Book Review: What a fish knows: the inner lives of our underwater cousins

An academic and in depth review of the popular science book about fish intelligence.

“What a fish knows: the inner lives of our underwater cousins” (Balcombe, 2014) is a popular science book with the ambition to change society’s perception of fish and therefore how they are treated. Jonathan Balcombe is a highly regarded and established scientific author, which is evident through his website (http://jonathan-balcombe.com/) and his extensive publication history. Despite his prominent ethical stance on fish welfare, Jonathan attempts to guide rather than dictate to the reader. However, you can clearly see his passion for fish is intense. The writing style is informal, making it a more engaging and accessible text for the public. Balcombe is an entertaining author; some sections are poignant whilst others humbling, and I found myself engrossed after the first chapter.

The first chapter allows those from a non-ichthyological background to recognise the diversity of the range of organisms often referred to as just “fish.” The reader forms a baseline connection towards fish – enhancing the books impact. The plural of fish are referred to as “fishes”, an idiosyncratic effort to emphasise their individuality, making his passion clearer. The diversity of our ‘underwater cousins’ is made apparent, and throughout the book Jonathan discusses the plethora of ways (sometimes more complex than our own) that fish navigate, communicate, reproduce and feel in an environment much different to ours.

Fish lack the neonatal appearance and baby schema which we, as humans, are programmed to find endearing. Because of this, people need “hard” science to be convinced that fish are capable of abilities that we see as discrete to higher order vertebrates. The industries which utilise fish could be a main factor influencing this reluctance; if people begin to see fish as sentient, it would be massively inconvenient for the corporations and industries that exploit them. Hobbies such as fishing – when fish are hooked through the mouth to either be returned or eaten, would not be as widely accepted as they are now.

Jonathan incorporates relevant and timeless debates present in popular media and the scientific industry. Money is continuously pumped into the organisations and industries which exploit fish, because of this, “do fish feel pain” is aggressively debated by people of each ethical standpoint. Jonathan provides us with a plethora of scientific evidence suggesting that fish can not only process pain (nociception) but that pain is a negative experience. During this chapter, I would have liked to see the difference between nociception and the affective state discussed with more rigour. However, Jonathan made it clear that fish possess the basic neurones needed for nociception, and gave various evidence suggesting that there is some higher cognitive processing of pain. Every animal instinctively wants to reproduce and pass on its genes, it makes evolutionary sense that every animal that can move, can at least process pain so that it can get away from the source which will consequently negatively affect its ability to reproduce. Jonathan does not discuss pain from an evolutionary standpoint and I believe this would have made it easier to convince the audience.

Jonathan also addresses the consciousness debate, a very difficult topic to study. He understands that we, as scientists, are confounded by the language barrier between fish and ourselves. Furthermore, consciousness cannot be seen, heard, smelt, touched or interacted with in any physical way, making it difficult to study. Jonathan includes a sound argument; he informs the reader on the term “umwelt”, an individual’s perception of the world, similar to “qualia”, an individual’s experience at each given moment in time. Nagel (1974) argues that, similarly to how we don’t know what it is like to be a bat, we cannot imagine and therefore probably will never be a hundred percent certain of the world experienced by fish – but does this mean we can use them as we want?

Including common philosophical think-tasks may have been a helpful learning aid. The “Philosophers Zombie” addresses the issue that if a “zombie” with no consciousness can act the same way a human can – then what purpose does consciousness serve? The task itself is not scientific and would allow the readers to really think about what it means to be conscious.

Jonathan challenges the reader, telling them to watch the behaviour of fish and see if they appear aware, or are just acting through instinct. Giving the audience tasks allows them to engage with the text, applying their new knowledge to real world applications – almost a form of gamification.  Johnathan clearly believes fish to be conscious, and I believe that after reading the book, others will too. However, it must be stressed that what he describes are arguments by analogy; each example described is merely a “correlate” of the phenomena it is trying to prove. For example, neurones are correlates of pain and tool use is a correlate of cognitive ability. We must proceed with caution when using arguments by analogy when assuming further similarities.

Jonathan educates us on the intelligence of fish, and he states that “when people ask about intelligence, they mean can they think the same way we do?”. Our reluctance to empathise with creatures that are not human like in appearance or behaviour is highlighted. Johnathan discusses tasks which when “performed by a fish clearly upsets the commonly held assumption that fishes are at the dim end of the spectrum”. With a vast array of scientific evidence and some endearing anecdotes, Jonathan persuades the reader that fish have more intelligence than we give them credit for. I believe that Jonathan is correct in suggesting that fish have some form of higher cognitive abilities.

I would have liked to have seen more intricate study designs when it comes to cognition. Johnathan did not include the self- proclaimed first mirror test study which manta rays (Manta birostris) recognised themselves in the mirror. Although I feel that including an experiment with mirrors to test for animal self- awareness is extremely humancentric, manta rays recognising themselves in a mirror was an ethological breakthrough and I feel it would have been important to include this. Mechanisms for research are becoming more intricate and therefore leading to fascinating results.

Jonathan doesn’t put fish on a pedestal. He often debates himself and offers the reader alternative explanations for certain behaviours. For example, when Oscar the fish apparently became excited to see his owner, Balcombe himself thinks that there is some form of attachment. However, he offers the reader a more simpler explanation “or perhaps Oscar was waiting for a food reward” (pp. 150), a classic example of operant conditioning coined by Skinner (1938).  Furthermore, when he describes fish jumping out of the sea, Balcombe himself states that he thinks they’re having fun, but does not dismiss that some critics believe them to be courting or removing parasites. The reader is assured that Jonathan is “not remotely suggesting that intelligence is uniformly distributed between the diversity of fishes”.  The evolutionary relevance of behaviours is highlighted throughout; if a certain behaviour is going to help an animal survive, the animal will most likely evolve this behaviour. For example, pleasure evolved to reinforce beneficial behaviours, and Jonathan debates whether these animals unconsciously prefer beneficial behaviours because it will increase their fitness, or if they seek these behaviours merely because they feel good. According to Morgan’s Canon, one must explain animal behaviour as simply as possible.  

Due to the books motive, it can appear slightly like an “echo chamber”. Perhaps the individuals which have given their own written accounts are undergoing a phenomenon known as “confirmation bias”. It is unknown by which outlet Jonathan asked individuals to give their own accounts, however it is likely that it was through one of his media outlets such as Twitter, Linkedin or even his website. If he appealed on an account directly affiliated with him, it is unlikely that people who do not believe in fish sentience would reply, as they would be reluctant to follow and therefore engage with him. The anecdotes are likely from people who believe fish are conscious which could cloud their judgement and affect how they interpreted and described the situation. Furthermore, the anecdotes stated do not have a source in which you can seek out the story yourself and make an informed decision on the credibility of the source- but each person is named allowing you to research who they are and any companies which they are affiliated with.

Johnathon is affiliated with ‘The Humane Society of USA’, a company which seeks to end the “enslavement” of animals. However, despite many anti-science groups which have an absolute animal rights view, The Humane Society appears to be a legitimate source which encompasses a more utilitarian view towards animal ethics. Jonathan himself is also a scientist whom holds a PhD in ethology – suggesting that despite his affiliation with The Humane Society, he is well qualified to discuss the topic of animal behaviour. If anything, his affiliation with the Humane Society could reinforce his passion for animal welfare, making him appear somewhat as a “posterboy” for fish welfare.

Jonathan incorporates a variety of anecdotes by named people, quotes from various scientists (with whom he does and does not agree) and examples from scientific papers – with a reference list at the back for readers to look up the studies in further detail. The scientific evidence incorporates a wide range of studies with different taxa as the subject. What could be interpreted as a major flaw in Jonathan’s work is the highly anecdotal body of evidence, such as Jonathan’s story of an underwater diver who befriends a group of basking sharks. She ironically even named one Grandma – a name which challenges the perceptions held about sharks by the public and in popular media. However, the informality of the book and lack of scientific jargon allows the readers to relate to Balcombe, bridging the gap between scientists and the public. According to the British Science Association (2014), 55% of the public stated that they do not feel well informed about science – however I feel this book is accessible to those from a non -ethological background, giving them the building blocks necessary to build a basic understanding on fish cognition and welfare, and to seek out the anecdotal evidence and analyse it themselves. I believe that popular science writing must strike a fine balance between scientific evidence and journalism, one to inform and one to interest. If the text is unappealing, then his message will not reach a wider audience.

Jonathan’s book is listed on various websites with the opportunity for members to review the literature. The reviews are often positive (Goodreads, 2018; Amazon, 2018; Oneworld Publications 2018), but I saw little evidence of scientists reading the book and reviewing it, suggesting that scientists themselves are perhaps hesitant to engage with the book. Jonathan himself has an h–index of 14, with his publications being referenced 951 times in total (Scopus, 2018). However, the book has not been referenced at all within the scientific community, reinforcing that they do not engage often with his book – maybe due to its frequent anthropomorphism of fish and anecdotal body of evidence.

This book is published at an exciting time, when new research about ethology and welfare is gaining prominent attention. Furthermore, we are at a time when humans are consuming fish in an unsustainable manner. I recommend this book to anyone who has any interest in the world we live in. I also suggest that anyone who uses fish recreationally reads this book, as it may just change the way that they view the animals that they are using. However, I do not recommend this book to an individual who has little interest in the field, who are unlikely to do their own research on the topic. Jonathan can appear somewhat biased, so it is for sciences best interest for people to be intrigued enough to do their own research on the topic to achieve a balanced, well informed knowledge on the subject.

Despite being published at an interesting time, the book itself has not advanced science. The target audience are non-scientists and therefore it includes studies which have previously been published, there is no original evidence included. However, Jonathan offers his own research project ideas which could advance the field. He critiques various studies and gives his opinion on the ethics of some, making it a more engaging read. For example, he states that in one study, the fish were likely to have been stressed by the transport from their home to the artificial lab- based environment. The studies are from a wide time range, showing the reader how experimental design and intricacy has developed over time. Each example includes multiple taxon, and I like how Jonathan has not just included examples from fish which are more well known in the popular media, such as clownfish and sharks. These factors could influence budding scientists to create their own experimental designs, and perhaps to even expand their interests to taxon of fish they previously deemed “uninteresting”.

As an animal behaviourist who is interested by ichthyology, I had heard of the core principles already. Therefore, I found it a light, interesting read. However, to the target audience, I believe this book can shape their opinion and perhaps even behaviour towards fish. From what I’m aware, Jonathan’s book appears to be one of the first of its kind; a popular science book directed at the public about fish welfare and cognition. The book includes some compelling and relevant debates prominent in the industry right now, and it has the potential to influence scientists to conduct their own research. Societal change is needed for the behavioural shift that Jonathan so clearly desires, which I believe that this book can achieve. Jonathan endearingly refers to fish as “fishes”; perhaps in time, society will begin to see their individuality and sentience too.