Developing Valid Behavioral Indicators of Animal Pain

Elizabeth Irvine
{"title":"Developing Valid Behavioral Indicators of Animal Pain","authors":"Elizabeth Irvine","doi":"10.5840/philtopics20204817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Identifying which nonhuman animal species are capable of feeling pain is important both for understanding pain mechanisms more generally and for informing animal welfare regulations, particularly in genera that are not yet widely protected. A common way to try to provide evidence of pain experiences is through behavioral indicators. In this paper I use a very simple interventionist approach to experimentation, and the contrast case provided by C. elegans, to argue that behavioral indicators commonly used for identifying pain in nonhuman animals are much less robust than typically presented. Indeed, I argue that many behavioral indicators of pain are invalid as they are currently described. More positively, this analysis makes it possible to identify what valid criteria might look like, and where relevant, to identify existing evidence related to them. Based on this I propose that the best way to make progress on questions around animal pain is to clearly ally them with questions about animal consciousness more generally, and to productively use conceptual and empirical work in both areas to develop more theoretically defensible behavioral indicators.","PeriodicalId":230797,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Topics","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Topics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics20204817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Identifying which nonhuman animal species are capable of feeling pain is important both for understanding pain mechanisms more generally and for informing animal welfare regulations, particularly in genera that are not yet widely protected. A common way to try to provide evidence of pain experiences is through behavioral indicators. In this paper I use a very simple interventionist approach to experimentation, and the contrast case provided by C. elegans, to argue that behavioral indicators commonly used for identifying pain in nonhuman animals are much less robust than typically presented. Indeed, I argue that many behavioral indicators of pain are invalid as they are currently described. More positively, this analysis makes it possible to identify what valid criteria might look like, and where relevant, to identify existing evidence related to them. Based on this I propose that the best way to make progress on questions around animal pain is to clearly ally them with questions about animal consciousness more generally, and to productively use conceptual and empirical work in both areas to develop more theoretically defensible behavioral indicators.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发有效的动物疼痛行为指标
摘要:确定哪些非人类动物物种能够感知疼痛,对于更广泛地理解疼痛机制和为动物福利法规提供信息至关重要,特别是在尚未得到广泛保护的动物中。试图提供疼痛体验证据的一种常见方法是通过行为指标。在本文中,我使用一种非常简单的干预主义方法进行实验,并以秀丽隐杆线虫为例进行对比,以证明通常用于识别非人类动物疼痛的行为指标远不如通常呈现的那么稳健。事实上,我认为许多疼痛的行为指标是无效的,因为他们目前的描述。更积极的是,这种分析可以确定有效的标准可能是什么样子,以及在相关的地方,确定与之相关的现有证据。基于此,我建议在动物疼痛问题上取得进展的最佳方法是将它们与更普遍的动物意识问题明确地联系起来,并在这两个领域有效地利用概念和实证工作来开发更多理论上可辩护的行为指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Polarization and Social Media Interactive Self-Deception in Digital Spaces Absurd Stories, Ideologies & Motivated Cognition Conspiracy Theories as Serious Play Testimonial Epistemic Rights in Online Spaces
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1