Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42687934›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2026

Something looks fishy! A philosophical exploration of AI for marine conservation.

Mark Ryan, Paulan Korenhof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark RyanWageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4850-0111
Paulan KorenhofWageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased pollution, traffic, overfishing, and climate change threaten fish populations, their habitats, and the sustainability of marine ecosystems. To develop environmental policies that support the conservation of sustainable ocean ecosystems and foster biodiversity, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is proposed to improve knowledge production on various fish species. These fishial recognition systems (FRS) integrate machine learning, deep learning, convolutional neural networks, computer vision, drones, and robots to identify fish species, monitor endangered populations, track migration patterns, detect illegal fishing, and even track and kill invasive species. While these FRS are employed for biodiversity protection, they may change practices, shift relations, and shape the production of new knowledge and access thereto. The technical community actively adopts FRS, but the ways this technology affects fish, humans, and their shared environments remain underexplored. Therefore, this article conducts philosophically informed, exploratory research into the implications of FRS to address the central research question: how do FRS affect fish in open waters? This paper analyses the technical literature and draws on various bodies of philosophical and social science research to identify the main social and ethical considerations of FRS. It identifies potential (intentional and unintentional) biases found in the data, algorithms, or applications of FRS. It also explores the potential physical and emotional harm to fish caused by underwater FRS. FRS may further exacerbate anthropocentric, quantification, and power asymmetries between humans and fish. In response, this paper develops a fish-centric approach to the development, deployment, and use of FRS.

Indexed as

Animal welfarePost-phenomenologySocietyTechnologyValues

Identifiers

PMID42687934
PMCPMC13529866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.