The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain.
Abstract
This review examines the neurobehavioral nature of fishes and addresses the question of whether fishes are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. The detrimental effects of anthropomorphic thinking and the importance of an evolutionary perspective for understanding the neurobehavioral differences between fishes and humans are discussed. The differences in central nervous system structure that underlie basic neurobehavioral differences between fishes and humans are described. The literature on the neural basis of consciousness and of pain is reviewed, showing that: (1) behavioral responses to noxious stimuli are separate from the psychological experience of pain, (2) awareness of pain in humans depends on functions of specific regions of cerebral cortex, and (3) fishes lack these essential brain regions or any functional equivalent, making it untenable that they can experience pain. Because the experience of fear, similar to pain, depends on cerebral cortical structures that are absent from fish brains, it is concluded that awareness of fear is impossible for fishes. Although it is implausible that fishes can experience pain or emotions, they display robust, nonconscious, neuroendocrine, and physiological stress responses to noxious stimuli. Thus, avoidance of potentially injurious stress responses is an important issue in considerations about the welfare of fishes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sentience does not require a mammalian neo-cortical organization.
“Whereas some biologists infer that animals like fish do not suffer pain because they do not have a mammalian-like neo-cortical representation of nociceptive stimuli (Rose, 2002; Key, 2016), like Merker (2016) and many other biologists, we argue that sentience does not require a mammalian neo-cortical organization.”
From The Transition to Minimal Consciousness through the Evolution of Associative Learning (2016) · cites this paper as Rose, 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 84 · Cited by 413
- Authors
- Rose, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Wyoming (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rose, James D.
- ORCID
- Rose, James D.
- Venue
- Reviews in Fisheries Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-38
- ISSN
- 1064-1262 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-6553
- OpenAlex
- W2043218081
- Cited by
- 413
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 22.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Reviews in Fisheries Science (publishedVersion)
- WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
- Keywords
- fish sentience, anthropomorphism, evolutionary perspective, neural basis of consciousness, cerebral cortex, fear, stress response, neuroendocrine stress response, fish welfare, avoidance behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review