Calling a web site livescience doesn't neccessarily mean that it is a scientific one. BTW one can find article "Satellite Searches Could Spot Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster" at the same web page....
The rule of thumb in scientific publications is quoting a reliable source. So next time look for a better source (i truly recommend pubmed at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed , and for the more popular approach, however based on reliable news and real research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/)
For some reason all this story reminds me an old anecdote (dating form communist era in my country)...
It is about a Soviet enomologist working on fly hearing organs. He has been asked to prove if removing of the limbs affects hearing.
He dissected a leg, and shouted "Walk!" and the fly walked away.
Than he dissceted second leg, shouted "Walk!, and the fly walked away, again... An so on with the third and fourth leg.
Upon removing fifth leg, he shouted "Walk!" but the fly just fallen down on the lab bench. He shouted once again, but without any response from the fly...So the entomologist written down in hus lab journal: Upon dissection of five legs, the fly is completely deaf...
So this is about "science", and drawing conclusions matching your a priori assumptions. (and it is also about condition of science in Soviet Union
)...
I am a scientist myself and it really pisses me off, when some guys mimic scientific approach to justify their weirdest ideas, or bussines of a big company(sadly, but the latter case is too often true in the medicine)....
Insects and inverts feel the pain - of course the other way than we do, but their nervous system is sophisticated enough to respond such a stimuli. So mutilating them just to have fun is not the best idea, and the run for cash doesn't justify it....