One thing I noticed: the framework has a single binary nociception criterion, with no distinction between fast/phasic and slow/tonic nociception. But claims about slaughter interventions are often duration-claims:
… billions of lives from long minutes of suffering all over the world
and duration only accumulates if there’s a sustained signal to carry it. As far as I can tell nobody has looked for the slow/tonic side in shrimp specifically.
Is the distinction between different forms of nociception deliberately out of scope because the framework is built for establishing sentience rather than for comparing interventions?
I have asked about this here and would love an answer in case you have thought about this (looks like you did a far more thorough job than I did addressing what research is lacking). I am less interested in “are shrimp sentient?” right now and just interested in “are we even improving their welfare at all if they are sentient through existing stunning practices?”
So you list Criterion 1 as low priority for establishing sentience which I would agree with, but it might not be a low priority criterion at all for comparing interventions.
You’re right—when I used duration-based claims, they were mostly paraphrases from other sources, such as from SWP, and implied research beyond this report. And yes, there is a distinction to make between looking for sentience vs looking for how much an animal could be able to suffer. This report—and Birch et al.’s criteria—only try to answer the question whether an animal would even be able to suffer. It is then another part of applied research that should look into how to actually improve the wellbeing of these animals, if there is any to improve, for example using WFI’s methodology.
Based on your interest in
“are we even improving their welfare at allif they are sentient through existing stunning practices?”
, it seems that you are already more or less convinced that they are sentient—and thus your reflection indeed goes beyond the scope of this report!
So you list Criterion 1 as low priority for establishing sentience which I would agree with, but it might not be a low priority criterion at all for comparing interventions.
Criterion 1 tells nothing about what types nociceptors are, whether they are myelinated, fast, specialized, etc. Criterion 1 only look for the presence of cells that have the same functions as what is currently considered under the definition of a nociceptor. Based on the definition of this criterion, we are already pretty sure shrimps have nociceptors, so the criterion probably does not need much more evidence. How these nociceptors are activated (i.e. what molecular receptors we can find on them) and where they send their signal is a different story.
I’ll try to complete Meghann’s comment on your post, if there is anything else to say! Thanks for engaging with shrimp research :)
One thing I noticed: the framework has a single binary nociception criterion, with no distinction between fast/phasic and slow/tonic nociception. But claims about slaughter interventions are often duration-claims:
and duration only accumulates if there’s a sustained signal to carry it. As far as I can tell nobody has looked for the slow/tonic side in shrimp specifically.
Is the distinction between different forms of nociception deliberately out of scope because the framework is built for establishing sentience rather than for comparing interventions?
I have asked about this here and would love an answer in case you have thought about this (looks like you did a far more thorough job than I did addressing what research is lacking). I am less interested in “are shrimp sentient?” right now and just interested in “are we even improving their welfare at all if they are sentient through existing stunning practices?”
So you list Criterion 1 as low priority for establishing sentience which I would agree with, but it might not be a low priority criterion at all for comparing interventions.
You’re right—when I used duration-based claims, they were mostly paraphrases from other sources, such as from SWP, and implied research beyond this report. And yes, there is a distinction to make between looking for sentience vs looking for how much an animal could be able to suffer. This report—and Birch et al.’s criteria—only try to answer the question whether an animal would even be able to suffer. It is then another part of applied research that should look into how to actually improve the wellbeing of these animals, if there is any to improve, for example using WFI’s methodology.
Based on your interest in
, it seems that you are already more or less convinced that they are sentient—and thus your reflection indeed goes beyond the scope of this report!
Criterion 1 tells nothing about what types nociceptors are, whether they are myelinated, fast, specialized, etc. Criterion 1 only look for the presence of cells that have the same functions as what is currently considered under the definition of a nociceptor. Based on the definition of this criterion, we are already pretty sure shrimps have nociceptors, so the criterion probably does not need much more evidence. How these nociceptors are activated (i.e. what molecular receptors we can find on them) and where they send their signal is a different story.
I’ll try to complete Meghann’s comment on your post, if there is anything else to say! Thanks for engaging with shrimp research :)