An Animal’s Mind

Is it time to move away from questioning each species’ awareness of life and pain? In light of the changing animal protection bill, Dottie Giles investigates. 

“Do animals care about supporting offspring?”, asks Kristin Andrews from her London office. “Do they have best friends that they’re willing to suffer for? Do they want to pass on their knowledge? Is this a loss when they aren't allowed to do that?” These are the questions that Kristin Andrews answers in her work as York Research Chair in Animal Minds. She poses them in her recent article, written alongside Frans de Waal, responding to an animal sentience report from the London School of Economics, and considering how far we’ve got to go before we stop simply asking, “is this animal sentient?”

Animal sentience is thought to be a complex consideration. Plenty of research has been done to determine whether animal are sentient, and it often focuses on the emotion of pain. As humans, we want to avoid causing this pain in another creature, but sometimes it can be difficult to know what an animal does or doesn’t feel and understand.

This research into pain emotions results in a better understanding of a creature’s sentience – does it feel pain? Will it actively avoid a situation where it can be hurt? How does it learn from negative experiences? The debate on animal sentience was seemingly settled in 2004 when Braithwaite and Huntingford discovered that fish will avoid dangerous areas after a negative experience, but outside of the United Kingdom and Europe, there is inconsistency with animal testing laws and recognition of sentience.

Andrews believes we must assume that all animals are sentient, and can feel emotion. Then, we can start asking bigger questions, allowing us to learn more about animals’ social lives, organisation, and emotions.

Kristin Andews’ interest in animal minds comes from “seeing other kinds of communities, other kinds of beings and getting to know them.” She calls it, “a great honour,” and if we pay attention and look a little closer, we’ll “see amazing ways of living lives, amazing goals, amazing ways of social organisation,” But to do this, our regard for sentience and emotions must change.

A Different Worldview

Until the 1980s, some doctors in the United States of America did open-heart surgery on infants without anaesthetic. Andrews explained that this is because it was assumed that, “to be [a real] scientist, you only had to study what you could observe.” Thoughts, feelings of pain, and sentience can’t be seen. An infant cannot explain what they are feeling, so doctors assumed there was no hard evidence that the surgery was causing them great pain and distress. Of course, the infants cried and moved, but they were given paralysis drugs, rather than anaesthesia. Now, medicine has moved away from the idea that pain must be expressed verbally, and research councils are beginning to recognise this, too.

The United Kingdom saw research from the London School of Economics (LSE) verify that cephalopods (octopuses, squid, and cuttlefish) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters and crabs) are sentient, and can therefore feel pain. This protects them under animal welfare laws, and the report’s authors offer suggestions for more humane transport and care of the creatures.

Before this welfare bill was passed, cephalopods were recognised as sentient by science. There were strict rules around research procedures on them, due to the complexity of their central nervous system. The Royal Society, an independent scientific academy that funds scientific research, has guidelines for animal research practices, which states that, “The simplest possible, or least sentient, species of animal appropriate is used.” It encourages scientists to consider the impact they’ll have on different animals.

The Home Office in the UK files a report, detailing exactly what species are used, their genetic status, country of origin, and disease areas studied, and Understanding Animal Research, a not-for-profit organisation, has compiled statistics highlighting what and how animals have been used in research in the last 20 years. In 2019, 3.4 million research procedures were carried out on animals in Great Britain, and over 97% of these were carried out on mice, fish, rats, and birds.

However, animals with less complex nervous systems, such as fruit flies, worms, and other invertebrates are not included in the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, so for ethics and justification processes for research on these creatures are grey areas. None of the Home Office reports detail the numbers of invertebrates used for scientific research either, because there are fewer control measures and concerns around sentience. Despite the moral concerns, Eleanor Drinkwater states that these invertebrates are, “cornerstones of biological and biomedical research, providing key insights into fields from genetics to behavioural ecology.”

The same can be said for smaller invertebrates. We use mice in research because they have incredibly similar genomes to us, and their organs function in much the same way as ours. This provides an opportunity to understand humans, without actually subjecting them to invasive research procedures. And because the mouse research model has been the most popular for over 20 years, scientists are able to build on previous research to understand our bodies.

This can be seen in Peter Temple-Smith’s recent work on the spiny mouse. It was found that the spiny mouse has a menstrual cycle incredibly similar to a human’s. Studying them could give insight into chronic conditions including endometriosis, but Temple-Smith explained that conducting research procedures on the spiny mouse may not be possible due to the expense and justification processes.

Research into the menstrual system could offer relief for the many young women who experience pain throughout their periods. Temple-Smith’s research could make a difference in lives, but he’d need to study mice in order to do it. So why does he seem apprehensive? Could it be the justification processes? The complexity of animal research? It sounds cruel to subject animals to medical and research procedures, but it can provide huge benefits to humans – as we saw when the COVID-19 vaccine was developed. Drinkwater highlights the need for a real discussion on this topic, which Kristin Andrews echoes: “figuring out exactly what would be morally permissible to do to an animal requires collaboration with ethicists and scientists.”

What’s Changing?

Dr Jonathan Birch led the LSE report and reviewed 300 scientific studies to determine the sentience of cephalopods and crustaceans. Birch explained that the report, and the Government’s decision to act on it, are significant because it removes the inconsistencies in the treatment of animals. In 2011, the European Union took steps to protect cephalopods in research. It meant that researchers had to complete more thorough ethical evaluations to justify the use of the animal and to reduce pain and suffering. Now, the UK is leading the way with the treatment of these complex and sentient animals, by setting guidelines for industry practice and treatment of animals. Extreme slaughter methods of animals, such as live boiling, are no longer recommended, and non-expert handlers will not be able to purchase crabs, octopuses, or lobsters.

“One way the UK can lead on animal welfare is by protecting these invertebrate animals that humans have often completely disregarded,” explains Dr Birch. However, the protection of these invertebrates is a controversial topic. It is often debated by neuroscientists, philosophers, and biologists, because of the nature of sentience and each creature’s nervous system. We can learn from a wide variety of animals by studying their organisation, how they interact with each other, and so much more. But to get to this point, the debate of sentience must end.

“I think that we've done enough research to conclude that all animals are conscious,” Kristin Andrews states. “We don't need to prove it animal by animal.” But what does need to happen is a change of attitudes around animals. Andrews explains that researchers and laypeople alike should reconsider how they interact with animals. From her perspective of understanding animal emotions, pain is not the only feeling we want to understand. Of course, it has its place; it’s “an emotion that keeps you away from things,” which Andrews explains is important for evolution. “ But you can't live just by staying away from things.”

Understanding the complex lives of both vertebrate and invertebrate animals will change our view of them. With the UK leading the way with the protection and control of certain invertebrates, there is hope that other countries will follow suit. The understanding of minds that aren’t our own has a huge potential, but to truly start this research process, Andrews says we must first ask, “is this particular act going to be contrary to the animal's interests?’