Ethics and invertebrates: a cephalopod perspective

Invertebrate animals are usually seen as a kind of "aliens" which do not deserve any moral consideration. However, there is a growing amount of evidence indicating that many of them do have the capacity to experience pain. The same criteria that are usually applied in order to infer that vertebrates are sentient beings (behavioral response, learning capacity, memory, a certain specific neurophysiological structure…) lead to the idea that many invertebrates are sentient as well. Therefore, under the skeptical premise that we have no direct evidence of the experience of pain in vertebrates, we are forced to hold that it exists in both vertebrates and invertebrates.

2007

When using cephalopods as experimental animals, a number of factors, including morality, quality of information derived from experiments, and public perception, drives the motivation to consider welfare issues. Refinement of methods and techniques is a major step in ensuring protection of cephalopod welfare in both laboratory and field studies. To this end, existing literature that provides details of methods used in the collection, handling, maintenance, and culture of a range of cephalopods is a useful starting point when refining and justifying decisions about animal welfare. This review collates recent literature in which authors have used cephalopods as experimental animals, revealing the extent of use and diversity of cephalopod species and techniques. It also highlights several major issues when considering cephalopod welfare; how little is known about disease in cephalopods and its relationship to senescence and also how to define objective endpoints when animals are stressed or dying as a result of the experiment.

While invertebrates make up the majority of animal species, their welfare is overlooked compared to the concern shown to vertebrates. This fact is highlighted by the near absence of regulations in animal research, with the exception of cephalopods in the European Union. This is often justified by assumptions that invertebrates do not experience pain and stress while lacking the capacity for higher order cognitive functions. Recent research suggests that invertebrates may be just as capable as vertebrates in experiencing pain and stress, and some species display comparable cognitive capacities. Another obstacle is the negative view of invertebrates by the public, which often regards them as pests with no individual personalities, gastronomic entities, or individuals for scientific experimentation without rules. Increasingly, studies have revealed that invertebrates possess individual profiles comparable to the personalities found in vertebrates. Given the large economic impact of invertebrates, developing certain attitude changes in invertebrate welfare may be beneficial for producers while providing higher welfare conditions for the animals. While the immense number and type of species makes it difficult to suggest that all invertebrates will benefit from increased welfare, in this review we provide evidence that the topic of invertebrate welfare should be revisited, more thoroughly investigated, and in cases where appropriate, formally instituted.

Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanità, 2013

While invertebrates make up the majority of animal species, their welfare is overlooked compared to the concern shown to vertebrates. This fact is highlighted by the near absence of regulations in animal research, with the exception of cephalopods in the European Union. This is often justified by assumptions that invertebrates do not experience pain and stress while lacking the capacity for higher order cognitive functions. Recent research suggests that invertebrates may be just as capable as vertebrates in experiencing pain and stress, and some species display comparable cognitive capacities. Another obstacle is the negative view of invertebrates by the public, which often regards them as pests with no individual personalities, gastronomic entities, or individuals for scientific experimentation without rules. Increasingly, studies have revealed that invertebrates possess individual profiles comparable to the personalities found in vertebrates. Given the large economic impact of inv...

Animal Sentience, 2020

Invertebrate animals are frequently lumped into a single category and denied welfare protections despite their considerable cognitive, behavioral, and evolutionary diversity. Some ethical and policy inroads have been made for cephalopod molluscs and crustaceans, but the vast majority of arthropods, including the insects, remain excluded from moral consideration. We argue that this exclusion is unwarranted given the existing evidence. Anachronistic readings of evolution, which view invertebrates as lower in the scala naturae, continue to influence public policy and common morality. The assumption that small brains are unlikely to support cognition or sentience likewise persists, despite growing evidence that arthropods have converged on cognitive functions comparable to those found in vertebrates. The exclusion of invertebrates is also motivated by cognitive-affective biases that covertly influence moral judgment, as well as a flawed balancing of scientific uncertainty against moral ...

Animal Sentience, 2020

Mikhalevich & Powell provide convincing empirical evidence that at least some invertebrates are sentient and hence should be granted moral status. I agree and argue that functional markers should be the primary indicators of sentience. Neuroanatomical homologies provide only secondary evidence. Consensus regarding the validity of these functional markers will be difficult to achieve. To be effective in practice, functional markers of sentience will have to be tested and accepted species by species to overcome the implicit biases against extending moral status to invertebrates.

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 2013

scientific projects involving cephalopods became regulated by Directive 2010/63/EU, but at present there is little guidance specifically for cephalopods on a number of key requirements of the Directive, including: recognition of pain, suffering and distress and implementation of humane end-points; anaesthesia and analgesia, and humane killing. This paper critically reviews these key areas prior to the development of guidelines and makes recommendations, including identifying topics for further research. In particular: a) Evidence on how cephalopods might experience pain is reviewed; and a draft scheme of behavioural and physiological criteria for recognising and assessing pain, suffering and distress in cephalopods used in scientific procedures is presented and discussed. b) Agents and protocols currently used for general anaesthesia and analgesia are evaluated. Magnesium chloride, ethanol and clove oil are the most frequently used agents, but their efficacy and potential for induction of aversion need to be systematically investigated, according to the species of cephalopod and factors such as body weight, sex and water temperature. Means of sedating animals prior to anaesthesia should be investigated. Criteria for assessing depth of anaesthesia, including depression of ventilation, decrease in chromatophore tone (paling), reduced arm activity, tone and sucker adhesiveness, loss of normal posture and righting reflex, and loss of response to a noxious stimulus, are discussed. c) Analgesia should be provided for cephalopods used in scientific procedures, whenever this would be the case for vertebrates. However, research is needed to evaluate effective agents and administration routes for cephalopods. d) Techniques for local anaesthesia need to be defined and evaluated. e) Currently used methods of killing and criteria for confirmation of death in cephalopods are evaluated. Based on present knowledge, a protocol for humane killing of cephalopods is proposed. However, further evaluation is needed, along with development of humane methods of killing that will not compromise study of the brain. On humane grounds: i. mechanical (as opposed to chemical) methods of killing should not be used on conscious cephalopods (unless specifically authorised by the national competent authority); and ii. hatchlings and larvae should be killed by overdose of anaesthetic and not by immersion in tissue fixative. Key gaps in current knowledge are also highlighted, so as to encourage research that will contribute to the evidence base needed to develop guidelines to the Directive.

Invertebrates have a long history of use in scientific research but there has been little concern for their welfare until very recently. Unlike vertebrate research animals, whose uses are closely regulated, invertebrate animals are minimally protected. In some countries regulations extend to a few species, but the vast majority of invertebrate animals can be used in research with no oversight, protections or legal regulation. Whether this is cause for concern depends on the ability of invertebrate animals to experience pain, suffering or distress as a result of husbandry and experimental procedures. To date there is minimal evidence that invertebrate animals are capable of experiencing such affective states, but this is largely due to very little experimental effort devoted to testing such hypotheses. In this article I review current regulatory guidelines for use of invertebrate animals and their relevance to species of varying neural and behavioural complexity. I define some simple steps that postdoctoral and other young researchers can take to improve the welfare of research animals within their own laboratories, and provide a framework for contributing more broadly to the field of welfare--based research by publishing their observations when improvements have had a positive effect on their animals and their research.

Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanità, 2015

Cephalopods have been defined as "advanced invertebrates" due to the complexity of their nervous system and to their sophisticated behavioural repertoire. However, until recently, the protection and welfare of this class of invertebrates has been mostly disregarded by EU regulations on the use of laboratory animals. The inclusion of "live cephalopods" in the Directive 2010/63/EU has been prompted by new scientific knowledge on the "sentience" of animals used for experimental or other scientific purposes, a fundamental criterion to which animal species are included or not under the protective umbrella of the Directive. In this scenario, the imminent publication of the Guidelines for the care and welfare of cephalopods in research as an initiative by the CephRes-FELASA-Boyd Group is a sign of ethical progress in the consideration of animals in research, and is likely to have a significant impact on both scientific and practical aspects of research conduct...

IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia

Increasing utilization of living animals in ecological and biomedical research has drawn serious concerns in terms of animal welfare and ethical practices in animal handling. Significant attention has been given to animals of higher taxonomical hierarchy especially vertebrates such as fishes, rodents, reptiles and mammals, while ethical framework on invertebrate handling and welfare is less addressed (except for cephalopods). The definition of ‘Animal’ itself by any international consortia or Animal Research Act (ARA) does not include invertebrates as an animal entity. This is due to the lack of standard ethical framework to understand the pain and other physiological stress experienced by the invertebrate test animal. One such example would be the living fossil ‘horseshoe crab’ which is extensively bled to obtain its blue blood that is used for endotoxin quantification in biological samples. The biomedical bleeding itself leads to 15-30% post bleeding mortality of crabs, while pain...