What a Fish Knows: Interview with Jonathan Balcombe

Dr Jonathan Balcombe. Image by Amie Chou.

Dr Jonathan Balcombe is an ethologist, academic, editor of the journal Animal Sentience and author of a number of books including What a Fish Knows. I came across his work when studying fish welfare, an area of research that has become huge over the past decade. Those who cohabit with fish, and spend a decent amount of time observing them, appear to need no convincing that fish are thinking, feeling creatures. This seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Dr Balcombe took some time out to chat to us about “the most exploited group of vertebrates on Earth.”

For those who don't know, what does an ethologist do?

An ethologist specializes in the study of animal behavior, which is called ethology.

How did you come to devote the last four years exploring the science on the inner lives of fishes?

Two main factors drove my decision to focus on fishes. First, I wanted to enlighten people to the remarkably rich lives fishes have. Scientific studies of fish behavior have advanced a great deal in recent years, showing that fishes are consciously aware, they have thoughts and emotions, personalities and preferences, social lives and sex lives. But only occasionally does any of this information emerge from scholarly journals and reach the public eye. I wrote What a Fish Knows to make what we know of the lives of fishes widely available to humanity.

Second, fishes are collectively the most exploited group of vertebrates on Earth, and their habitats are beleaguered by human activities. We kill between 150 billion and two trillion fishes each year. Most die in horribly inhumane ways such as suffocation, crushing, or bleeding. I hope that by coming to understand fishes better, many people will change their relationship to fishes from one of complicity in their exploitation to one of respect and protection. 

One of the common misconceptions about fish is that they have a three second memory (at least goldfish). How do we know fish are sentient creatures that have memories and can learn?

Careful studies on fishes of various types have shown that they feel pain and distress, and that they will actively seek to relieve it. The myth of the 3-second fish memory has been repeatedly debunked. Fishes recognize other individuals over the course of their lives, and some live a century or more. They learn to navigate through familiar habitats, including migration routes that may span continents. They watch others and adjust their behavior according to their awareness of their own social standing relative to another. They also learn by observation, including evidence that they can take the perspective of another—an advanced cognitive skill known only from a few animals.

There are others who argue that despite a huge increase in studies claiming to prove or support fish sentience that fish cannot feel pain. For example, some authors argue that fish have fewer nociceptors than humans who are born with a congenital inability to experience pain. What is your view on this?

In light of existing evidence, I consider arguments against fish sentience to be not just scientifically dubious, but selfish and mean-spirited. As full members of the vertebrate clan, fishes are anatomically and physiologically equipped to feel pain, and they respond to presumptively painful stimuli as we may expect from a pain-feeling organism: they may stop eating, hide, flee, avoid hooks, seek out pain relief, or become distracted enough to behave maladaptively. In a study of zebrafishes, individuals who had been subjected to an injection of acid began to swim in a barren chamber of their tank that they normally avoided—but only when that chamber contained a painkiller solution. Other zebrafishes injected with a less painful saline solution ignored the painkiller, choosing instead to remain in an enriched/preferred area of the tank with vegetation and objects.

You've said that you no longer consume fish. What are the implications of this scientific knowledge about fish feelings?

We can choose not to eat fishes because most of us (exceptions might be coastal communities whose lives depend directly on catching fish sustainably) can lead perfectly healthy and happy lives without contributing to the misery and suffering inflicted by catching and killing them. With the sorry state of affairs concerning fishes and their habitats—cruel capture methods; wasteful bycatch; dramatic population declines; chemical, plastic and noise pollution; ocean acidification; and coral bleaching—I hope more people will make the decision to cease or at least reduce their consumption of fishes.

Thank you Dr Balcombe. What a Fish Knows is available through MacMillan. 

Is eating insects a good idea?

They're currently fed to pet reptiles and amphibians, but will we all be eating these soon?

Is it just me, or is everyone everywhere talking about eating insects lately? One can’t attend a veterinary conference or seminar these days without the buzz-phrase “food security” being raised, and someone following up with “insects are emerging as the most viable major source of animal protein for the world’s exploding population”. The same someone usually gets a thrill out of watching others wince and do their sour-face as they contemplate the prospect.

And it seems that every TV show wants a part of the action. Every second challenge on I’m ACelebrity…Get Me Out Of Here seems to involve someone making hideous faces whilst contemplating eating an exotic cockroach or grub, while the promos for Shark Tank these week show a woman trying to launch a business selling sweet chilli crickets. You can even order bugs online. 

It’s happening in this household too. My latest flatmate noms live insects. I should qualify that “he” (gender yet to be confirmed) moved in after I covered his plight in The Veterinarian Magazine, and he needed a foster carer. And “he” is a Centralian bearded dragon. So that is just what he does. But I’ve found myself visiting pet shops to order large crickets and meal worms (he will nibble the occasional bit of carrot but right now insect protein is his staple).

Glenn the Centralian Bearded Dragon. He is recovering from surgery.

There is something amazing about a box of crickets. That beautiful crickety chirping sound they make as they rub their wings together reminds me of being in the bush. If one could put it beside one's bed, one could almost imagine one was sleeping under the stars. Unless one's bed is inhabited by a very dextrous three-legged cat. Unfortunately Hero hasn’t quite understood that a box of crickets is not the ultimate cat toy, so I have to keep them well out of reach.

Live-feeding is not something I’ve done since year-nine when the ladies from the office asked me (because I am an animal lover) to feed the deputy principal’s fish which apparently involved tearing worms apart. Wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I told them I love animals. I found a non-animal lover to do the job. Fish gotta eat, so do bearded dragons, and the question is are their meals worthy of our moral consideration?

More concerning than the live-feeding part, which at least in the case of my housemate is mercifully quick, is the question of cricket husbandry. The crickets see out their days in tiny boxes containing bits of egg-carton to climb on and hide under.

If we’re considering farming crickets or roaches en masse (and it is already done in many quarters), how should we be housing them? The guidelines I’ve seen are all based on maximizing production rather than considering welfare. My philosophy is that any creature in my care deserves the best husbandry I can provide. What are your thoughts? Are bugs welcome in “the sentience club”? 

Regardless, are they worthy of our consideration? And what do we know about their welfare? Would you eat them? And are they a more ethical and/or efficient protein source than mammals and birds that are more commonly consumed by humans?

Food for thought, anyway.