The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide

Ellie Parson

Mr. Ippolito

AP Biology

Current Event 13

Citations:

WEINTRAUB, Karen. “The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide.” The New York Times , 12 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/science/lobster-pain-swiss.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.

Review:

Karen Weintraub, an author for the New York Times, wrote the article “The Swiss Consider the Lobster. It Feels Pain, They Decide” about the possibility of lobsters feeling pain when killed in the traditional cooking practice of placing them in a boiling pot of water. She begins by addressing current debates in Switzerland over the new laws ensuring ethical ways of killing lobsters as to avoid hurting them. Instead, other moral, quicker methods of killing the lobsters so they suffer the least possible amount should be considered, such as stunning. Stunning the lobsters is a way of killing a lobster instantly with electricity. Weintraub first brings in the opinion of a professor of animal behavior from Queen’s University, Robert Elwood, who is also responsible for the experiments that have moved the Swiss government’s decision. Although he claims there is “no absolute proof” (Elwood,1) Elwood’s experiments have only supported that lobsters are able to feel pain. Opposing this opinion, Dr. Joseph Ayers believes that “producing such a law is just a bunch of people anthropomorphizing lobsters”(Ayers, 1). Ayers states that lobsters “simply don’t have the hardware”(Ayers, 1) for feeling pain as humans do. As lobster’s brains do not contain specific parts associated with pain, and their predators swallow them whole, there is no need for the animals to evolve nerves for pain. Michael Tlusty, a biologist who specializes in lobsters at the University of Massachusetts, stands in the middle of the issue. He acknowledges that lobster’s brains aren’t developed for pain, but then questions if that is even an accurate fact to be trusted. Crustaceans have a completely different build than human beings, and it is hard to say whether they could feel pain without more research. As lobsters are able to lose limbs with ease, they do “continue to twitch after they’ve have their limbs ripped off” (Weintraub, 1). Weintraub moves from the opinions of different scientists on the issue, and focuses closely on why Dr. Elwood decided to research into lobster’s ability for feeling pain- a famous chef asked him about it. Elwood immediately conducted studies on crustaceans and “has shown that crustaceans guard wounded limbs and avoid areas where they’re been shocked” (Weintraub, 1), and is certain that they must feel something that keeps them so alert. Weintraub ends her article contrasting the different ways the scientists recommend killing lobsters. To avoid hurting lobsters further, Elwood suggests quicker, more ethical ways to kill lobsters before they are cooked over boiling the alive in a pot, which may take a minute to kill them. Dr. Ayers, on the other hand, insists the best way to kill a lobster is by boiling water in a pot. Dr. Tlusy prefers placing the lobsters on ice first to slow them down.

While reading this article, it became apparent how different scientific concerns of countries are around the world. While Switzerland is focused on the right way to morally kill a lobster before eating it, countries like the United States of America are divided on much larger topics such as climate change. However, as very small, seemingly simple organisms such as lobsters appear hold the ability to suffer, the worlds of science and morals have to combine. Including scientific studies from Elwood into politics is an example of society making laws in response to scientific research. It is interesting to see how a question like “Do lobsters feel pain?” can introduce new policies into a nation. The idea of morally killing animals can also be related to a recent trend in society, veganism and vegetarianism. Many people have recently changed their eating habits based on the ways animals are being treated before their meat ends up on a plate as to avoid supporting the abuse of animals. Killing lobsters in a way that could cause them pain may be able to help readers understand why some vegans and vegetarians avoid eating meat and seafood- because they view it as immoral. The idea of torturing an animal before eating it is mortifying to many.

Weintraub's article was very well written, included many opinions from multiple scientists, and succeeded into making her readers reflect on the morals of killing certain animals if they feel pain. Throughout her article, she focused on the claims of three experts, all of which were different from each other to introduce the diversity of opinions on the topic. She also included quotes from the scientists perfectly matching the theme of her article. Weintraub not only addressed the problem at hand, but wrote about solutions of humanely killing lobsters, such as the Crustastun. However, Weintraub failed to explain in detail any of the studies conducted by Dr. Elwood. Weintraub also did not include any background as to why Switzerland was considering changing the law outside from Dr. Elwood’s studies. It would have been interesting to read about Dr. Elwood’s experiments and the critical thinking behind the change in law. If she did include more information about the studies, it would add more depth to the article and allow students to draw their own conclusions based on the data aquired.