New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness
Bill Lynn, PhD
In April 2024 the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness was released. It is a short consensus statement by an interdisciplinary group of animal scientists about self-consciousness in animals.
The subject of some interest by mainstream media, the declaration states:
Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.
First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.
Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).
Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.
Given the abysmal moral and material standing of animals in society, such a statement is welcome. It represents progress in the worldview of animal scientists.
Nonetheless, it is not a new paradigm as some are reporting, but an old insight rooted in everyday experience and indigenous knowledge, as well as developing evolutionary, ethological and ethical understandings dating back to Charles Darwin, Jakob von Uexküll, Barbara Orlans, Mary Midgley and more. Indeed many folks at PAN Works have been working in this direction for decades
Writing in Marc Bekoff’s Animal Emotions listserv, Liv Baker (PAN Works Fellow and Chair of the Board) has this to say.
Confronting Contradictions The Ethical Paradox in the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness
Liv Baker, Ph.D.
I am writing to address a notable paradox presented in the recent declaration on animal consciousness signed by several esteemed researchers. This declaration recognizes the conscious experiences of various animals, including mammals, birds, and several invertebrates. It posits that ignoring the possibility of conscious suffering in these animals in research settings is “irresponsible.” Yet, a significant ethical dilemma arises when we consider that some signatories are involved in research that confines animals to captivity, potentially inflicting psychological distress and suffering, which seems at odds with the principles they endorse.
The declaration asserts “strong scientific support” for the consciousness of mammals and birds, and recognizes a “realistic possibility” of similar experiences in other vertebrates and many invertebrates. Such an understanding should be the cornerstone of ethical frameworks in animal research. However, it is disconcerting to observe that some signatories partake in or support studies involving not only pain research but also the captivity of conscious animals. These practices, which may involve isolation, confinement, and the denial of natural behaviors, directly contravene the spirit of the declaration.
Furthermore, the declaration’s stance that overlooking the potential for conscious experience in animals when making decisions affecting their wellbeing is irresponsible, calls into question the justification of maintaining animals in captive research environments. The potential distress and suffering caused by captivity must be weighed against the scientific gains from such research. This is particularly pressing given the signatories’ acknowledgment of the complex inner lives of these animals.
This situation necessitates a broader dialogue within the scientific community about refining ethical standards in all forms of animal research. We must critically assess whether the benefits of research justify the ethical costs, especially when such research involves the captivity of animals recognized as conscious beings.
In conclusion, while the declaration positively advances the recognition of animal consciousness, it simultaneously highlights the urgent need for a paradigm shift in the treatment of animals in research. As researchers and ethically aware beings, we must ensure that our practices reflect the latest scientific insights into animal consciousness and crucially that they align closely with our ethical obligations to not only prevent harm and suffering, but also enhance the lives and wellbeing of these animals.
Sincerely,Liv Baker, PhD
April 19, 2024PAN Works, Chair
Bringing Ethics to Life
panworks.io
lbaker@panworks.io
We are in discussions about the Declaration and will have more to say on it in a future Medium essay.
Bill Lynn, PhD is the founder of PAN Works.
