Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pain in fish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:45, 25 October 2015 editDrChrissy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,946 edits →Harking and Key (2015): not specific← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:35, 10 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 8 discussion(s) to Talk:Pain in fish/Archive 3, Talk:Pain in fish/Archive 1, Talk:Pain in fish/Archive 2) (botTag: Replaced 
(225 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Fishes|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=mid|class=C}}
|action1=GAN
|action1date=20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
|action1link=/GA1
|action1result=failed
|currentstatus=FGAN
|dykdate=15 September 2009|dykentry=...that the British ] now formally prosecutes individuals who are ''']'''?
|topic=Biology and medicine
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|

{{WikiProject Animal rights |importance=High}}
{{dyktalk|15 September|2009|{{*mp}}...that the British ] now formally prosecutes individuals who are ''']'''? }}
{{WikiProject Biology}}
{{FailedGA|20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)|page=1|topic=Biology and medicine}}
{{WikiProject Fishes |importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing |importance=Mid}}
==Shark finning==
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=mid}}

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

<blockquote>
] refers to the removal and retention of ] ]s and the discard at sea of the ]. 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.<ref>{{cite book| last = Berman| first = Ruth| title = Sharks| publisher = Lerner Publications| edition = Revised | date = 2009 | page = 37| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=TxOyvCpp1nUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA37,M1| isbn = 0761342435 }}</ref> Shark finning has increased over the past decade due to an increasing demand for shark fins for ] ] and traditional cures, improved fishing technology, and improved market economics. Over 38 million sharks are killed for their fins, annually.<ref name="NG">{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061012-shark-fin.html|title=38 Million Sharks Killed for Fins Annually, Experts Estimate|publisher=National Geographic|author=Nicholas Bakalar|date=2006-10-12|accessdate=8 January 2007}}</ref> It is a billion dollar industry.<ref name="flmnh2">{{cite web|url=http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/FISH/sharks/innews/sharksoup2003.htm|title=Shark Soup|author=Geoffrey York|publisher=The Globe and Mail|date=2003-08-27 |accessdate=8 January 2007}}</ref>
</blockquote>
16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

{{Talk:Pain in fish/GA1}}

==Some thoughts on ]==
''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.''
#<s>Seems OK.</s> ] below makes a good point. The above represents Tavolga's view, but is by no means scientific consensus.
#No it's not- Conditioned responses exist in earthworms<sup>{{plainlink | url= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-4F2M5GV-6S&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1964&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1282026004&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e405677e81fec0ea2126a7427cbb742 |name= }}</sup>- 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

''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.''
#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.''
#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.''
#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."''
#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."''
#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."
#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).
#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.''
#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. ] (]) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

===suggestions===

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

*
*

Neuropsychology:

*

Behavioral perspective:
* Chandroo, KP. Can fish Suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear, and stress ] (]) 03:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

== RSPCA line in opening ==

This is misleading and worse it's already been featured as a factoid. The ] 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ]s. --] (]) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
::I need a ] that you can't feel pain, because I have no proof. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] with the vague aim of eventually writing it properly. But I have no idea what to do with it really. Sidelight12 commented in "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. --] (]) 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, ] (]) 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 ] to join a small suite of "Animal testing in ....." articles.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

::Yup - I agree with that.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. --] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. --] (]) 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?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. ] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
:I have had time to look for a few possibilities.

{{Multiple image
| direction = horizontal
| align = top
| header = Pain in fish
| width1 = 220
| image1 = BigHoleRiverRainbowTrout.jpg
| caption1 = Image 1
| width2 = 220
| image2 = Fish brain.svg
| caption2 = Image 2
| width3 = 220
| image3 = THE OUTLINE OF SCIENCE image127.jpg
| caption3 = Image 3
| width4 = 220
| image4 = Vertebrate-brain-regions.png
| caption4 = Image 4
}} }}

{{Multiple image
| direction = horizontal
| align = top
| header = Pain in fish
| width5 = 220
| image5 = NIE 1905 Fish - topography.jpg
| caption5 = Image 5
| width6 = 220
| image6 = Fish anatomy.jpg
| caption6 = Image 6
| width7 = 220
| image7 = Internal organs of a fish.jpg
| caption7 = Image 7
| width8 = 220
| image8 = Descartes-reflex.JPG
| caption8 = Image 8
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{clear}}
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}

|algo = old(365d)
]
|maxarchivesize = 100K
:* How about a cropped and flipped version of the image on the right --] (]) 11:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 1
==Requested input==
|counter = 3
{{ping|DrChrissy}} you requested input to this article at ]. 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:
|archive = Talk:Pain in fish/Archive %(counter)d
* 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. --] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

== analogy table ==

I very much welcome the recently inserted table - thanks ], 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 ] 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.] (]) 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. --] (]) 13:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::I don't know all that much about leeches, but snails can do some pretty cool things - see ]. 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.<ref name="Coble">{{cite journal|author=Coble, D.J., Taylor, D.K. and Mook, D.M.|year=2011|title=Analgesic effects of meloxicam, morphine sulfate, flunixin meglumine, and xylazine hydrochloride in African-clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)|journal=Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science|volume=50|issue=3|pages=355|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103286/}}</ref>
:::Amphibians:Nociceptors and brain linked.<ref name="Guenette">{{cite journal|author=Guénette, S.A., Giroux, M.C. and Vachon, P.|year=2013|title=Pain perception and anaesthesia in research frogs|journal=Experimental Animals|volume=62|issue=2|pages=87-92|url=http://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.62.87}}</ref>
:::Reptiles:Effects of analgesics.<ref name="Baker">{{cite journal|author=Baker, B.B., Sladky, K.K. and Johnson, S.M.|year=2011|title=Evaluation of the analgesic effects of oral and subcutaneous tramadol administration in red-eared slider turtles|journal=Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association|volume=238|issue=2|pages=220-227|doi=10.2460/javma.238.2.220|url=http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.238.2.220}}</ref>
:::Reptiles:Nociceptors and brain linked.<ref name="Mosley">{{cite journal|author=Mosley, C.|year=2006|title=Pain, nociception and analgesia in reptiles: when your snake goes ‘ouch!’|journal=The North American Veterinary Conference|volume=20|pages=1652-1653|url=http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/navc/2006/SAE/597.pdf?LA=1}}</ref><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

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

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan=10 | Argument by analogy<ref name=Varner2012 />
|-
! rowspan=2 | Property
|-
! Fish
! Amphibians
! Reptiles
! Birds
! Mammals
|-
| Has ]s
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
|-
| Has brain
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
|-
| Nociceptors and brain linked
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | ?{{efn|But see<ref name="Guenette">{{cite journal|author=Guénette, S.A., Giroux, M.C. and Vachon, P.|year=2013|title=Pain perception and anaesthesia in research frogs|journal=Experimental Animals|volume=62|issue=2|pages=87-92|url=http://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.62.87}}</ref>}} / {{aye}}
| align=center | ?{{efn|But see<ref name="Mosley">{{cite journal|author=Mosley, C.|year=2006|title=Pain, nociception and analgesia in reptiles: when your snake goes ‘ouch!’|journal=The North American Veterinary Conference|volume=20|pages=1652-1653|url=http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/navc/2006/SAE/597.pdf?LA=1}}</ref>}} / {{aye}}
| align=center | ? / {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
|-
| Has ] ]s
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
|-
| ]s affect responses
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | ?{{efn|But see<ref name="Coble">{{cite journal|author=Coble, D.J., Taylor, D.K. and Mook, D.M.|year=2011|title=Analgesic effects of meloxicam, morphine sulfate, flunixin meglumine, and xylazine hydrochloride in African-clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)|journal=Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science|volume=50|issue=3|pages=355|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103286/}}</ref>}}
| align=center | ?{{efn|But see<ref name="Baker">{{cite journal|author=Baker, B.B., Sladky, K.K. and Johnson, S.M.|year=2011|title=Evaluation of the analgesic effects of oral and subcutaneous tramadol administration in red-eared slider turtles|journal=Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association|volume=238|issue=2|pages=220-227|doi=10.2460/javma.238.2.220|url=http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.238.2.220}}</ref>}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
|-
| Response to damaging stimuli similar to humans
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
| align=center | {{aye}}
|}

===Notes===
{{notes}}
:::<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

* 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. --] (]) 19:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

==Edits by an IP==
The IP ] has made a number of uncited changes. They also ] 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. - ] (]) 00:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

They have also tried to centre the article around the ] 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 ] for the changes they would like to see. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ]. Misplaced Pages articles are not based on professional help but on ] and ]. Note that while as editors we may present ] 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.

<ref name="Key2014">{{cite journal|year=2015|author=Key, B.|title=Fish do not feel pain and its implications for understanding phenomenal consciousness|journal=Biology and Philosophy|volume=30|issue=2|pages=149–165|doi=10.1007/s10539-014-9469-4|url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-014-9469-4/fulltext.html}}</ref>

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."<ref name="Sneddon2015" />

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.<ref name=Rose2012 /> 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.<ref name=Rose2012 />

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.<ref name=Rose2012 />
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.<ref name="Fish do feel pain, scientists say">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm|title=Fish do feel pain, scientists say | work=BBC News | date=30 April 2003 | accessdate=20 May 2010}}</ref><ref name="grandin183">{{cite book |title= Animals in Translation|author=Grandin, T. and Johnson, C.|year= 2005|publisher= Scribner|location= New York|isbn=0-7432-4769-8|pages= 183–184}}</ref>

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)<ref>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.</ref> 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 <ref>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 </ref>

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: ] show anomalous rocking behaviour and rub their lips against the tank walls.]]

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

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

Inserted: However, when these experiments were repeated by Newby and Stevens (2008)<ref>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.</ref> 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".<ref name="Chandroo">{{cite journal|author=Chandroo, K.P., Duncan, I.J. and Moccia, R.D.|year=2004|title=Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress|journal=Applied Animal Behaviour Science|volume=86|issue=3|pages=225–250}}</ref>

In 2009, the ] 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..."<ref name="EFSA">{{cite journal|author=Salman, J., Vannier, P. and Wierup. M.|title=Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Atlantic salmon.|journal=The EFSA Journal|year=2009|volume=2012|pages=1–77|publisher=European Food Safety Authority|url=http://www.smartaqua.com.au/documents/ahaw_op_ej1011_stunkillsalmon_opinion_en.pdf}}</ref>

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."<ref name="Brown2015">{{cite journal|author=Brown, C.|year=2015|title=Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics|journal=Animal Cognition|volume=18|issue=1|pages=1–17}}</ref>


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. ] (]) 04:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:* 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 ] 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 . Now look at the papers . 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. <small>(Btw, would you please look at the source code so you can see how sequential colons (:) are used to indent comments)</small> --] (]) 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<ref>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.</ref> and <ref>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.</ref> 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 ? ] (]) 02:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
::: ], 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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) ] (]) 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 {{POV|date=October 2015}} 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. ] (]) 05:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::], 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. ] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:23, 23 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, ad 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please be clear here - ], are you the IP who previously hatted the article with the NPOV template?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes.] (]) 11:15, 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.
<ref>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.</ref>

and

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

The relevant sections are:

from Browman and Skiftesvik (2011). Kerr (1998) <ref>Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2:196–217</ref> 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.] (]) 04:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


==Brian Key's latest paper==
:* 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". --] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Brian Key authored a controversial paper, Key, Brian (2016) ''Why fish do not feel pain'' Animal Sentience 2016.3 which caused a lot of different commentaries , anyone experienced in this field? This recent debate should be included.
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).] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 12:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


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


A brief summary from ] As for ''Animal Sentience'', it appears to be a new journal. Information about it here ] (]) 02:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
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"


:Thanks very much for this HealthyGirl. I think with the journal being so young, we might need to establish that it is a Reliable Source. The editorial team can be seen here. There are many world leaders in the subject on this board. I wonder about the stated financial link with HSUS. The HSUS is clearly an advocacy organisation. They are well respected in animal welfare science in both the UK and the US, however, I wonder if others may see this link as a problem. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"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."


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


:::I have been going through the target article and the commentaries for quite some time now. To be honest, there is not really all that much in there that is new, although the MRI study is quite interesting. I have added a couple of comments that relate more to expert opinions, rather than hard facts. We allow input from expert monographs, and I suspect the commentaries in this journal should be considered as such. By the way, the language used to criticise Key is pretty strong for scientists - "illogical" for example. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The latter statement is also backed up by Newby and Stevens (2008) <ref>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.</ref> 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 <ref>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</ref>.
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. ] (]) 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:::: The debate is largely recapitulation or restatement, though the defence bubble round the Rose and Key camp seems to be under more pressure. The debate doesn’t address remaining philosophical issues to do with consciousness and subjectivity. These are not necessarily resolved by further examining animal behaviour. --] (]) 00:33, 4 May 2016 (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..."
:<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


== Components of Pain ==
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)<ref>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</ref> 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 5% 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)<ref>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.</ref> 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)<ref>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
"Although there are numerous definitions of pain, almost all involve two key components. ... The second component is the experience of "pain" itself, or ] – the internal, emotional interpretation of the nociceptive experience. Again in humans, this is when the withdrawn finger begins to hurt, moments after the withdrawal. Pain is therefore a private, emotional experience. Pain cannot be directly measured in other animals, including other humans; responses to putatively painful stimuli can be measured, but not the experience itself."
114, 248–249.</ref> 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.] (]) 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


With no references or quote given wheresoever, the above part sounds like a personal opinion rather than a wikipedia content. ] (]) 21:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
: 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 ] which says the same thing. Otherwise you are engaged in ]. 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


:Please read ]. References supporting the content can certainly be added, but IMHO, are not needed. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
== heres an easy one - external links ==


== Criteria for pain perception ==
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
Is the first sentence in the section named '''"Criteria for pain perception"''' really related to it? As the way the sentence starts it sounds like there was another sentence prior to it which is missing. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9797948/Fish-cannot-feel-pain-say-scientists.html


== behaviour persistence with ablation of relevant brain structures ==
https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2015/01/grey-matter-matters-when-it-comes-feeling-pain


I think a mention that most of these behavior's persist even with ablation of the telencephalon and related structures, and thus suggest a lack of probative value in indication of experiencing pain.
If these are included, I believe the external links section would be balanced.] (]) 04:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Fish are known to swim away from noxious electric shock and this behavioural response has been used to indicate that these animals feel pain. However, this interpretation is simplistic and can be dismissed given the extensive evidence that fish continue to exhibit escape behaviour following ablation of the entire telencephalon (Hainsworth et al. 1967; Davis et al. 1976). Forebrainless fish display no clear evidence of deficits in normal behaviours. For example, forebrainless fish continue to flee from capture by a small fish net with similar locomotor agility as their unoperated counterparts (Kaplan and Aronson 1967). The ability to escape or respond to an electric shock is unaffected by removal of either the forebrain or telencephalon in goldfish (Hainsworth et al. 1967; Savage 1969; Portavella et al. 2004a, b) or telencephalon in Tilapia mossambica (Overmier and Gross 1974).'''
:Prof, I am a little confused. In your posting to you stated that we should not rely on Newspaper articles, yet your first suggested external link is to the Telegraph?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356734/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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. ] (]) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


==Irrelevant content==
::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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 12:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
:In the "External links" section I removed one box that had zero to do with "pain in fish". Another would be ]. Other than bloating the section it has nothing I could find to do with the subject. -- ] (]) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:35, 10 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pain in fish article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
          Other talk page banners
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineePain in fish was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 1, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 15, 2009.The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the British RSPCA now formally prosecutes individuals who are cruel to fish?
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAnimal rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiology
WikiProject iconPain in fish is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFishes High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFisheries and Fishing Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNeuroscience Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brian Key's latest paper

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

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

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

Thanks very much for this HealthyGirl. I think with the journal being so young, we might need to establish that it is a Reliable Source. The editorial team can be seen here. There are many world leaders in the subject on this board. I wonder about the stated financial link with HSUS. The HSUS is clearly an advocacy organisation. They are well respected in animal welfare science in both the UK and the US, however, I wonder if others may see this link as a problem. DrChrissy 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the affiliation with HSUS is unfortunate. But all sides of the debate seem fairly represented and the contributors to the journal (as well as its board members) amount to what is largely a roll call of notable international leaders in the field. Irrespective of the affiliation, the declared arguments of independently notable participants should be taken seriously. The thrust of the debate elegantly underlines the position I have been advocating, that issues to do with animal consciousness, and particularly pain in fish, remain significantly controversial. We should attempt to present the arguments, for, against, and sideways, with as much clarity as possible, and adopt a wait and see attitude rather than taking sides. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been going through the target article and the commentaries for quite some time now. To be honest, there is not really all that much in there that is new, although the MRI study is quite interesting. I have added a couple of comments that relate more to expert opinions, rather than hard facts. We allow input from expert monographs, and I suspect the commentaries in this journal should be considered as such. By the way, the language used to criticise Key is pretty strong for scientists - "illogical" for example. DrChrissy 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The debate is largely recapitulation or restatement, though the defence bubble round the Rose and Key camp seems to be under more pressure. The debate doesn’t address remaining philosophical issues to do with consciousness and subjectivity. These are not necessarily resolved by further examining animal behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Components of Pain

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

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

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

Criteria for pain perception

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

behaviour persistence with ablation of relevant brain structures

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

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

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

Irrelevant content

In the "External links" section I removed one box that had zero to do with "pain in fish". Another would be Fish. Other than bloating the section it has nothing I could find to do with the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: