain in humans... " and then try an look for analogies in animals. I doubt you can at this stage come up with something so sweeping as "Here is the working definition of pain which applies to all animals... '

It would be okay to add this definition providing you qualify it by pointing out it is a definition used in medical contexts and applied to humans... At the very least, you need to explain how unpleasant subjective emotional experiences can be assessed in animals that cannot report on their subjective states.

Sneddon et al had the sense to qualify the IASP definition as applying to "human pain". They also made some effort to acknowledge the difficulty with animals not being able to self-report on their subjective experience (even though they countered it with only a declaration of faith: "we believe this can be applied to animals"). You made no such qualifications in the passage you added to the article. Instead of moving forward, you have resumed patronising in the same odious style you resorted to earlier. That is not the way to proceed. You can reinstate your edit if you appropriately qualify and cite it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then I propose the following "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 in humans as used 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)[3] emphasized this as, ‘…activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state'. Several researchers in the field including Sneddon et al. (2014) and Rose et al.(2014) have applied the IASP definition in the context of fish." Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, this stuff is difficult. As far as I can determine there are no "valid working definitions of pain" in animals. You came in on such a confident note that I hoped you had something useful to contribute. But you haven't delivered anything of substance. That's okay, because it is not an easy issue. Your last edit above presumes to instruct DrChrissy and me on what are significant sources, and is presumptuous. We can always learn something about what is a significant source, but you should not assume we are clueless. Please drop this arrogance. I'm not going to speculate on your own background, apart from commenting that it clearly falls short of the way you present yourself. Just stick to what can be accepted as reliable sources. That is all we can do here on Wikipedia. May I suggest that you drop your POV about whether fish do or don't feel pain, and adopt instead a neutral curiosity about the matter until such time as the literature is indeed (if ever) able to resolve the issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are working definitions of pain that are not perfect, but are accepted by the scientific community, such as the IASP definition, for which there is evidence of application in the context of fish (see above), and there there are the behavioural criteria that are recently proposed by Sneddon et al (2014) that are largely unvalidated and incapable of discriminating between pain and other non-pain responses like irritation and stress in fishes (Rose et al. 2014). I ask why the editors of this page choose the latter definitions over the former instead of including both as a neutral position. Until such time as this and the other issues are sorted, the NPOV tag should remain to warn readers of the content. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a very confident posting for someone who does not appear to have edited wikipedia before. Have you edited before under a different user name or IP, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the trace links on their IP contribution page I think we can be confident in turn, and discount this precise restatement of "Professor" Pelagic's position. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I suspected. This is becoming very wearing - is it actionable behaviour?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I did not notice the browser had logged me out. I have repaired above to clarify who made the entry. I have also found some of my previous IP edits under 117.53.133.241 and 220.236.150.72.Professor Pelagic (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Research Findings

I have been trying to work through the many problems with this page one section at a time, now onto "Research Findings". The start of the section on Nervous System contains a quote from Sneddons 2015 paper which is not a neutral representation of the science on the topic. To regain a neutral position on this section on Nervous System, either the quote from Sneddon 2015 should be removed, or it should be followed by "However, Rose et al. (2014) pointed out the existence of fundamental neurophysiological differences between fish and mammals when they stated "C fiber nociceptors, the most prevalent type in mammals and responsible for excruciating pain in humans, are rare in teleosts and absent in elasmobranchs studied to date." Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok - The quote of Sneddon et al. has been deleted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The next quote from this section that should be removed is "It has been concluded that the brains of rainbow trout fire neurons in the same way human brains do when experiencing pain.[48][49]" This statement using the word "same" suggests equivalency in the subjective pain experience between the brains of trout and humans, when there is no scientific evidence to support this provided in the references cited. Professor Pelagic (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

and another one that needs to be altered is "Since this initial work, Lynne Sneddon and her co-workers have characterised pain responses in rainbow trout, common carp and zebrafish.[67]" As Rose et al. 2014 pointed out whether they actually measured pain responses in these studies is highly debatable, the word "pain" should be replaced with "responses to noxious stimuli" Professor Pelagic (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the paper cited should be this one, which states that: "rainbow trout, common carp, and zebrafish... that experienced a noxious stimulation exhibited rapid changes in physiology and behavior that persisted for up to 6 hours... and thus were not simple reflexes". --Epipelagic (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The problems with the "not a simple reflex" definition are discussed in Rose et al. 2014. Correct wording to use in this example is "Since this initial work, Lynne Sneddon and her co-workers have characterised responses to noxious stimuli in rainbow trout, common carp and zebrafish.[67]"Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Some critical information that was deleted from this section on nerve fibres some time ago was information on the neurological significance of the very low % of C fibres found in teleost fish presented by Rose et al. 2014, i.e. that such low % of C type fibres would not be sufficent to initiate a pain response in humans. The information was "in a bold move" placed right at the bottom of the page into a new section entitled "controversy". I contend that this information is not controversial, but is instead basic anatomical information on nerves that is critical to understanding the neurobiology of fishes, and hence this information should be reinstated into the section on the nervous system. Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If we are looking for suggestions on how to proceed on this point, I suggest either adding the missing information back into the research findings section, or directly referring /linking readers of the research findings section to the "controversy" section and/or moving the controversy section further up the page to immediately below the research findings section. I would do so myself except in the past edits I make to the main page have been quickly removed, essentially wasting my time, but I am willing to try again if no one else steps up. Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think at this point we are waiting for more research findings. I disagree with both you and with DrChrissy in the sense that I think the issue of whether fish do or do not feel pain is, as yet, not really clear. As more results come in, it seems the balance is starting to support the position that they can be said to feel pain. But there is still some way to go. What specifically is the "missing information" you want added? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The information I was referring to is the information on C type fibres and its context. Cutaneous nerves in carp and rainbow trout have only 4-5% C-type fibres, but as noted by Rose et al. (2014), normal human peripheral nerves have about 83% C type fibres, but humans with congenital insensitivity to pain only have 24–28% C type nociceptive afferents in their peripheral nerves (Rosemberg et al. 1994). This indicates that teleost fish have 4-5 times lower numbers of trauma receptors than humans that cannot feel pain (due to low numbers of trauma receptors), while sharks and rays have fewer again (0%). Why is this important ? This information is critical anatomical information regarding phylogenetic differences in nociceptive pathways and suggests that whatever fish "feel" following tissue trauma, it is highly unlikely to be anything like humans feel. Indeed, this would explain the results of Eckroth et al. 2014 who saw no effect (beside head shaking) in cod which were stuck with fishing hooks. This information is central to the topic and should not be sidelined and it should be placed in context. It should not be presented that these basic anatomical differences are controversial, as they are not, they are just facts. I see there are some new papers on "fish pain" just published here: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/ , but just more talk, no research findings. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather ironically, your last comment is exactly the way I think of Rose and those associated with his point of view - talk and no research. I have no problem at all with the article pointing out that there are differences in the neurobiology between mammals and fish, and also between different clades of fish. However, it is the misleading implication that this means fish are unable to experience pain that I disagree with. Insects do not have a mammalian eye. Does this mean they can not see? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not mean they cannot see, it just means they are unlikely to process visual stimuli like mammals do and therefore their visual experience is likely to be very different to humans. This was pointed out for fish by Derbyshire (2016) in one of those recent animal studies papers, "noxious stimulation in fish, therefore, should not be called pain because it is clearly far from the typical pain experience that we know". Professor Pelagic (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside, PP, what name would you give to the sensation a fish experiences when a sharp object pierces their lip?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The data collected by Norwegian researchers with the fish hooks embedded in Atlantic cod said there was head shaking but nothing else that fulfilled their "pain" criteria. So I would guess irritation would be a good, value neutral word to use, as this is the same sort of behaviour you see if your aquarium fish tries to shake off or rub off a parasite like "Ich". Professor Pelagic (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Brian Key's latest paper

Brian Key authored a controversial paper, Key, Brian (2016) Why fish do not feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.3 which caused a lot of different commentaries [13], anyone experienced in this field? This recent debate should be included.

Calum Brown comments "More than 30 commenters responded to the article and this clearly shows that this topic is still controversial. Of these, three (Rose; Hart; Diggles) support Key’s position. The vast majority of commentaries, however, do not, and argue that fish most likely feel pain. Most agree that Key’s argument is flawed at best and his evidence of how pain works in humans is selective, simplistic, misleading and outdated (Damasio & Damasio; Merker; Panksepp; Shriver)." Brown, Culum (2016) Fish pain: An inconvenient truth Animal Sentience 2016.058. HealthyGirl (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A brief summary from Marc Bekoff [14] As for Animal Sentience, it appears to be a new journal. Information about it here [15] HealthyGirl (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this HealthyGirl. I think with the journal being so young, we might need to establish that it is a Reliable Source. The editorial team can be seen here[16]. There are many world leaders in the subject on this board. I wonder about the stated financial link with HSUS. The HSUS is clearly an advocacy organisation. They are well respected in animal welfare science in both the UK and the US, however, I wonder if others may see this link as a problem. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the affiliation with HSUS is unfortunate. But all sides of the debate seem fairly represented and the contributors to the journal (as well as its board members) amount to what is largely a roll call of notable international leaders in the field. Irrespective of the affiliation, the declared arguments of independently notable participants should be taken seriously. The thrust of the debate elegantly underlines the position I have been advocating, that issues to do with animal consciousness, and particularly pain in fish, remain significantly controversial. We should attempt to present the arguments, for, against, and sideways, with as much clarity as possible, and adopt a wait and see attitude rather than taking sides. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been going through the target article and the commentaries for quite some time now. To be honest, there is not really all that much in there that is new, although the MRI study is quite interesting. I have added a couple of comments that relate more to expert opinions, rather than hard facts. We allow input from expert monographs, and I suspect the commentaries in this journal should be considered as such. By the way, the language used to criticise Key is pretty strong for scientists - "illogical" for example. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The debate is largely recapitulation or restatement, though the defence bubble round the Rose and Key camp seems to be under more pressure. The debate doesn’t address remaining philosophical issues to do with consciousness and subjectivity. These are not necessarily resolved by further examining animal behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Components of Pain

"Although there are numerous definitions of pain, almost all involve two key components. [...] ... The second component is the experience of "pain" itself, or suffering – the internal, emotional interpretation of the nociceptive experience. Again in humans, this is when the withdrawn finger begins to hurt, moments after the withdrawal. Pain is therefore a private, emotional experience. Pain cannot be directly measured in other animals, including other humans; responses to putatively painful stimuli can be measured, but not the experience itself."

With no references or quote given wheresoever, the above part sounds like a personal opinion rather than a wikipedia content. 123.231.122.139 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. References supporting the content can certainly be added, but IMHO, are not needed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for pain perception

Is the first sentence in the section named "Criteria for pain perception" really related to it? As the way the sentence starts it sounds like there was another sentence prior to it which is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.122.139 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

behaviour persistence with ablation of relevant brain structures

I think a mention that most of these behavior's persist even with ablation of the telencephalon and related structures, and thus suggest a lack of probative value in indication of experiencing pain.

Fish are known to swim away from noxious electric shock and this behavioural response has been used to indicate that these animals feel pain. However, this interpretation is simplistic and can be dismissed given the extensive evidence that fish continue to exhibit escape behaviour following ablation of the entire telencephalon (Hainsworth et al. 1967; Davis et al. 1976). Forebrainless fish display no clear evidence of deficits in normal behaviours. For example, forebrainless fish continue to flee from capture by a small fish net with similar locomotor agility as their unoperated counterparts (Kaplan and Aronson 1967). The ability to escape or respond to an electric shock is unaffected by removal of either the forebrain or telencephalon in goldfish (Hainsworth et al. 1967; Savage 1969; Portavella et al. 2004a, b) or telencephalon in Tilapia mossambica (Overmier and Gross 1974).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356734/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.139.150 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Floating references

This section is to stop various references floating at the bottom of the page.

References

DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)