Expanding the moral circle: farmed fish as objects of moral concern

Until recently fish welfare attracted little attention, but international and national legislation and standards of fish welfare are now emerging and an overview of these developments is presented in this study. Whereas animal welfare legislation is based on public morality, animal ethics does not automatically accept public morality as normative and elaborates arguments regarding the way humans should treat animals (referred to as moral standards). In this study we present the most common animal ethics theories. For most of these, sentience is considered a demarcation line for moral concern: if an animal is sentient, then it should be included in the moral circle, i.e. receive moral consideration in its own right and some basic welfare should be ensured. As for fish, research has revealed that the sensory system of teleosts can detect noxious stimuli, and that some kind of phenomenal consciousness, allowing the fish to feel pain, seems to be present. This raises the ethical question as to how much evidence we need in order to act on such indications of fish sentience. A simple risk analysis shows that the probability that fishes can feel pain is not negligible and that if they do indeed experience pain the consequences in terms of the number of suffering individuals are great. We conclude that farmed fish should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should make efforts that their welfare needs are met as well as possible. Finally, the way forward is briefly discussed: efforts must be made to understand what fish welfare means in practical fish farming. This will involve the development of research and education, greater accountability and transparency, compliance with and control of policies, and quality assurance schemes.     

Cognitive ability and sentience: which aquatic animals should be protected?

It is of scientific and practical interest to consider the levels of cognitive ability in animals, which animals are sentient, which animals have feelings such as pain and which animals should be protected. A sentient being is one that has some ability to evaluate the actions of others in relation to itself and third parties, to remember some of its own actions and their consequences, to assess risk, to have some feelings and to have some degree of awareness. These abilities can be taken into account when evaluating welfare. There is evidence from some species of fish, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans of substantial perceptual ability, pain and adrenal systems, emotional responses, long- and short-term memory, complex cognition, individual differences, deception, tool use, and social learning. The case for protecting these animals would appear to be substantial. A range of causes of poor welfare in farmed aquatic animals is summarised.     

Animal Welfare in Nepal

The small densely populated country of Nepal rises from just above sea level to more than 8800 m and encompasses many agro-ecological zones. Rich in both nature and culture, livestock are integral to household and national economies. Most Nepalese consider the cow sacred, and slaughter is forbidden. Other nonhuman animals are less esteemed, slaughter is not proscribed, and many are sacrificed during religious festivals. Limited financial and material resources, inadequate feed supplies, poor access to veterinary services, absence of appropriate legislation, and ignoring the needs of livestock as sentient beings can compromise welfare and lead to inhumane treatment. This article reviews the welfare status of various groups (food-producing stock, work animals, street dogs, experimental animals, and elephants in captivity). Several animal welfare charities are represented. Suggestions for improved welfare are discussed, but the prognosis is not encouraging especially in view of the widespread struggle and people’s own struggle for survival.     

Health and Welfare in Animals and Humans

This paper contains a brief comparative analysis of some philosophical and scientific discourses on human and animal health and welfare, focusing mainly on the welfare of sentient animals. The paper sets forth two kinds of proposals for the analysis of animal welfare which do not appear in the contemporary philosophical discussion of human welfare, viz. the coping theory of welfare and the theory of welfare in terms of natural behaviour. These proposals are scrutinized in the light of some similar theories dealing with human health and quality of life. My conclusion is that the coping theory and the natural behaviour theory are not in themselves adequate for the characterization of welfare, either for humans or for sentient animals. I contend, finally, that, in the light of the previous discussion, there are good arguments for a particular set of analyses of both animal and human welfare, viz. the ones that are based on the notions of preference satisfaction and positive subjective experiences.     

Sentient Nonpersons and the Disvalue of Death

Implicit in our everyday attitudes and practices is the assumption that death ordinarily harms a person who dies. A far more contested matter is whether death harms sentient individuals who are not persons, a category that includes many animals and some human beings. On the basis of the deprivation account of the harm of death, I argue that death harms sentient nonpersons (whenever their lives would be worth continuing). I next consider possible bases for the commonsense judgment that death ordinarily harms persons more than it harms sentient nonpersons. Contrary to what some philosophers believe, it is doubtful that the familiar resources of prudential value theory can vindicate this judgment. I show that the approach that at first glance seems most promising for supporting this judgment – namely, invoking an objective account of well‐being – faces substantial challenges, before arguing that McMahan's time‐relative interest account supplies the needed theoretical basis. I then go on to extract a significant practical implication of the first thesis, that death ordinarily harms sentient nonpersons: We should find a way to discontinue the routine killing of animal subjects following their use in experiments.     

Current issues in fish welfare

Human beings may affect the welfare of fish through fisheries, aquaculture and a number of other activities. There is no agreement on just how to weigh the concern for welfare of fish against the human interests involved, but ethical frameworks exist that suggest how this might be approached. Different definitions of animal welfare focus on an animal's condition, on its subjective experience of that condition and/or on whether it can lead a natural life. These provide different, legitimate, perspectives, but the approach taken in this paper is to focus on welfare as the absence of suffering. An unresolved and controversial issue in discussions about animal welfare is whether non‐human animals exposed to adverse experiences such as physical injury or confinement experience what humans would call suffering. The neocortex, which in humans is an important part of the neural mechanism that generates the subjective experience of suffering, is lacking in fish and non‐mammalian animals, and it has been argued that its absence in fish indicates that fish cannot suffer. A strong alternative view, however, is that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffering, though this may be different in degree and kind from the human experience of this state. Recent empirical studies support this view and show that painful stimuli are, at least, strongly aversive to fish. Consequently, injury or experience of other harmful conditions is a cause for concern in terms of welfare of individual fish. There is also growing evidence that fish can experience fear‐like states and that they avoid situations in which they have experienced adverse conditions. Human activities that potentially compromise fish welfare include anthropogenic changes to the environment, commercial fisheries, recreational angling, aquaculture, ornamental fish keeping and scientific research. The resulting harm to fish welfare is a cost that must be minimized and weighed against the benefits of the activity concerned. Wild fish naturally experience a variety of adverse conditions, from attack by predators or conspecifics to starvation or exposure to poor environmental conditions. This does not make it acceptable for humans to impose such conditions on fish, but it does suggest that fish will have mechanisms to cope with these conditions and reminds us that pain responses are in some cases adaptive (for example, suppressing feeding when injured). In common with all vertebrates, fish respond to environmental challenges with a series of adaptive neuro‐endocrine adjustments that are collectively termed the stress response. These in turn induce reversible metabolic and behavioural changes that make the fish better able to overcome or avoid the challenge and are undoubtedly beneficial, in the short‐term at least. In contrast, prolonged activation of the stress response is damaging and leads to immuno‐suppression, reduced growth and reproductive dysfunction. Indicators associated with the response to chronic stress (physiological endpoints, disease status and behaviour) provide a potential source of information on the welfare status of a fish. The most reliable assessment of well‐being will be obtained by examining a range of informative measures and statistical techniques are available that enable several such measures to be combined objectively. A growing body of evidence tells us that many human activities can harm fish welfare, but that the effects depend on the species and life‐history stage concerned and are also context‐dependent. For example, in aquaculture, adverse effects related to stocking density may be eliminated if good water quality is maintained. At low densities, bad water quality may be less likely to arise whereas social interactions may cause greater welfare problems. A number of key differences between fish and birds and mammals have important implications for their welfare. Fish do not need to fuel a high body temperature, so the effects of food deprivation on welfare are not so marked. For species that live naturally in large shoals, low rather than high densities may be harmful. On the other hand, fish are in intimate contact with their environment through the huge surface area of their gills, so they are vulnerable to poor water quality and water borne pollutants. Extrapolation between taxa is dangerous and general frameworks for ensuring welfare in other vertebrate animals need to be modified before they can be usefully applied to fish. The scientific study of fish welfare is at an early stage compared with work on other vertebrates and a great deal of what we need to know is yet to be discovered. It is clearly the case that fish, though different from birds and mammals, however, are sophisticated animals, far removed from unfeeling creatures with a 15 s memory of popular misconception. A heightened appreciation of these points in those who exploit fish and in those who seek to protect them would go a long way towards improving fish welfare.     

The ethics of fish welfare

The topic of fish welfare in the context of commercial fisheries is a difficult one. From traditionally anthropocentric or human‐centred perspectives, fishes are simply objects for humans to use as they see fit. When it is argued that anthropocentrism is arbitrary, it may appear that a strong animal rights position is the only recourse, with the result that humans ought not to use animals in the first place, if it is at all possible. It can be argued that both positions fail to view human beings as part of the natural world. If human beings are viewed as part of the world from which they live, then it has to be asked what it means to be respectful of the animals which humans use and from which they live. From this perspective, concern for the welfare of the fishes humans eat is simply what should be expected from humans as good citizens in the community of living creatures.     

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?

The restoration community continues to discuss what constitutes good environmental stewardship. One area of tension is the extent to which the well‐being of wild animals should inform restoration efforts. We discuss three ways that the perspective of wild animal welfare can augment restoration ecology: strengthening people's relationship with nature, reinforcing biotic integrity, and reducing mechanistic uncertainty. The animal welfare movement elevates sentient animals as stakeholders and explores how environmental context directly impacts the well‐being of individuals. Viewing wild animals through this lens may encourage people to think and act with empathy and altruism. Second, we incorporate animal welfare into the concept of biotic integrity for ecological and ethical reasons. Restoring ecosystem processes may enhance animal welfare, and vice versa. Alternatively, there may be a trade‐off between these factors, requiring local decision‐makers to prioritize between restoring ecosystem function and promoting individuals' well‐being. We conclude by discussing how welfare can impact population recovery, thereby adding insights about mechanisms underpinning restoration objectives. Ultimately, restoration ecologists and proponents of wild animal welfare could enjoy a productive union.     

Making Sense of Child Welfare When Regulating Human Reproductive Technologies

Policy-makers have attempted to frame the ethical requirements that are relevant to the creation of human beings via reproductive technologies. Various reports and laws enacted in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Britain have introduced tests for how we should weigh child welfare when using these technologies. A number of bioethicists have argued that child welfare should be interpreted as a “best interests” test. Others have argued that there are ethical reasons why we should abandon this kind of test. I will argue that at least some of the relevant policy can be interpreted as requiring those wishing to exercise their procreative liberty to have a reasonable plan to care and nurture any resulting child, thereby respecting the internal preconditions of that liberty. This interpretation of child welfare requirements answers some of the ethical worries about a child welfare test.     

Ethical considerations in fish research

Fishes are used in a wide range of scientific studies, from conservation research with potential benefits to the species used to biomedical research with potential human benefits. Fish research can take place in both laboratories and field environments and methods used represent a continuum from non-invasive observations, handling, through to experimental manipulation. While some countries have legislation or guidance regarding the use of fish in research, many do not and there exists a diversity of scientific opinions on the sentience of fish and how we determine welfare. Nevertheless, there is a growing pressure on the scientific community to take more responsibility for the animals they work with through maximising the benefits of their research to humans or animals while minimising welfare or survival costs to their study animals. In this review, we focus primarily on the refinement of common methods used in fish research based on emerging knowledge with the aim of improving the welfare of fish used in scientific studies. We consider the use of anaesthetics and analgesics and how we mark individuals for identification purposes. We highlight the main ethical concerns facing researchers in both laboratory and field environments and identify areas that need urgent future research. We hope that this review will help inform those who wish to refine their ethical practices and stimulate thought among fish researchers for further avenues of refinement. Improved ethics and welfare of fishes will inevitably lead to increased scientific rigour and is in the best interests of both fishes and scientists.     

Exploring Children’s Perspectives on the Welfare Needs of Pet Animals

Children are increasingly viewed as important recipients of educational interventions to improve animal welfare, yet research examining their perspectives is lacking, particularly within the UK. Helping children to care appropriately for animals depends, not least, on an ability to understand the needs of different species and correctly identify cues given by the animal that indicate its welfare state. This study began to explore: (a) children’s perceptions of welfare needs, focusing on four common pet animals; (b) influences on the development of knowledge; (c) beliefs about whether or not (all) animals are sentient, and (d) their confidence in identifying when their own pets are in need. Fourteen focus groups were carried out with 53 children aged 7 to 13 years. Findings highlighted an affirmative response that animals have feelings (dogs especially), albeit with doubts about this applying universally. There was wide variation in children’s knowledge of welfare needs, even among owners of the animal in question. Conversely, some children lacked confidence in spite of the extensive knowledge they had developed through direct experience. An important finding was a perceived difficulty in identifying the needs of particular species or specific types of need in their own pets. Fitting well with a recent emphasis on “positive welfare,” children felt that many animals need demonstrative love and attention, especially cats and dogs. While there is clearly scope for educating children about common needs and cues that indicate animals’ welfare state, other areas pose a greater challenge. Emotional connection seems important in the development of extensive knowledge and concern for welfare. Accordingly, animals that do not possess the kind of behavioral repertoire that is easy to interpret or allows for a perceived sense of reciprocity are possibly at risk of negative welfare experiences.     

Understanding behaviour to improve the welfare of an ornamental fish

Some common practices in aquaculture, ornamental trade and fish facilities may disturb the behavioural repertoire of fish and its natural adaptive value, reducing welfare and impairing fish production. Hence, it is necessary to understand fish behaviour, as well as the factors affecting it, to improve the quality of fish's life under artificial environment. Here, we reviewed the behaviour of the angelfish Pterophyllum scalare, an Amazonian cichlid used worldwide both as an ornamental fish and as a fish model in scientific research. We characterized social, reproductive and feeding behaviour, as well as the amazing cognitive ability of the angelfish. In addition, we reviewed the effects of environmental enrichment and suggested some important variables that need to be considered for rearing P. scalare. In this review, we show for the first time a synthesis on behaviour and a best practice overview to improve the welfare of angelfish as a target species. Nonetheless, most topics reviewed fit a broader set of fish species, particularly ornamental ones. This synthesis can therefore open a path for further behavioural research applied to the welfare of angelfish and bring insights to other fish species.     

Review: Assessing fish welfare in research and aquaculture,with a focus on European directives

The number of farmed fish in the world has increased considerably. Aquaculture is a growing industry that will in the future provide a large portion of fishery products. Moreover, in recent years, the number of teleost fish used as animal models for scientific research in both biomedical and ecological fields has increased. Therefore, it is increasingly important to implement measures designed to enhance the welfare of these animals. Currently, a number of European rules exist as requirements for the establishment, care and accommodation of fish maintained for human purposes. As far as (teleost) fish are concerned, the fact that the number of extant species is much greater than that of all other vertebrates must be considered. Of further importance is that each species has its own specific physical and chemical requirements. These factors make it difficult to provide generalized recommendations or requirements for all fish species. An adequate knowledge is required of the physiology and ecology of each species bred. This paper integrates and discusses, in a single synthesis, the current issues related to fish welfare, considering that teleosts are target species for both aquaculture and experimental models in biological and biomedical research. We first focus on the practical aspects, which must be considered when assessing fish welfare in both research and aquaculture contexts. Next, we address husbandry and the care of fish housed in research laboratories and aquaculture facilities in relation to their physiological and behavioural requirements, as well as in reference to the suggestions provided by European regulations. Finally, to evaluate precisely which parameters described by Directive 2010/63/EU are reported in scientific papers, we analysed 82 articles published by European researchers in 2014 and 2015. This review found that there is a general lack of information related to the optimal environmental conditions that should be provided for the range of species covered by this directive.     

The Identity Objection to the future‐like‐ours argument

Some critics of Don Marquis's ‘future‐like‐ours’ anti‐abortion argument launch what has been called the Identity Objection. The upshot of this objection is that under a psychological theory of personal identity, a non‐sentient fetus lacks precisely what Marquis believes gives it a right to life – a future like ours. However, Eric Vogelstein, in a recent article, has argued that under this theory of personal identity a non‐sentient fetus, in fact, has a future like ours, which he believes dissolves the Identity Objection. But Vogelstein is mistaken. Even if he is correct that there is a sense in which a non‐sentient fetus has a future of value under a psychological theory of personal identity, the sense in which it has one is importantly different from the sense in which we have one, meaning that, under such a theory, a non‐sentient fetus does not have a future like ours.     

Safeguarding the many guises of farmed fish welfare

There has been a great deal of debate and sometimes open hostility between people with differing approaches to the welfare of farmed animals, but relatively little progress towards compromise or consensus. It has been suggested that progress has been inhibited by a fundamental lack of common ground; people are debating different questions. Compromise or consensus can only be achieved through understanding and this in turn requires effective presentation of information and constructive dialogue. In this paper we adapt a previously published framework to present and evaluate information relevant to a wide range of definitions of fish welfare. Through improved understanding we will increase our capacity to safeguard many aspects of welfare of farmed fish, satisfying the demands of more but not all stakeholders.     

The welfare of fish

Our interactions with fish cover a wide range of activities including enjoying them as pets to consuming them as food. I propose that we confine the consideration of the welfare of fish to their physiology, and not join the discussion on whether fish can feel pain and suffering, as humans. A significant proportion of the papers on animal welfare center on whether non-human animals can feel pain, and suffer as humans. This is a question that never can be answered unequivocally. The premise of the present paper is that we have an ethical responsibility to respect the life and wellbeing of all organisms. Thus, we should concentrate on the behavioural, physiological, and cellular indicators of their well-being and attempt to minimize a state of stress in the animals that we have in our care or influence.     

Sentience and sensation

When animals are used in a biomedical research activity that may result in more than mild or momentary pain or distress, humanity, federal regulations and common sense direct us to use the least sentient species that can fulfill the aims of the research. The use of a less-sentient species is in line with the concept of Replacement, one of the well-known 3Rs of laboratory animal use. But what is a less-sentient species? Is a chimpanzee less sentient than a human; is a dog less sentient than a chimpanzee; and is a mouse less sentient than a dog? Does 'less sentient' imply that a species is less able to experience pain, is less intelligent or has less self-awareness? This essay will explore some of the relationships between sentience, pain and vertebrate phylogeny.     

实验用鱼类福利的发展现状

伴随着鱼类作为科研重要材料的迅猛发展,实验用鱼类福利引起了人们的关注。本文旨在阐述国内外鱼类福利发展的历史和现状,剖析鱼类福利实施困难的因素,提供提高福利的参考对策,以期帮助科研工作者进一步地了解实验用鱼类福利,促进在实验过程中鱼类福利的发展。     

The Controversy on Fish Pain: A Veterinarian’s Perspective

Fish welfare is still a relatively new field. As such, regulations and protocols to ensure fish welfare are currently limited and vary considerably in different jurisdictions. This is in part because of the ongoing controversy as to whether or not fish feel pain. This controversy has persisted for several years, yet veterinarians have been mostly absent from the discussion so far. This essay aims to address this issue. Here, it is argued that while this controversy has its place, it is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Fish welfare could instead be improved by pursuing more clinically applicable research to increase knowledge of fishes’ behavior and physiology. Such research would assist in learning the optimal environment for their specific needs, as well as compiling some verified indicators of pain in fish. This would then lead to improved studies that could help to determine if and when analgesic drugs can be beneficial in fish, as they are in many other species.