Submitted for the FENS CARE literary work call, "Exploring the necessity of animal experiments," in May 2024.
Octopus and other cephalopod species are not protected by law in most countries to the level they arguably should be for research use. As cephalopod neuroscience researchers, we continue to prove again and again the octopuses' capacity for intelligence. However, they are still, as an invertebrate species, considered alongside worms, bees, and flies in terms of many regulatory requirements.
This is a very active discussion in particular circles, especially surrounding philosophy and animal use ethics. As cephalopod neuroscience continues to grow, these questions continue to rattle louder in the souls of cephalopod researchers.
Is it necessary moving forward for us to legally recognize cephalopods on the same level that we do mice or even non-human primates?
As a relatively small subfield in neuroscience, we currently show a clear level of admiration for these animals that we work with. Can we trust that everyone, everywhere will maintain proper experimental wariness (which is beyond what is legally required in many places) for their research subjects just because we like them so much?
Have we learned enough from our missteps in the past with other animal models to be immune to missteps in the future?
Arguably, we are dealing with a completely different model than ever before. Intelligence but also, in the case of the octopus, fundamentally antisocial natures. Marine systems that are incredibly predatory. Can we really compare our approach to these new model organisms with past model organisms? Does this limit our capacity to use our past missteps to educate our current expansion?
Biological differences are substantial, as well as care requirements for basic factors like housing. Are we doing enough work in understanding how to minimize suffering of cephalopods used in research or are we too focused in forging ahead with our questions?
Is there enough societal pressure from other researchers to maintain the level of dignity required for the use of all animal models? (I know this starts to get at if humans are fundamentally good, but if we can avoid going quite that deep, I think there is a lot to be said regarding positive peer pressure)
Regulatory intervention would, and has in the United Kingdom and other European countries, slowed progress in working with these creatures. Cephalopod researchers are generally enthusiastic about legal protections for our non-human colleagues but are we doing enough to encourage cephalopods be recognised legally everywhere? Is it unethical to have collaborations with groups using cephalopods in areas where the legal requirements are less stringent?
We are still unsure about many biological factors in cephalopods, including elements of their pain experience. Should cephalopods have more protections than the current most stringent requirements? Couldn’t this question still be asked about any model organism? Would this limit our capacity to discover these intricacies?
My work uses Xenopus oocytes (unfertilized frog eggs) to evaluate response characteristics of octopus receptors. Most of my lab research relies on cDNA from a few paralarvae (“baby” octopus between hatchling and subadult). We use this system, not necessarily because it limits the amount of animals I require for my work, but because the technique I am using is very informative. Does fighting for the use of animal models (with an ethics board for example) heighten our desire to use them directly over other techniques?
For many cephalopod species there are a lot of problems surrounding sourcing and maintaining animals to use in research. Does this scarcity help feed into a more reverent use of the model organism? Does it again heighten our desire to use them? If they were as prevalent in the lab as mice can be, would we take less care in our usage of them? Is this comparable to researchers’ views of use of non-human primates?
The use of cephalopods in neuroscience is not new (giant squid axon anyone?) but the questions we are asking about the evolution of intelligence, development of the camera-type eye (similar to ours), and complexities of camouflage are some of the major new drivers of this exploration. These are questions we have that seem directed by our adoration for our cephalopod colleagues, but are there other ways we could be approaching these problems without cephalopods?
Currently most cephalopod neuroscience lacks direct (and even proximal if we are honest) application to biomedical science. Most of the work is fundamental science focused on understanding cephalopods themselves. Does our fixation on unraveling how and what is a cephalopod outweigh the value of the lives of individual cephalopods?
We clearly see so much of ourselves in these animals. Is it fundamentally disrespectful to our cephalopod colleagues to ignore them legally?
Comments