Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:34, 27 October 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fishes Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fisheries and Fishing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Pain in fish appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know ... that the British RSPCA now formally prosecutes individuals who are cruel to fish? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/September.

Pain in fish was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 1, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Shark finning

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

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

16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Berman, Ruth (2009). Sharks (Revised ed.). Lerner Publications. p. 37. ISBN 0761342435.
2. Nicholas Bakalar (2006-10-12). "38 Million Sharks Killed for Fins Annually, Experts Estimate". National Geographic. Retrieved 8 January 2007.
3. Geoffrey York (2003-08-27). "Shark Soup". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 8 January 2007.

GA Review

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

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

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

Lead

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

Background

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

Research findings

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

Laboratory fish

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

General

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

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

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

Some thoughts on Research findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Seems OK.

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

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

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

1. Seems OK.

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

suggestions

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

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

Neuropsychology:

• Neuropsychology of learning and memory in Zebrafish

Behavioral perspective:

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

RSPCA line in opening

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

Are you serious?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete section on laboratory fish

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

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

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

Descartes' image

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

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

Controversy section

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

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

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

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

Lead image

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

I have had time to look for a few possibilities.

• 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 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested input

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

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

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

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

analogy table

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

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

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

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

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

Amphibians:Effects of analgesics.

Amphibians:Nociceptors and brain linked.

Reptiles:Effects of analgesics.

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

References

1. Coble, D.J., Taylor, D.K. and Mook, D.M. (2011). "Analgesic effects of meloxicam, morphine sulfate, flunixin meglumine, and xylazine hydrochloride in African-clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)". Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 50 (3): 355.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Guénette, S.A., Giroux, M.C. and Vachon, P. (2013). "Pain perception and anaesthesia in research frogs". Experimental Animals. 62 (2): 87–92.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Baker, B.B., Sladky, K.K. and Johnson, S.M. (2011). "Evaluation of the analgesic effects of oral and subcutaneous tramadol administration in red-eared slider turtles". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 238 (2): 220–227. doi:10.2460/javma.238.2.220.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Mosley, C. (2006). "Pain, nociception and analgesia in reptiles: when your snake goes 'ouch!'" (PDF). The North American Veterinary Conference. 20: 1652–1653.

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

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

Notes

1. But see
2. But see
3. But see
4. But see

DrChrissy 19:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Varner2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Guénette, S.A., Giroux, M.C. and Vachon, P. (2013). "Pain perception and anaesthesia in research frogs". Experimental Animals. 62 (2): 87–92.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Mosley, C. (2006). "Pain, nociception and analgesia in reptiles: when your snake goes 'ouch!'" (PDF). The North American Veterinary Conference. 20: 1652–1653.
4. Coble, D.J., Taylor, D.K. and Mook, D.M. (2011). "Analgesic effects of meloxicam, morphine sulfate, flunixin meglumine, and xylazine hydrochloride in African-clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)". Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 50 (3): 355.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Baker, B.B., Sladky, K.K. and Johnson, S.M. (2011). "Evaluation of the analgesic effects of oral and subcutaneous tramadol administration in red-eared slider turtles". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 238 (2): 220–227. doi:10.2460/javma.238.2.220.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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

Edits by an IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 which may mediate the co-ordination of NOCICEPTIVE information.

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:

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 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

1. Key, B. (2015). "Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness". Biology and Philosophy. 30 (2): 149–165. doi:10.1007/s10539-014-9469-4.
2. Cite error: The named reference Sneddon2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rose2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. "Fish do feel pain, scientists say". BBC News. 30 April 2003. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
5. Grandin, T. and Johnson, C. (2005). Animals in Translation. New York: Scribner. pp. 183–184. ISBN 0-7432-4769-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. Chandroo, K.P., Duncan, I.J. and Moccia, R.D. (2004). "Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 86 (3): 225–250.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
10. Salman, J., Vannier, P. and Wierup. M. (2009). "Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Atlantic salmon" (PDF). The EFSA Journal. 2012. European Food Safety Authority: 1–77.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. Brown, C. (2015). "Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics". Animal Cognition. 18 (1): 1–17.

• 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 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/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 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 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/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 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 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)

Harking and Key (2015)

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

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

and

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

The relevant sections are:

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

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

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

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

References

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Key 2015) Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness. Biol Philos (2015) 30:149–165
5. Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2:196–217

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what specific changes to the article would you like to see?DrChrissy 21:55, 25 October 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 ]

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]

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 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

1. Browman HI, Skiftesvik AB (eds) (2007) Welfare of aquatic organisms. Dis Aquat Org 75:85–182
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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
5. Sneddon, L.U., Braithwaite, V.A. and Gentle, M.J. (2003b) Novel object test: examining nociception and fear in the rainbow trout. Journal of Pain 4, 431–440.
6. Reilly, S.C., Quinn, J.P., Cossins, A.R. and Sneddon, L.U. (2008a) Behavioral analysis of a nociceptive event in fish: comparisons between three species demonstrate specific responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 248–249.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors to assess which papers are "most scientific". A key policy on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

heres an easy one - external links

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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
3. Eckroth JR, Aas-Hansen O, Sneddon LU, Bicha H, Døving KB (2014). Physiological and Behavioural Responses to Noxious stimuli in the Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua). PLoS ONE 9(6): e100150. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100150
4. Mettam, J.J., Oulton, L.J., McCrohan, C.R. and Sneddon, L.U. (2011) The efficacy of three types of analgesic drugs in reducing pain in the rainbow trout, Oncorhnchus mykiss. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 265–274.
5. Sneddon LU, Elwood RW, Adamo SA, Leach MC (2014). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal behaviour 97: 201-212.

• 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 into the quote?DrChrissy 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)

another easy one - section on scientific statements

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

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

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

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

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 uses what is at base the same table, but extended to 17 criteria. I would like to see the current analogy table in the Misplaced Pages 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
Has nociceptors			Y
Pathways to central nervous system			Y
Central processing in brain			Y
Receptors for analgesic drugs			Y
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 12:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Epi, I am currently writing a Pain in amphibians article in my sandbox here. 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 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 , and research on extant lungfish is quite possible. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers - thanks for that.DrChrissy 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. Professor Pelagic (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Fishes articles
• Mid-importance Fishes articles
• WikiProject Fishes articles
• C-Class Fishing articles
• Mid-importance Fishing articles
• WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing articles
• C-Class neuroscience articles
• Mid-importance neuroscience articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Former good article nominees