DAO 94:255-257 (2011)  -  DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao02366

ABSTRACT: Much of the literature on aquatic animal welfare is flawed by 4 non-mutually exclusive (and often inter-related) biases: under-reporting/ignoring of negative results, faith-based research and/or interpretations, Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (HARKing), and inflating the science boundary. These biases have an insidious impact on the credibility of the ‘science’ surrounding aquatic animal welfare. While concerns about the welfare of aquatic organisms are valid, research on this topic should be grounded in the scientific method, embrace negative results, avoid faith-based interpretations of experimental results and/or HARKing, and strictly respect the science boundary.

KEY WORDS: Animal welfare · Pain · Suffering · Sentience · Feelings-based · Publication bias · Negative results · Inflating the science boundary