Some half-baked thoughts that you probably have already considered:

Definitely agree that welfare science could be moving much faster than it currently is, and part of that is tied to the research process in universities. But many of the restrictions that make the process slower do have benefits wrt to rigour. 

In an ideal world, the research produced by universities is trusted because it passes through a structured process designed to limit bias and enhance rigour. A good study is typically specified in advance: what intervention will occur, how outcomes will be measured, and how they will be analysed. Measurement uses agreed definitions so results are comparable across sites. The protocol is documented and deviations are recorded. Data are retained and can be inspected. Researchers are accountable to supervisors, ethics committees, and institutional reputation, which creates penalties for selective reporting. 

After that, peer review functions as an additional filter. Independent reviewers, who (hopefully) have no stake in the result, check whether alternative explanations could account for the findings, whether statistics are appropriate, and whether the conclusions match the data. Weak causal claims can be weeded out at this stage, and appropriate qualifications made. 

On farms, how much of this holds? I imagine that the same person might feasibly implement the change, observe the outcome, and possibly even benefit from their interpretation. Management conditions might change simultaneously, unsuccessful trials might be rarely recorded in a standardised way, and there may be no routine adversarial check of the inference by a domain expert. That makes it difficult for third parties to judge whether an alleged welfare improvement genuinely reflects the supposed intervention.

Collecting farm data is feasible, but achieving comparable credibility requires some mechanism(s) for maintaining rigour, including but not limited to: predefined methods, independent verification, and systematic challenge of the conclusions by experts. 

My two genuine (not-leading) questions would be: 

1) How feasible is this in the farm environment? This means not only implementing the mechanisms to ensure rigour, but also ensuring that key stakeholders trust the process. Even if your research is sound, if key stakeholders won't trust your results because you did it in a farm and not a lab, then you definitely have to take that into consideration rather than scoff at it.

2) Once you implement those mechanisms for rigour, are you still significantly quicker and more streamlined than university research? (If the answer to this is yes, one would wonder why universities aren't able to do the same. But obviously there are non-research related factors influencing university research).

I imagine that there's a trade-off between rigour and resources, where you the more rigour you want, the more resources (including time) you need. So a third bonus question is, how much rigour is enough?

Just commenting to state some obvious things that you already know, but I hope it doesn't hurt to hear them from someone else.

• You have a massive positive impact on invertebrates
• Rumination generally doesn't have much positive benefit
• The universe with a happier Aaron who doesn't spend a lot of time ruminating is a better universe, both for Aaron and for the invertebrates, than the universe with a guilty Aaron who spends a lot of time ruminating.

Bypassing guilt and rumination is far easier said than done, but the following framing helps me. You're on a great path, doing great and wonderful things for the world. Excessive focus on these less important (relative to the rest of your impact) decisions doesn't seem to contribute to that path. As you alluded to, it actively detracts from it. For me, conceptualising things like that really does help me bypass a lot of rumination; just stay the course, knowing that your path is a good one. If you were a terrible person, outputting 0 good in the world, then maybe it's worth ruminating more on these small things; but you are the polar opposite, and the invertebrates need you in good mental shape!

I doubt any of this helps, but at least I hope it doesn't make things worse! 

Keep up the great work.

The idea of fungi evolving to infect humans and resulting in apocalypse underpins the premise of the famous game and TV series "The Last of Us"

Given the series' critical acclaim and popularity, I wonder if it also demonstrates potential for engaging the public with this topic through mainstream popular media.

Independent of whether their approach is net positive or negative for factory farming, I feel like FarmKind missed an obvious slogan opportunity: "Have your steak and eat it too!"

Thanks for the information! I’d love to apply. Would you consider candidates interested in working at less than 1 FTE? The role sounds fascinating, but I currently hold other part-time positions that I’d like to continue alongside it.

What is the deadline for this application?

Hi there!

I'd be interested in working on some of these papers with you. I'm currently training as a Clinical Psychotherapist at King's College London and am keen on exploring the intersection between AI and therapy.

Feel free to either message me here or email me at k2478540@kcl.ac.uk

The studies I linked above started measuring 2-10 minutes after stunning, but there are other studies which have measured CNS activity before, during, and immediately after the stunning process - for example, Fregin & Bickmeyer (2016). Interestingly, they observed that before settling into a quiescent state, intense epileptic-form seizures occur in the CNS that last for up to an hour after stunning. In mammals, epileptic-form seizures are associated with a loss of consciousness and a lack of subjective experience during that period, suggesting insensibility (and this is roughly how the authors interpret their finding). However, more work needs to be done to better understand this phenomenon in decapod crustaceans.

I'm not focussing on the asphyxiation process, so I'll let someone with more knowledge in that area chime in. If no one does, I'd be happy to look into it!

If the central nervous system has truly stopped functioning, that would imply insensibility. That’s why loss of all measurable brain activity is taken as a sign of unconsciousness in clinical contexts. In humans, episodes with reduced CNS activity (for example, during deep anaesthesia or certain brain injuries) are generally associated with a lack of subjective experience.

For decapods, the challenge is that most studies measure spontaneous CNS activity rather than testing every possible form of responsiveness, such as testing to see whether we can evoke CNS responses through stimulation. So while prolonged inactivity is a strong sign of insensibility, researchers should still gather more data to increase confidence (especially given that, as you mention, we are putting a lot of resources behind this!)