Description of proposed project

The Project: A Critical Review of Electrical Stunning in Crustaceans

Electrical stunning is rapidly becoming the default answer to one of the most urgent and neglected questions in animal welfare: how should we humanely kill decapod crustaceans? Campaigners have made real progress, and retailers are under pressure to adopt electrical stunning for species like lobsters, crabs, and shrimp. The assumption is that the science is settled – that stunning reliably causes insensibility and avoids suffering.

After spending the last month immersed in the literature as a volunteer researcher for the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP), I’ve found that the evidence is strong yet incomplete – and much weaker than most advocates assume. At the request of SWP, I assessed the quality of the core studies used to justify stunning. I found major inconsistencies in species, methods, and outcome measures, along with gaps that make it hard to know whether animals are truly insensible post-stunning.

Crucially, most of these gaps are surprisingly fixable. There are clear ways to improve experimental design, refine welfare indicators, and validate key assumptions. But no one has comprehensively mapped the field. My proposal is a literature review that would fill that gap: clarifying what we know, what we don’t, and what needs to happen next. It would offer concrete recommendations for improving the evidence base and guide NGOs, commercial actors, and policymakers on whether electrical stunning is ready for large-scale rollout.

This matters because the stakes are high. Welfare groups are already subsidising stunners for industry, each costing $50,000–$150,000. SWP has already been allocated $1.2 million to subsidise electrical stunners. If the evidence is strong, we should push forward with confidence. But if it's shakier than believed, it's far better to find out now than after large-scale adoption, before trust in animal welfare science takes a hit and animals suffer needlessly. Imagine persuading a supermarket to change its practices, only to later discover that the method you pushed for doesn’t actually work! This review would reduce that risk. This is a tractable, high-leverage opportunity to help billions of animals by tightening the foundations of a rapidly growing intervention. The cost of getting it wrong is high. The cost of getting it right is small. And I’ve already made significant progress.

I’ve laid the groundwork through an informal synthesis for SWP, who have encouraged me to develop it into a formal literature review. They are – very admirably in my opinion – open to updating their strategy based on what it finds, even pivoting away from electrical stunning if necessary. Professor Robert Elwood – one of the world’s leading experts on decapod sentience and welfare – also described my synthesis as very thought-provoking, and agreed that a full literature review should follow. He has agreed to collaborate with me on the project. My plan is to lead the writing, collaborating closely with Professor Elwood, whilst also reaching out to other domain-experts for their input – two of which (Bob Fischer and Nikki Kells) have already agreed to assist with the review. The input of these senior researchers will ensure that the review is held to rigorous scientific standards whilst also being impact-focussed.

This is a project that no institution currently owns, but that absolutely needs to exist. It sits in a weirdly neglected space between animal ethics, applied neuroscience, and policy advocacy. It falls in a strange gap: not yet a clear priority for academics, too specialised for many NGOs, and not yet mandated by regulation – which means no one has taken full responsibility for pulling the evidence together.

I’ll be the first to admit there’s nothing wildly original about this idea, which gives me some imposter syndrome when reading other ACX proposals. I’m not proposing a breakthrough theory or novel method. But that doesn’t make it less worthwhile. It may just be a case of the right person at the right time. Few people spend much time thinking carefully about decapod suffering. Because of that, the evidence gaps around electrical stunning have gone largely unnoticed. Meanwhile, advocacy pressure on retailers and regulators is at an all-time high. That combination creates a unique window. My goal is simply to step into that gap and produce something useful before the moment passes.

Why are you qualified to work on this?

I believe I’m well placed to lead this review because I’ve already done much of the work informally, have relevant academic and research experience, and have secured support from leading figures in the field.

At the request of the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP), I conducted an internal review of the key studies used to justify the use of electrical stunning in decapod crustaceans. My goal was to help them calibrate their internal credences about whether stunning reliably causes insensibility. That process involved reading and critically assessing the full range of studies in the area – including those by Neil, Elwood, Albalat, Kells, and others – and providing a synthesis of their methods, findings, and limitations.

I approached the task with a particular interest in epistemics. Rather than take findings at face value, I focused on how the studies supported (or failed to support) the welfare claims being made. I evaluated the methods used to assess insensibility (behavioural, neural, physiological), the validity of the outcome measures, and the strength of the conclusions. The result was a fairly detailed mapping of where the evidence is solid, where it’s weak, and how to make it stronger.

That synthesis was shared with Professor Robert Elwood – one of the most prominent experts on decapod sentience and welfare – who described it as “very thought-provoking” and agreed that a full formal review should follow. He has kindly agreed to collaborate with me on this project.

SWP have also encouraged me to turn the initial synthesis into a full literature review, and are open to revising their strategy in light of its findings – even if that means changing direction. My plan is to lead the writing, work with Professor Elwood as a co-author, and incorporate reviewer feedback from others with relevant expertise. The final output will be public and accessible.

In terms of academic background, I studied philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience at the University of Cambridge, switching subjects each year to gain breadth. I graduated with seven academic awards, and came top of the university in all three of my subjects. I later completed a Master's in Bioscience and Biotechnology at Imperial College London, also ranking first in the year, despite not having studied biology before that point. I’m now completing a second MSc in Clinical Psychotherapy at King’s College London. This has further deepened my understanding of consciousness, interpretation of mental states, and evidence standards in applied settings.

Professionally, I’ve worked as a research communicator and independent researcher. Most recently, I’ve worked with Faunalytics and the Shrimp Welfare Project. Across these projects, I’ve produced literature summaries, scoping reports, and frameworks for understanding welfare challenges in farmed animals. These include a strategic scoping document on the barriers to shifting shrimp production to seaweed, a literature map of consumer attitudes towards animal welfare labels, and a synthesis of operational welfare indicators in sea bream and sea bass. These projects involved in-depth review of technical and grey literature, extraction of policy-relevant insights, and translation of research into practical outputs for NGOs.

I’m a Fellow of the Royal Society for Public Health and a Member of the Royal Society of Biology, reflecting my sustained engagement with applied science and welfare issues. I’ve worked with advocacy groups to translate complex research into accessible, actionable messaging on topics including animal welfare and public health – experience that directly informs my approach to evidence synthesis in this review.

I’m not a decapod physiologist by training. But I believe I’ve shown that I can acquire relevant technical understanding quickly, evaluate evidence critically, and collaborate well with domain experts. This review doesn’t require new experiments – it requires careful reasoning, methodological scrutiny, and the ability to translate findings into concrete guidance. That’s where I think I can contribute real value.

What would you do if not funded?

If this doesn’t receive ACXG funding, I will likely continue the project in my spare time, though at a much slower pace. That matters: decapod suffering is ongoing, and electrical stunners are already being deployed at scale — consuming time, money, and political capital. Without funding, the resulting review is also likely to be less rigorous and lower in quality, and risks duplication if someone else begins similar work in the meantime. A small, timely grant would significantly reduce those risks and help ensure the work is done properly, when it matters most.

How much money do you need?

As an independent researcher, my time is funding-constrained and I currently tutor to support my volunteer research work. This grant would let me focus on this project. I estimate an upper limit of 200 hours of work at $25/hour, and am therefore requesting $5,000. I’ll track hours, provide updates, and return unused funds. I’m happy to work with a smaller grant, but the more funding I have, the more time I can dedicate to this urgent project.