You mention that entomologists would, if given the choice between “an aversive and a non-aversive way of euthanizing insects,” prefer the latter. I feel like this is what we would expect, but I just wonder how far that goes. How much would the average entomologist be willing to inconvenience themselves to choose the non-aversive way? If both options required equal resources, effort, time etc, we should expect people to choose to minimise (questionable) suffering, but minimising suffering may not always require equal resources; it may require more. This is the case in plenty of situations of course, not just those involving bugs. Your post just made me wonder how committed the entomologists you’ve spoken to would be to choosing the non-aversive way.
Thanks, Jess. And great question. This is a little difficult to assess because of standard assumptions in the discipline. For instance, the lore is that the most humane way to both anesthetize and euthanize bugs is to throw them in the freezer, even though invertebrate veterinarians question this. As it happens, that’s also the most convenient thing to do. So, we don’t have a situation where there is agreement that some alternative would be better for the bugs, but people do the suboptimal thing regardless. Likewise, when people choose to do live dissections and other highly aversive procedures, they often say that they have to do it because a reviewer is going to insist on it (because that’s the way it’s been done before and so live dissection is critical to getting comparable data or whatever). So people don’t conceive of themselves as having options where they really can choose a more humane alternative.
In any case, you are right to suggest that the average entomologist is not willing to take on huge inconveniences to do non-aversive work. But I do think an increasing number of them, particularly the under-40 crowd, are willing to take on some inconvenience, as shown by their interest in humane endpoints, reducing bycatch, learning about better husbandry options, etc.
Thanks for the reply, Bob—it’s great to learn more about this. It seems that so much just comes down to the available options. If freezing bugs feels like the only available option, it’s totally understandable that people would do that. Without a clear consensus on what the best course of action is, people would probably rather do something than nothing. As for the live dissection thing, I suppose it highlights the complexity of making procedural changes in a scientific field.
Great post—I’m on board with what you’re saying.
You mention that entomologists would, if given the choice between “an aversive and a non-aversive way of euthanizing insects,” prefer the latter. I feel like this is what we would expect, but I just wonder how far that goes. How much would the average entomologist be willing to inconvenience themselves to choose the non-aversive way? If both options required equal resources, effort, time etc, we should expect people to choose to minimise (questionable) suffering, but minimising suffering may not always require equal resources; it may require more. This is the case in plenty of situations of course, not just those involving bugs. Your post just made me wonder how committed the entomologists you’ve spoken to would be to choosing the non-aversive way.
Thanks, Jess. And great question. This is a little difficult to assess because of standard assumptions in the discipline. For instance, the lore is that the most humane way to both anesthetize and euthanize bugs is to throw them in the freezer, even though invertebrate veterinarians question this. As it happens, that’s also the most convenient thing to do. So, we don’t have a situation where there is agreement that some alternative would be better for the bugs, but people do the suboptimal thing regardless. Likewise, when people choose to do live dissections and other highly aversive procedures, they often say that they have to do it because a reviewer is going to insist on it (because that’s the way it’s been done before and so live dissection is critical to getting comparable data or whatever). So people don’t conceive of themselves as having options where they really can choose a more humane alternative.
In any case, you are right to suggest that the average entomologist is not willing to take on huge inconveniences to do non-aversive work. But I do think an increasing number of them, particularly the under-40 crowd, are willing to take on some inconvenience, as shown by their interest in humane endpoints, reducing bycatch, learning about better husbandry options, etc.
Thanks for the reply, Bob—it’s great to learn more about this. It seems that so much just comes down to the available options. If freezing bugs feels like the only available option, it’s totally understandable that people would do that. Without a clear consensus on what the best course of action is, people would probably rather do something than nothing. As for the live dissection thing, I suppose it highlights the complexity of making procedural changes in a scientific field.