Pain Perception in Animals

Introduction

The definition of pain has evolved. Whereas initially, pain was defined as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage” (IASP, 1979), it is now perceived as being more complex and involving further experiences. The revised definition approved by the IASP in 2020 defines pain as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with actual or potential tissue damage.”

While humans verbally articulate pain, allowing in-depth study of its subjective quality, understanding how non-human animals perceive pain is more challenging. Decades of research using behavioral, physiological, and pharmacological approaches indicate that many species – mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates such as crustaceans – show responses consistent with more than a simple nociceptive reflex (Dubin & Patapoutian, 2010; Elwood, 2019; Gentle, 2011; Langford et al., 2010; Rotllant et al., 2023; Sneddon, 2022).

Have you ever pulled your hand away from something hot before realizing it was burning? That quick reaction happens because of a process called nociception. Nociception is the body’s way of sensing and avoiding harmful stimuli like heat, sharp objects, or irritating chemicals. This system is vital for survival, not just in humans but in all animals. While nociception helps detect danger, it’s not quite the same as feeling pain — an experience that requires more complex brain processing.

Table of Contents

What is Nociception?

Nociception is the ability to detect and respond to noxious or potentially harmful stimuli. Specialized nerve cells called nociceptors pick up signals from heat, mechanical pressure, or chemicals and send those signals to the brain or spinal cord. For example, touching something hot triggers a signal that makes you pull your hand back — often before you feel the burn. This immediate action protects the body from further injury.

Interestingly, nociception is an ancient process that pre-dates the evolution of the brain. The molecules involved in this protective system are found in many living organisms, including humans, others mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans, flies, and even single-celled organisms. Nociception is a fundamental process for species’ survival.

How Do Animals Detect Harmful Stimuli?

Different stimuli trigger nociception in animals, including hearing, mechanical force, and chemicals.

Specialized sensors in nerve endings detect high temperatures. In humans, these sensors include molecules like TRPV1, the same receptor that reacts to the “spicy heat” of chili peppers. This explains why eating hot peppers feels like burning — it’s the same pathway that responds to actual heat. Animals also respond to physical harm, like sharp objects or strong pressure. In flies, for example, tiny nerve endings under their skin detect force and trigger protective behaviors, such as rolling away from predators. Nerve cells react to irritating substances like mustard oil or the tear-inducing compounds in onions. TRPA1 plays a key role here, detecting harmful chemicals and sending signals that prompt animals to escape or avoid these irritants.

Do All Animals Feel Pain?

While nociception helps animals detect danger, it doesn’t always mean they “feel pain” as we understand humans do. Pain involves processing signals in the brain, which creates a conscious experience of discomfort. In many cases, animals — especially invertebrates like insects or worms — display quick escape behaviors in response to harmful stimuli. However, it is still unclear to us whether they feel pain or whether these reactions are purely automatic.

For example, a fly larva attacked by a parasitic wasp will roll away quickly, a behavior triggered by nociceptive neurons. Similarly, worms use specialized nerve cells to detect harmful chemicals or harsh touch. These actions protect the animals but don’t necessarily involve the complex emotional experience of pain that mammals have.

How Nociception Varies Across Animals

Nociception systems have evolved and adapted to fit the unique needs of different animals.

Naked Mole Rats: These underground rodents are immune to certain types of pain, such as reactions to acid. This adaptation helps them survive in their high-CO₂, acidic environments.
Camels: Camels tolerate extreme heat thanks to unique changes in their TRPV1 channels, allowing them to survive in scorching desert climates.
Flies and Worms: These simpler animals have specialized neurons that detect mechanical and chemical harm, prompting quick escape responses.
This diversity shows how animals rely on nociception to survive in specific environments.

Why Nociception Matters

Understanding nociception not only reveals how animals respond to danger but also helps scientists study pain in humans. By exploring how molecules like TRP channels work in simpler animals, researchers can develop better treatments for chronic pain and other conditions.

Nociception also raises fascinating questions about the experiences of animals. Do insects or worms “feel” pain, or are their responses purely instinctual? While we don’t have all the answers, ongoing research is shedding some light on how animals detect and react to harm. This evolving body of evidence raises some ethical considerations: if many animals experience pain in functionally meaningful ways, their welfare and treatment become moral concerns. Humane handling, appropriate analgesia, careful research design, and adherence to welfare guidelines are increasingly recognized as essential to ensure the ethical use and treatment of animals under human care (Mellor, 2017; NRC, 2009).

Human Pain Perception as a Baseline

Human pain is the best-characterized model of pain experience, serving as a critical baseline for studying and understanding pain in other species. This baseline is rooted in several unique aspects of human capabilities and research methodologies:

• Verbal Self-Report: Unlike non-human animals, humans can describe pain verbally, enabling detailed accounts of intensity, quality, and emotional impact. This direct communication allows researchers and clinicians to correlate subjective pain reports with objective measurements such as brain imaging, physiological indicators, and analgesic responses (Tracey & Mantyh, 2007; IASP, 2020).
• Neurobiological Correlates: Advanced imaging techniques (e.g., fMRI, PET scans) provide insights into the human “pain matrix”—a network of brain regions including the somatosensory cortex, limbic system, and prefrontal cortex that collectively process the sensory-discriminative and emotional aspects of pain (Tracey & Mantyh, 2007). Understanding these neural pathways helps establish a foundational model of how pain signals are generated, transmitted, and modulated.
• Psychological and Social Influences: Human pain perception is not solely biological. Emotional states, cognitive factors (e.g., attention, expectation), cultural background, and past experiences modify how painful stimuli are perceived and reported (Dubin & Patapoutian, 2010). Recognizing these influences underscores that pain is multifaceted, integrating sensory and emotional dimensions.
• Pharmacological and Therapeutic Interventions: In humans, the efficacy of analgesics, anesthetics, and other pain-relieving interventions is well documented (NRC, 2009). By observing how these treatments affect subjective pain reports and corresponding physiological responses, researchers gain insight into the mechanisms and modulators of pain processing.

Using human pain as a baseline does not mean that other animals experience pain identically. Instead, it provides a comparative framework: if non-human animals share certain anatomical structures, physiological pathways, and behavioral responses with humans, and if their responses to analgesics and anesthetics are also consistent, then it is reasonable to infer that these animals likely experience some affective dimension of pain as well.

Mammalian Pain Perception

Mammals share key physiological and neuroanatomical similarities with humans, making them the most intuitive comparison group. They possess nociceptors similar to those found in humans, as well as opioid receptors and neural circuits that process and modulate painful stimuli (NRC, 2009). The evidence for pain in mammals extends beyond physiological parallels:

Cognitive and Emotional Factors: Some mammals, especially primates, demonstrate complex emotional and social responses to pain and injury. For instance, social companions may react empathetically to an individual in pain, suggesting that mammalian pain involves affective components beyond mere nociceptive reflexes (Mellor, 2017).

Behavioral Indicators: Mammals display a variety of pain-related behaviors, including vocalizations, avoidance of harmful stimuli, protective postures, reduced activity, and altered feeding or grooming patterns (Mellor, 2017). Rodents, for example, show facial expressions termed “grimace scales” in response to painful stimuli, closely mirroring human facial indicators of pain (Langford et al., 2010).

Pharmacological Validation: Administering analgesics and anesthetics known to alleviate human pain also reduces mammal pain-related behaviors. The efficacy of these treatments confirms that mammals not only detect harmful stimuli but also experience an internal state of distress influenced by similar neurochemical systems (NRC, 2009).

Crustacean Pain: Emerging Evidence and Relief Methods

Invertebrates, especially crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters, crayfish), were once considered incapable of experiencing pain, as their nervous systems differ markedly from those of vertebrates. However, recent studies have challenged this assumption:

• Behavioral Complexity: Crustaceans engage in avoidance learning, remembering locations where painful stimuli occurred and actively avoiding them in the future, indicating more than a simple reflex (Elwood, 2019).
• Long-Term Protective Responses: They exhibit prolonged guarding of injured areas and changes in behavior consistent with motivational trade-offs (e.g., preferring a safe zone over a food-rich area if the food area is associated with injury), suggesting an affective dimension to their responses.
• Analgesia and Anesthesia: Research has demonstrated methods to provide analgesia and anesthesia to crustaceans, resulting in diminished responses to harmful stimuli (Rotllant et al., 2023). This pharmacological validation supports the notion that crustaceans’ reactions are modulated by internal states akin to pain rather than purely reflexive.

Recognizing crustacean pain capability extends welfare considerations to invertebrates, influencing policies in research, fisheries, and the food industry.

Avian Pain Perception

Birds possess nociceptors responsive to damaging stimuli and display behavioral and physiological pain signs. While avian brains differ structurally from those of mammals, there is growing evidence that birds process painful stimuli in integrated and functionally complex ways:

• Behavioral Changes: Birds suffering from painful conditions, such as bone fractures or beak trimming, demonstrate changes in posture, reduced movement, careful avoidance of using the injured area, and decreased overall activity (EFSA, 2009; Mellor, 2017).
• Pharmacological Indicators: Providing analgesics to birds reduces these pain-related behaviors, reinforcing that avian responses to harmful stimuli are not mere reflexes but involve a negative internal state (Gentle, 2011).
• Cognitive Factors: Some bird species show sophisticated problem-solving and adaptive behaviors; when these capacities are disrupted by injury or pain, it suggests a more complex internal experience that affects their overall welfare.

This understanding of avian pain perception supports the development of improved husbandry practices and refining handling and veterinary treatments in poultry and other bird-related industries.

Fish and Pain: A Reassessment of Their Capabilities

Fish once assumed to lack meaningful pain experiences due to their relatively simpler brain structures, have become an important group in pain research:

Welfare Implications: Recognizing that fish feel pain informs ethical considerations in aquaculture, commercial and recreational fisheries, and laboratory research. Guidelines now emphasize pain mitigation, humane handling, and appropriate stunning or slaughter techniques to minimize fish suffering (EFSA, 2009; NRC, 2009).

Nociception and Behavior: Fish possess nociceptors that detect heat, chemical irritants, and mechanical damage (Sneddon, 2015). When exposed to painful stimuli, fish engage in avoidance learning, change their feeding and swimming patterns, and exhibit prolonged periods of inactivity or abnormal postures (Sneddon, 2022).

Response to Analgesics: The administration of analgesic substances can reduce these altered behaviors, providing strong evidence that fish experience a distressing internal state that can be alleviated pharmacologically (Sneddon, 2015).

Key Thought: Recognizing crustacean pain capability extends welfare considerations to invertebrates, influencing policies in research, fisheries, and the food industry.

Ethical Considerations and Welfare Implications

As scientific evidence accumulates that many animal taxa—mammals, birds, fish, and certain invertebrates—experience pain in ways that go beyond simple reflexes, ethical considerations become increasingly pressing. The recognition that other species are capable of suffering compels us to align our treatment of them with principles of compassion, responsibility, and moral consistency. This shift in understanding influences a broad range of human activities, from laboratory research protocols to commercial animal production, fisheries, aquaculture, and even companion animal care (Mellor, 2017; NRC, 2009; EFSA, 2009).

1. Moral Significance of Animal Pain
At the heart of these ethical considerations lies the recognition that pain is intrinsically linked to welfare. Pain has a negative valence, something sentient beings actively strive to avoid. Consequently, if an animal can experience pain as a form of suffering, humans have a moral obligation to minimize or prevent it whenever feasible. This ethical standpoint is informed by well-established principles of animal welfare, such as the “Five Domains” model, which emphasizes both animals’ physical and emotional well-being (Mellor, 2017). Rather than merely avoiding obvious cruelty, modern animal welfare frameworks demand proactive measures to ensure comfort, health, and pain mitigation.

2. Legislative and Policy Frameworks
In response to scientific evidence of animal pain, many governing bodies and advisory committees have reformed their policies:

• Research Guidelines: Institutions, funding agencies, and international bodies now emphasize the refinement of research protocols to minimize animal suffering. The National Research Council’s guidelines, for example, require the recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals, advocating analgesics, humane endpoints, and careful environmental enrichment (NRC, 2009).
• Regulatory Recognition of Previously Overlooked Species: The European Union’s Directive 2010/63/EU on protecting animals used for scientific purposes, publicly accessible online, extended legal protection to cephalopods after evidence showed their capacity for pain-like states. In the UK, decapod crustaceans have recently been acknowledged as sentient beings in policy discussions, indicating an evolving legal landscape that increasingly encompasses non-vertebrate species (European Commission, 2010; Birch, 2017).
• Food Production and Aquaculture: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other international organizations have issued opinions and guidelines emphasizing that once disregarded, fish welfare must be considered to reduce pain and suffering in aquaculture and capture fisheries (EFSA, 2009). Such guidelines are readily accessible online, providing transparent insight into the rationale and recommendations for humane handling, stunning, and slaughter protocols.

3. The “Three Rs” and Beyond
The widely accepted “Three Rs” principle—Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement—emerges as a central ethical framework in research and testing (NRC, 2009). This principle encourages scientists and policy-makers to:

• Replace animals with non-sentient alternatives (e.g., computer models, cell cultures) when possible, removing the need to expose any animal to potential pain.
• Reduce the number of animals used by improving experimental design, thus lowering the total incidence of painful procedures.
• Refine the methods employed so that pain is minimized through effective analgesia, anesthesia, environmental enrichment, and humane endpoints.

Although originally developed for laboratory animal research, the ethos behind the Three Rs is increasingly applied to agriculture, aquaculture, and other sectors using or managing animals.

4. Ethical Frameworks and Public Responsibility
Public awareness and concern about animal suffering have grown as studies documenting animal pain become more widely known. Open-access scientific literature, as well as governmental and non-governmental advisories, inform public discourse and shape consumer expectations. For instance, consumers increasingly demand higher farm welfare standards, influencing market trends and leading producers to adopt less painful husbandry and slaughter methods (Mellor, 2017).

Additionally, philosophical and bioethical scholarship argues that recognizing animal pain challenges anthropocentric views, suggesting that moral consideration should not be confined to humans alone (Birch, 2017). Ethical frameworks that once focused narrowly on human welfare now incorporate principles of compassion and justice extending to non-human species. This shift promotes a more inclusive moral community in which pain—regardless of the species experiencing it—matters.

5. Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions
Despite progress, significant challenges remain. Ensuring compliance with guidelines, bridging gaps in legislation for certain species, and continuously updating policies in line with new scientific findings require ongoing effort. Moreover, developing and validating reliable indicators of pain for diverse species- particularly those with radically different nervous systems – remains an active area of research. The ethical landscape is thus dynamic, guided by an evolving understanding of animal capabilities, interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and stakeholders, and the drive to prevent unnecessary suffering

Conclusion

The mounting evidence of pain in a wide range of animal species not only enriches our scientific understanding but also imposes ethical obligations. By integrating scientific findings with established welfare frameworks, legislative safeguards, and public engagement, societies can better ensure that human practices minimize animal pain and uphold moral responsibility toward all sentient beings.

References

Bateson, P. (1991). Assessment of pain in animals. Animal Behaviour, 41(6), 1035–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80127-7

Birch, J. (2017). Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Animal Sentience, 2(16), 1. https://doi.org/1 10.51291/2377-7478.1200

Braithwaite, V. A., & Ebbesson, L. O. E. (2014). Pain and stress responses in farmed fish. Rev Sci Tech, 33(1), 245-253.

Cox, J. J., Reimann, F., Nicholas, A. K., Thornton, G., Roberts, E., et al. (2006). An SCN9A channelopathy causes congenital inability to experience pain. Nature, 444(7121), 894–898. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05413

Dubin, A. E., & Patapoutian, A. (2010). Nociceptors: the sensors of the pain pathway. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 120(11), 3760–3772. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI42843

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2009). General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. EFSA Journal, 954, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.954

Elwood, R. W. (2019). Discrimination between nociceptive reflexes and more complex responses consistent with pain in crustaceans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374(1785), 20190368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0368

European Commission. (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj

Gentle, M. J. (1992). Pain in birds. Animal Welfare, 1(4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600015189

Gentle, M. J. (2011). Pain issues in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135(3), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.023

Indo, Y. (2002). Neurobiology of pain, interoception and emotional response: lessons from nerve growth factor-dependent neurons. European Journal of Neuroscience, 16(3), 417–424.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12448

International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). (2020). IASP Announces Revised Definition of Pain. Retrieved from: https://www.iasp-pain.org/publications/iasp-news/iasp-announces-revised-definition-of-pain/

Langford, D. J., Bailey, A. L., Chanda, M. L., et al. (2010). Coding of facial expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nature Methods, 7(6), 447–449. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nmeth.1455

Mellor, D. J. (2017). Operational details of the Five Domains Model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals, 7(8), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080060  

National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12526

Rotllant, G., Llonch, P., García del Arco, J. A., Chic, Ò., Flecknell, P., & Sneddon, L. U. (2023). Methods to Induce Analgesia and Anesthesia in Crustaceans: A Supportive Decision Tool. Biology, 12(3), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12030387

Rutherford, K. M. D. (2002). Assessing pain in animals. Animal Welfare, 11(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600024301

Sneddon, L. U. (2003). The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00113-8

Sneddon, L. U. (2015). Pain in aquatic animals. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.088823

Tracey, I., & Mantyh, P. W. (2007). The cerebral signature for pain perception and its modulation. Neuron, 55(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.012