DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Vol. 75: 119–129, 2007 Published May 4 Dis Aquat Org OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Ethics and invertebrates: a cephalopod perspective Jennifer A. Mather1,*, Roland C. Anderson2 1University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4, Canada 2Seattle Aquarium, Seattle, Washington 98101-4359, USA ABSTRACT: This paper first explores 3 philosophical bases for attitudes to invertebrates, Contractar- ian/Kantian, Utilitarian, and Rights-based, and what they lead us to conclude about how we use and care for these animals. We next discuss the problems of evaluating pain and suffering in inverte- brates, pointing out that physiological responses to stress are widely similar across the animal king- dom and that most animals show behavioral responses to potentially painful stimuli. Since cephalopods are often used as a test group for consideration of pain, distress and proper conditions for captivity and handling, we evaluate their behavioral and cognitive capacities. Given these capac- ities, we then discuss practical issues: minimization of their pain and suffering during harvesting for food; ensuring that captive cephalopods are properly cared for, stimulated and allowed to live as full a life as possible; and, lastly, working for their conservation. KEY WORDS: Invertebrates · Ethics · Cephalopods · Animal pain · Animal suffering Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION perhaps half the animal species in the world and are mostly land animals (Hardy 1988), but humans in Human attitudes towards and values placed on ani- general seem indifferent at best to animals unlike us mals are both varied and differential, depending on (Ponder et al. 2002). the animal evaluated. The fundamental anthropocen- trism of humans acts against consideration of inverte- brates and is a major factor in the present crisis in PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES invertebrate conservation—we are losing populations and species (New 1993). Even though they constitute It is useful to look at the philosophical bases of judg- 99% of all species on earth, invertebrates are not ments about animals to see how these beliefs might sufficiently understood or highly valued by people affect attitudes towards and treatment of marine in- (Ponder 1992, Kellert 1993, Nash 2004). Our belief in vertebrates. They can perhaps be grouped into 3 a ‘scala naturae’, an evolutionary continuum leading value systems: Contractarian/Kantian, Utilitarian, and inevitably to humans at its peak, is well explored by Rights-based (Nussbaum 2001). Each system looks at Eddy et al. (1993), who inadvertently demonstrated animals from a different viewpoint and each would this anthropocentrism by their choice of animal spe- treat invertebrates differently, depending on the cies to be evaluated—only 3 of 30 were invertebrates. circumstances. Both they and Bekoff (1994) found that animals The first system, Contractarian/Kantian, is perhaps judged to be more cognitively competent and those the ultimate in anthropocentrism and is based on older we could potentially bond with were presumed to be views, particularly those of Descartes, who said that worth more consideration. Sadly, many people con- animals were no better than automata and we ought tinue to show fear of and aversion towards inverte- not to consider their worth at all (quoted in Kellert brates (Kellert 1993, Nash 2004). This fear tends to be 1993). This view separates us completely from the nat- centered in particular on arthropods, which make up ural world, remains to some extent in Judeo-Christian *Email: [email protected] © Inter-Research 2007 · www.int-res.com 120 Dis Aquat Org 75: 119–129, 2007 philosophy (Bourdeau 2004), and denies what we all invertebrates, have the right to careful and respect- might call dignity to animals. Essentially, according to ful treatment (Regan 2003). Nussbaum (2001) suggests this philosophy we can do what we like to animals; this that we should care about an animal’s life, health, bod- view is fortunately no longer prevalent. The only ily integrity and emotional well-being. This approach redeeming aspect of this system is the viewpoint that raises many difficult questions, such as whether aquar- our humaneness is of value to us, and that we therefore iums, which deprive marine animals of their freedom, degrade or impoverish ourselves if we treat animals ought to exist. In its demands for rights for all animals, poorly (Rollin 1985) or ignore them. Kellert’s (1997) it leaves researchers with some difficult questions. For book reflects these attitudes as he emphasizes we must instance, one of my colleagues asked whether we encourage and develop our biophilia. He cites E. O. should consider the host or the parasite, when their Wilson, defining biophilia (Kellert & Wilson 1995) as an interests differ. And this viewpoint also requires that ‘inherent human affinity for life and lifelike processes’ we understand the basic physiology of the animals and emphasizes the values of exploitation. Aesthetics, themselves. How can we protect the rights of the clam, animals as metaphor, kinship with them, mastery and the brain coral or the euphausiid crustacean when we finding meaning in our relationship with them are understand very little about their lifestyle, behavior things we can get from invertebrates. and sensory ecology? Davis et al. (1999) point out the The second system is the Utilitarian, which dictates problem of our lack of understanding with ascidians as that we should act to get the best overall consequences an example. from our actions, and therefore that we must balance Since both the Utilitarian and Rights-based view- consequences for all involved. This viewpoint tends to points emphasize that we must make some assessment be narrow, as it requires us to balance total pleasure of pain, suffering, pleasure and thriving in order to and pain. This position then brings up the issue of what know how to act towards animals, it is these ap- animals ‘feel’ and whether we can ignore animals such proaches which are the basis of our evaluation of inver- as invertebrates with little cognitive ability; it also tebrates in order to best benefit them. Of all the marine looks at the wider view and not the value of the invertebrates, the cephalopod mollusks are best stud- individual. In practice, Utilitarianism seems to supply ied and most highly regarded in terms of their intelli- many of the arguments for those who would value gence and possible consciousness. Perhaps it is best to invertebrates more highly. They often point out their evaluate the following: what do we know about octo- ecological value (Kellert 1993, New 1993) and their puses and squid in terms of their ability to suffer, indi- important role in biological diversity; for example, viduality, cognitive capacity, consciousness and emo- coral reefs are important as the backbone of a major tionality? Understanding them and evaluating their marine ecosystem (Ponder et al. 2002). In addition, treatment in light of these abilities will be a place to mollusks as a group are the most seriously endangered start for the invertebrates. animals in North America (Nash 2004). Benkendoff (1999) takes this approach to the conservation of molluscan resources and Kellert (1993) expands on this ASSESSMENT OF SUFFERING approach by pointing out the value of invertebrates in waste decomposition, for food, as indicators of environ- Any discussion of consideration of animals’ lives has mental quality and as sources of drugs to treat our to first look at the issue of pain and suffering because illnesses. Presumably losses in terms of pain caused to these are what we want to avoid. Pain is a term coined the animals would be outweighed by our gains. This by humans and often presumed to apply only to us; also brings up a topic that will be evaluated below — pain is a sense but one in which emotions and cogni- how much pain and/or suffering do invertebrates tions are heavily involved (Matlin & Foley 1997). endure, and in what situations? Merskey’s (1986) definition underlines this evaluative The third philosophical system is the Rights-based capacity, as he defines it as ‘information about actual one. Regan (2003) proposes that both agent and or potential tissue damage, or interpreted in terms of patient have value and thus the right to respectful such damage’ to cover the central representation of treatment. This viewpoint focuses on the individual, pain signals. Human experiences are full of examples and extends the rights that animals ought to have to such as wartime wounds that are not painful until after include bodily integrity and bodily liberty, thus looking the battle, or Pain Disorder (American Psychiatric much more widely at what animals themselves are Association 2000) that is not associated with any actual experiencing. Although it values animals proportion- damage or is only triggered by it. Kavaliers (1988) sug- ate to their level of awareness, it assumes that the gests that one way to avoid the cognitive attribution is rights of an animal are not totally dependent on its to describe the sensory information as nociception and awareness and that all animals, presumably including the perceptual assumption as pain. Of course, just Mather & Anderson: Ethics and invertebrates 121 because an animal does not have the awareness of sit- ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING uations across time does not mean that nociceptive stimuli are not felt, and Bekoff (1994) points out that One necessity for the approach of evaluating ethics such stimuli might be less bearable (i.e. the suffering for invertebrates is to see animals as individuals. After might be greater) if an animal had no rich cognitive life years of lumping together all animals of the same spe- with which to remember the past or plan for and antic- cies or in the same situation, scientists have once again ipate the future. begun to take into account the individuality of their Stefano et al.