Research Whaling Under the Microscope

An Open Letter to the Government of Japan on "Scientific Whaling"

In May 2002, an advertisement labeled "Open Letter to the Government of Japan" was placed by the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. in the west coast edition of the New York Times. This open letter, signed by 21 distinguished scientists, criticized the Government of Japan's whale research  because it "fails to meet the minimum standards for credible science". The open letter is reprinted below:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN ON "SCIENTIFIC WHALING" 
May 20, 2002

Despite its obligation to comply with a global moratorium on commercial whaling, Japan has killed thousands of whales over the past decade, claiming an exemption for "scientific whaling" under international law. We, the undersigned scientists, believe Japan's whale research program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science. In particular:

We are concerned that Japan's whaling program is not designed to answer scientific questions relevant to the management of whales; that Japan has refused to make the information it collects available for independent review; and that its research program lacks a testable hypothesis or other performance indicators consistent with accepted scientific standards.

Most of the data being gathered by Japan's "scientific whaling" are obtainable by non-lethal means; it is possible, for example, to determine species, gender, population size, migration patterns, stock fidelity, and other key biological information without harming whales. Yet Japan's whale research program kills hundreds of whales each year in the absence of a compelling scientific need.

The commercial nature of Japan's whaling program conflicts with its scientific independence. Japan sells meat from the whales it kills on commercial markets and assigns "scientific whaling" quotas to individual whaling villages. These commercial ties create a profit incentive to kill whales even when no scientific need exists, raising troubling questions about the motives behind Japan's program.

Japan has announced it will soon begin killing sei whales, an internationally listed endangered species, ostensibly to determine the whales' diet. Yet Japan has already analyzed the stomach contents of nearly 20,000 sei whales it killed during the past fifty years. There is no reasonable likelihood that killing additional sei whales now will add to what is already known about their diet.

By continuing to fund and carry out this program, Japan opens itself to serious charges that it is using the pretense of scientific research to evade its commitments to the world community. As scientists, we believe this compromises objective decision-making and undermines public confidence in the role of science to guide policy. Accordingly, we respectfully urge the Japanese government to suspend its "scientific whaling" program.

Frederic Briand, Director General, la Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Méditerranée (CIESM), Monaco; Member, UN Experts Group on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection.

Theo Colborn, Senior Scientist, World Wildlife Fund-US; Pew Scholars Award in Environment and Conservation; International Rachel Carson Prize (Norway); Asahi Glass Foundation's International Blue Planet Prize (Japan).

Richard Dawkins, Professor, New College, Oxford University; Royal Society of London Michael Faraday Award; Medal of the Zoological Society of London; Nakayama Prize for Human Science (Japan).

Jared Diamond, Professor of Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine; Pulitzer Prize; MacArthur Fellow; Britain's Science Book Priz; Fellow, American Ornithologists Union; Coues Award; Burr Award; National Medal of Science (USA); International Cosmos Prize (Japan).

Sylvia Earle, National Geographic Society Explorer-in-Residence; former Chief Scientist, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Olguin Marine Environment Award; Knighted by the Netherlands: Order of the Golden Ark.

Edgardo Gomez, Professor, Marine Sciences Institute, University of the Philippines; Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation; Presidential Lingkod Bayan Award, 2000; UNEP Global 500 Roll of Honour.

Roger Guillemin, Distinguished Professor, The Salk Institute; Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology; National Medal of Science (USA); Lasker Foundation Award; Honorary Member, Japan Biochemical Society.

Sir Aaron Klug, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Microbiology, Cambridge University; Nobel Prize in Chemistry; former President, Royal Society (England); Honorary Fellow of Peterhouse and of Trinity College.

Masakazu Konishi, Professor, California Institute of Technology; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Dana Award for Achievement in Health; International Prize for Biology, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Jane Lubchenco, Distinguished Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University; MacArthur Fellow; Pew Scholar in Capital Conservation and the Environment; Heinz Award in the Environment; member, National Academy of Science; former president, Ecological Society of America; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Alan MacDiarmid, Blanchard Professor of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania; Nobel Prize for Chemistry; Royal Society of Chemistry Centenary Medal and Lectureship (England).

Laurence Mee, Visiting Professor, Plymouth University Environmental Research Center; Pew Fellow; Fellow, Royal Society of Chemistry; Fellow, Georgian Academy of Ecological Sciences.

Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute; Pew Fellow; Evergreen Award; Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change, National Research Council; founding mem-ber, Society for Conservation Biology.

Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, President, Istituto Centrale per la Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica Applicata al Mare; former Pres., European Cetacean Society; Tridente d'Oro Prize.

Gordon Orions (sic), Professor Emeritus of Zoology, University of Washington; Eminent Ecologists Award, Ecological Society of America; Guggenheim Fellow; Chairman, Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council (USA).

Roger Payne, Founder/President, Ocean Alliance; MacArthur Fellow; Lyndhurst Prize Fellow; UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Knighted by the Netherlands: Order of the Golden Ark.

Carl Safina, Lecturer, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies; Vice President for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society; MacArthur Fellow; Board of Governors, Society for Conservation Biology.

David Suzuki, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia; Fellow, Royal Society of Canada; Sanford Fleming Medal, Royal Canadian Institute; Medal of Honour, Canadian Medical Association; UNEP Global 500 Roll of Honour; UNESCO Kalinga Prize for Science.

John Terborgh, Director, Duke University Center for Tropical Conservation; MacArthur Fellow; Guggenheim Fellow; Pew Fellow; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Daniel Giraud Elliott Medal, National Academy of Sciences.

Edward O. Wilson, University Research Professor, Harvard University; Pulitzer Prize (twice); National Medal of Science (USA); Tyler Environmental Prize; Prix du Institut de la Vie, Paris; Crafoord Prize, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; International Prize for Biology (Japan).

George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center; Founder, Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory; Heinz Award in the Environment; Member, National Academy of Science; Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

***********************************************

In  December 2002, the following article, responding to the WWF open letter, was published in the journal Bioscience.

Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment.
William Aron, William Burke, and Milton Freeman 2002. (Bioscience 52(12):1137-1140)

It appears to be a challenge for some scientists to exercise the same skepticism and rigor they employ in their own specialty to questions of science that fall outside their specialty. Although this may not a serious problem in academic or professional arenas, where scientists stand ready, willing and able to correct one another, it may be a serious one when scientists debate scientific controversies in public forums, where the audience is less qualified to evaluate the validity of scientists' statements. Scientists who argue outside their expertise in the public arena can make errors of judgment that raise important concerns about their responsibilities to the public. In this vein, a recent commentary warned scientists of the dangers to science of political advocacy, cautioning that "today's scientists need to understand the consequences for science of relying on political advocacy as the primary mechanism of connecting science with policy" (Pielke 2002, p. 368). 

Examples of scientists making errors of judgment, or even committing outright fraud, are not new (Weinberg 1976, Broad and Wade 1982, Kilbourne and Kilbourne 1983), but are arguably more common today in those areas the media considers to be especially newsworthy. It is irresponsible for respected specialists to allow their passion for some cause to overcome their professional responsibility to determine what constitutes the current science on the issue in question. Such carelessness is especially regrettable in contested environmental or resource use issues in which politics, emotion, urban myths, and poor science confound the search for answers. Scientists, among others, would most likely agree that there is no better basis for sound political and administrative decisionmaking than the best available scientific information, and most would agree that this is especially true in the fields of resource management and environmental protection (Brundtland 1997).

Co-opting scientists for advocacy
Many prominent environmental and animal protection organizations have scientific advisers or may co-opt scientists -- including some from unrelated fields -- who, while knowing little of the contemporary science on the specific problems being addressed, nevertheless share public concerns about species endangerment, loss of biodiversity, or other environmental issues. We recognize that scientists are not only scientists, and that "in donning the white coat at the laboratory door…[they] do not step aside from the passions, ambitions, and failings that animate those in other walks of life" (Broad and Wade 1982, p. 19). We are concerned that when scientist-advocates lower their scientific standards in support of popular causes - while presenting themselves as scientists -- science itself can be diminished, as can the rights of resource users and competent management of the environment.

 Actions by scientists that increase uncertainty to implausible levels, or unreasonably engender controversy in environmental or resource management decision-making have been deemed acts of scientific misconduct (NAS 1992, Schweder 2000). When politics and passion (including opposing research on sentimental grounds; (Butterworth 1992)) intrude into discussion and analysis of many environmental and resource use issues, serious questions arise about the professional responsibility and trustworthiness of scientists and environmental organizations whose passion or self-interest appears to detract from their responsibility to remain well-informed when operating in a public arena (Bonner 1993, Bailey 1995, Mrosovsky 1997, Friedheim 2001). 

We acknowledge that scientist-advocates, who are careless or selective in their use of science can be found on both sides of every scientific controversy. Advocates of the sustainable use of natural resources can be as uncritical in their use of science as can advocates of animal protection. In the rest of this article we critique a recent episode concerning a highly contested issue that has persisted for several years and doubtless will continue for more years yet.

Jumping on a bandwagon requires caution
In May 2002 scientists sent an open letter to the Japanese government questioning the scientific merits of Japan's whaling research program. This letter provides an example of scientists' not assuming prudent responsibility for their public pronouncements. The text of this open letter was published as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times (20 May 2002) (see the World Wildlife Fund's Web site www.wwfus.org/news/attachments/whaling_ad.pdf ). The letter was signed by 21 distinguished scientists, including three Nobel laureates, four members of the National Academy of Sciences, and a former president of American Association for the Advancement of Science. Sadly, the letter contains numerous errors of science and law and thus reflects poorly on the capability of the instigating organization and the care taken by the scientists endorsing this letter. In our view, the fact that most of the scientists who signed the letter are not whale biologists, nor involved with fishery or wildlife science or management, does not absolve those scientists from taking responsibility for their actions in attacking the scientific research activities of others.

Japan's whale research programs
Japan initiated a 16-year Antarctic research program (JARPA) in 1987-88 with a two-year feasibility study. JARPA's objectives include estimating biological parameters (especially the natural mortality rate) and determining the stock structure of Antarctic minke whales, examining the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem, and examining the effect of environmental change on cetacea. This program includes sighting surveys and a sampling component that takes a maximum of 440 minke whales annually (IWC n.d). 

In 1994 Japan began another whale research program (JARPN) with the goal of determining the stock structure and feeding ecology of minke whales in the North Pacific. An important goal of the five-year study was to improve the design of implementation simulation trials for the revised management procedure, a basic requirement for managing a sustainable commercial minke whale fishery in the North Pacific. This second research program required, among other things, an annual sample of 100 minke whales (IWC n.d). 

In 2000 JARPN was expanded (and renamed JARPN II) to include research on Bryde's and sperm whales, so that ecosystem models for the region could be developed and the impact of environmental changes (including the impacts of pollutants) on whales and the marine ecosystem could be determined. An important component of JARPN II is to study the feeding ecology of whales; to this end, sei whales were recently added to the three whale species already being sampled. The program includes sighting surveys of all cetacean species in the region. The program is designed to sample 150 minke, 50 Bryde's, 50 sei, and 10 sperm whales annually (IWC n.d). The participation of international scientists is welcomed in all three studies: JARPN, JARPN II, and JARPA.

Bogus science -- or careless critics? 
The open letter claims that Japan's whale research is bogus because it does not meet minimum standards for credible science, citing lack of relevancy for management, refusal to release information for independent review, and lack of testable hypotheses. These are serious accusations to level against the leading whale and fishery scientists in the review committee who critically review Japan's Antarctic research program (JARPA) in order to determine its management relevance and scientific merit. The International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee is composed of more than 120 scientists from a number of nonwhaling and whaling countries (including Japan), with the former representing a clear majority. 

The chair of the JARPA committee (established by the Scientific Committee) reported in the mid-point review of the 16-year program that "there was general agreement [in the review group's report]…that the data presented on stock structure…were important contributions to the objectives of JARPA and stock management" (IWC 1998, p. 98) adding that "JARPA has already made a major contribution to the understanding of certain biological parameters" (IWC 1998, p. 101). Regarding the North Pacific minke whale research program, the Scientific Committee, in responding to the commission's request for advice whether the research was required for management, noted that the information obtained has been and will continue to be used in the refinement of implementation simulation trials for North Pacific minke whales, and consequently the information was relevant to the management of minke whales (IWC 2001). 

With respect to Japanese Antarctic research, the IWC Scientific Committee "agreed that [these] studies provided useful information for both the formulation of such hypotheses and for the selection of study areas…[and that] such studies would be of interest to CCAMLR [Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources] and Southern Ocean GLOBEC [Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics]" (IWC 1998, p.100). At the halfway point of the program "information [from this research] has set the stage for answering many questions about long-term population changes regarding minke whales." (IWC 1998, p. 101). Other commentators, after providing a careful summary of the IWC Scientific Committee's assessment of Japan's North Pacific whale research programs, others have noted the misleading characterization of Scientific Committee action by the Commission itself (Greenberg et al. 2002).

Scientist-advocates accusing scientists
The open letter also falsely claims the Japanese have refused to make information available for independent review and their research lacks a testable hypothesis. Contrary to these assertions, the research methods and findings are routinely reviewed by credible international scientists both before and during critical scrutiny by the IWC Scientific Committee. At the time of the IWC Scientific Committee review of the Antarctic research program (IWC 2001), 64 reports, including research data, had been reviewed. The Web site the Institute of Cetacean Research listed over 150 reports one year before the open letter was sent to the Japanese government and made public (www.whalesci.org/contribution). The text of these IWC reviews are readily available, either on the Internet (e.g. through the Institute of Cetacean Research (www.icrwhale.org), at some libraries, in peer-reviewed articles, or directly from the laboratories conducting the research.

Although the open letter charges that Japan has refused to make the information it collects available for independent review, it is normal practice for scientists to withhold preliminary results or unpublished research data until its formal presentation. This general practice, followed by Japan, nevertheless does not prevent full and detailed scrutiny of Japan's research (IWC 2001) and datasets (IWC 1998) by members of the IWC Scientific Committee during their annual and intersessional (sic) meetings. Furthermore, any scientist can apply to Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research for access to data by following standard procedures for research cooperation. 

The assertion that the Japanese research program lacks a testable hypothesis is an indiscriminate broadside without foundation, as may be seen in the authoritative reviews of the overall program components. The review of JARPA noted that the Scientific Committee had commended the program for both the quantity and quality of its scientific work. The review committee also called attention to the useful information the JARPA studies provided for the formulation of hypotheses (IWC 1998).

Trade and science: keeping research lawful
The open letter also contends that the research program is a commercial operation because the edible whale products remaining after the scientific samples have been taken are sold. Such non-wasteful disposal of the whale carcass is required by article VIII (2) of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW 1946), which states that "any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted". The legally required processing of meat taken by scientific permit cannot sensibly be taken to impugn the scientific nature of the undertaking. Certainly the IWC Scientific Committee evaluates the research by the appropriateness of its methodological rigor and its results, and not on the basis of whether the nonsampled tissues are sold, given away, or jettisoned at sea. 

In addition, the open letter erroneously charges that Japan claimed an exemption for scientific whaling under international law. However, under general international law, any nation has the right to take whales for food and research purposes and needs no exemption (Jacobson 2001). Furthermore, Japan is a party to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, article VIII of which specifically authorizes scientific whaling notwithstanding the ban placed on commercial whaling. Under no acceptable circumstances can compliance with a treaty prove violation of its provisions.

Killing whales for science
The open letter asserts that Japan's research kills whales in the absence of a compelling scientific need. However, the IWC Secretariat has stated that certain data can can (at least in the short term, that is, within from one to two or more decades) only through lethal means (IWC n.d). These data include, for example, the age of the animal, the reproductive status and history of female whales, and internal tissues unobtainable from biopsy samples. The IWC statement points out that such postmortem examinations are important in any consideration of biological parameters (e.g., mortality and reproductive rates) and interpretation of pollutant levels. 

During IWC Scientific Committee meetings, disagreement continues as to whether lethal research is required to answer the research objectives of Japan's whale research program. Specifically with regard to Japan's Antarctic program, however, the JARPA review noted that the logistics and abundance of minke whales probably precluded the successful application of non-lethal techniques (IWC 1997).

Upholding public trust in science
We are sympathetic to those who for ethical or emotional reasons oppose the killing of whales for food or research. The food issue involves questions of subsistence (which include important questions of culture and morals), nutrition, and health, all of which are outside the frame of reference of this article. The research issue remains controversial, with scientists disagreeing about the justification of killing whales for research purposes. 

If scientists' opposition to whaling stems from reasons of science, then those scientists should be quite sure of their facts if they intend to influence public understanding of an issue that demands scientific input for its resolution. Whaling remains a complex and contentious issue. To understand this complexity, and to form sound judgments about this contested activity, requires careful attention to relevant facts that are readily available from reliable sources. To do otherwise is a dereliction of scientists' professional and ethical responsibility, and is regrettable when public trust in scientists' judgments on a number of environmental and resource use issues is a matter of both national and international importance.

Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the helpful comments and other assistance provided by Douglas Butterworth, Dan Goodman, Luis A. Pastene, and Judith Zeh during the writing of this paper. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments.

References cited
Bailey R, ed. 1995. The True State of the Planet: Ten of the World's Premier Environmental Researchers in a Major Challenge to the Environmental Movement. New York: Free Press.
Bonner R. 1993. At the Hand of Man: Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife. New York: Knopf.
Broad W. and Wade N. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth. New York: Simon and Schuster. Brundtland GH. 1997. The scientific underpinning of policy. Science 277: 457.
Butterworth DS. 1992. Science and sentimentality. Nature 357: 532-534. 
Friedheim RL, ed. 2001. Towards a Sustainable Whaling Regime, Seattle: University of Washington Press; Edmonton (Canada): CCI Press. 
Greenberg EVC, Hoff PS, and Goulding MI. 2002. Japan's whale research program and international law. California Western International Law Journal 32: 151-209. 
[ICRW ] International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. 1946. 2 December 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 U.N.T.S. 74. 
[IWC] International Whaling Commission n.d. The IWC, Scientific Permits and Japan. (24 October 2002; www.iwcoffice.org.sciperms.htm) 
----. 1997. Report of the Scientific Committee. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47: 99 
----. 1998. Report of the Scientific Committee. Report of the International Whaling Commission 48: 98. 
----.2001. Report of the Scientific Committee. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3 (suppl.): 1-374. 
Jacobson JL. 2001. Whales, the IWC and the rule of law. Pages 80-104 in Friedheim RL, ed. Towards a Sustainable Whaling Regime. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Edmonton (Canada): CCI Press. 
Kilbourne BK. and Kilbourne MT, eds. 1983. The Dark Side of Science. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 20-25 June 1982; University of California -- Santa Barbara. San Francisco: AAAS Pacific Division. 
Mrosovsky N. 1997. IUCN's credibility critically endangered. Nature 389: 436. 
Pielke RA Jr. 2002. Policy, politics and perspective. The scientific community must distinguish analysis from advocacy. Nature 416: 367-368. 
[NAS] National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume 1, Washington (DC): National Academy Press. 
Schweder T. 2000. Distortion of uncertainty in science: Antarctic fin whales in the 1950s. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 3:73-92. 
Weinberg AM. 1976. Science in the public forum: keeping it honest. Science 191: 341.

This article was originally published in BioScience, 52:1137-1140, December 2002, and is re-published here with permission.

***********************************************

Top of Page

Bioscience printed several responses to this article in its March 2003 issue. Unfortunately, copyright fees prevent INWR from reprinting these articles at this time, but INWR will reprint them here if the authors make them available. Below are summaries of  the main scientific and legal points raised in these letters, as well as references enabling readers to access the full texts in Bioscience.

"Scientists versus Whaling": Whose Errors of Judgment?
Gordon Orians et al. 2003. (Bioscience 53(3): 200-203)

The authors (17 of the 21 who signed the open letter published in the New York Times) repeat the main points of their letter, and then note the following "erroneous statements and important omissions" in the Aron et al. Bioscience article: 

Top of Page

The Tortuous History of "Scientific" Japanese Whaling. 
Sidney J. Holt 2003 (Bioscience 53(3):204-206).

Top of Page

Whaling as Science. 
Phillip J. Clapham et al. 2003. (Bioscience 53(3):210-212). 
This paper supports the criticism of Japan's whale research programs contained in the New York Times open letter. The paper also notes the failure of Aron et al. to refer to other scientists' criticism of Japan's research, especially the critique submitted by Clapham et al. to the 2002 meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee. The criticism in this article is directed to Japan's research more than to the Aron et al. article, stating inter alia:

***********************************************

Top of Page

Response by Aron et al. to Orians et al., Holt, and Clapham et al. 
(Aron et al. submitted a letter in response to Orians et al., Holt, and Clapham et al. However, this letter was not published by Bioscience, and is posted immediately below).

Bioscience 53 No.2 contained four responses to our Forum article ("Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment", Bioscience 52:1137-1140). We were provided with only one of these four items ("Neutral judges in a debate on scientific merits?" RN Mott, Bioscience 53:203-4), to which we responded (ibid). However, the paper by Clapham et al. (Bioscience 53:210-212) and letters by Orians et al. (Bioscience 53:200-203) and Holt (Bioscience 53:204-206) critical of our article, were not seen by us until after they were published.  We believe these additional items merit a response.

With regard to Orians and colleagues comments, we don't believe a debate over correspondents' "credentials" is particularly fruitful. Those signing the WWF open letter are unquestionably distinguished scientists; we do not question their integrity or motivation, but we have reservations about the merit of several of their comments which appear to reflect a lack of knowledge regarding whaling and the IWC. We note, e.g. that their open letter was dated May 20 2002, which was after the IWC Scientific Committee had debated these particular opinions and took no action, suggesting that the Scientific Committee as a whole had not been sufficiently persuaded by their scientific merit. 

Our characterizing Orians and colleagues' dismissal of the scientific merits of the Japanese research (due, they claim, to its lack of a testable hypothesis and other defects) "as an indiscriminate broadside without foundation" is based on the findings of the IWC Scientific Committee and IWC program review committees' evaluations of the scientific merits and utility of that research. It is surprising to us that Orians et al. assert that the lack of "a testable hypothesis" constitutes "the key scientific failing" of Japan's whale research. This "key" failing appears to have not prevented the IWC scientific committees explicitly identifying the several areas of scientific merit these large and long-term multi-component whale and marine environmental research programs possess, and which we explicitly referenced (e.g., management-relevant data on stock structure, improved understanding of certain biological parameters, and findings to be used in the refinement of implementation simulation trials). We would suggest to those believing that hypothesis-testing is the "key" scientific criteria for judging all types of research, that most field-based fishery (including whaling) research is descriptive, rather than theoretical or experimental, in nature so that hypothesis construction or testing may not be necessary or even useful. Such applied research is undertaken with management- or policy-relevant goals in mind, goals that IWC committees appear to acknowledge. 

Orians and colleagues take issue with our statement that Japan never needed to seek an exemption under international law in order to engage in scientific whaling. We disagree with their conclusion and their reasons for disagreeing with our statement. Under general international law, whaling for commercial or scientific purposes may be undertaken freely, except as may be restricted by an agreed treaty provision. In this instance, the pertinent treaty (the ICRW), far from restricting scientific whaling, confirms the continued freedom to engage in scientific whaling, even, e.g., when commercial whaling is banned. Although Article VIII of the ICRW provides this exemption for parties to the ICRW, it does not affect the general scope or application of international law. This ICRW provision simply provides that none of the treaty's provisions (e.g., a ban on commercial whaling) apply to research whaling, thus leaving research whaling subject to general international law that upholds the freedom to whale for research purposes. The main condition on such whaling contained in ICRW is the requirement of non-wasteful disposal, which confirms that disposing of the carcass for this purpose is permissible. 

Orians et al. assert that our paper contains a "battery of misstatements" and "omissions", citing as issues we did not address: (1) Japan's inclusion of sei whales in its sampling program, and (2) the "increasingly transparent commercial nature of Japan's scientific whaling". One stated objective of Japan's North Pacific research program is to create a comprehensive ecosystem energetics model that will aid in understanding and managing regional fishery resources. Clearly, large-bodied fish-eating predators (and sei whales, together with other sampled whales, prey on forage and commercially-valuable fish) are part of the ecosystem being studied. Thus, to accomplish the stated research goals, ecologically-significant species' food demands require to be quantified. The qualitative stomach content data collected during commercial whaling operations in the past are not useful for understanding today's North Pacific ecosystem. We note that well-documented oceanographic regime shifts in the North Pacific (e.g., Francis et al. 1998, Hare and Mantua 2000, Chavez et al. 2003) preclude using earlier feeding studies for current purposes. Regarding concern expressed that sampling includes sei whales, an "internationally listed endangered species", a sample of up to 50 sei whales from a regional sei whale population conservatively estimated at about 9 000 (e.g., Gerber et al. 2000) is a removal well below replacement yield, and consequently does not constitute a biological conservation problem. 

Orians et al., when referring to the "transparent commercial nature" of Japan's research, cite the taking of 50 minke whales by small-type coastal whalers, rather than by the chartered large-type catcher boats used for JARPA and JARPN II sampling and sighting surveys in offshore waters. Coastal whalers, who whale only in nearshore waters (Government of Japan 1990, Kalland and Moeran 1992:104-106) are highly-skilled whalers whose expertise is not unreasonably used to collect samples required for nearshore predator-prey investigations. It is important to note that the minke whales taken by the coastal whalers are not their property to sell, gift, and exchange, as would be their customary practice, but are whales taken on a fee-for-service basis to provide research samples and by-products for the use and disposition by scientists and the responsible laboratory. 

Orians et al. seem to be very concerned about the sale of edible whale products surplus to the tissue removals needed for scientific examination. We suggest a less ideologically-driven interpretation of the sale of sample by-products is called for. First, sale of by-products is common practice in fisheries research where large numbers of commercially-valuable animals may be taken in test fisheries or during routine monitoring of stocks. For example, the International North Pacific Halibut Commission funds its field programs by sale of fish catches from survey cruises. Second, given the necessary scope and scale of the Antarctic and North Pacific whale research programs, one would be naïve to believe the edible by-products of this sampling program, for which a ready market exists, are not going to be sold to help offset the very large cost of research. Further, we fail to see the relevance of Orians et al. seeking to deny the utility of Japan's national whale research programs by comparing their large scale to an obviously significantly smaller-scale university graduate department's research activities. 

Clapham et al. draw attention to our having failed to make reference to a paper he and coauthors had submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee, and which in their view, we should have used in our evaluation of the Japanese Antarctic and North Pacific research programs. Their Bioscience article repeats substantially the same objections they earlier raised in the Scientific Committee (Clapham et al. 2002), criticisms which have been discussed by the Scientific Committee. Our paper was based on the conclusions reached by the Scientific Committee, an international group of more than 100 scientists that included Clapham and his colleagues. Clapham et al. advise readers to see their report on a U.S government website for "full details", a suggestion that fails to provide readers access to the rebuttal and discussion of their paper that occurred in the IWC committee meeting. Readers might wish to access the IWC website (www.iwcoffice.org/sciperms.htm) which provides a summary of the committee discussions, or better yet, access the full written responses to Clapham and colleagues' paper which appear in annexes to the IWC reports. We believe the charge of "egregious misrepresentation" Clapham et al. level against us is outrageous, coming from a group who are aware that there is a substantial body of scientific opinion differing from their own, yet who make no reference to the availability of these opposing conclusions. If Clapham and colleagues disagree with the IWC scientific committees' evaluations of Japan's research, then that remains an issue for them to continue bringing before the Scientific Committee. 

Holt (Bioscience 53:204-206) discounts the Japanese research program prior to the moratorium. However, it is a matter of record that Japanese participation in the IWC Scientific Committee at that time was substantial and their contribution of research papers and data was significant. Deriding Japan for providing the data that the Scientific Committee and IWC require to fulfill their responsibilities is unfair, particularly in light of the fact that some other countries were not so forthcoming. 

Holt seems to regard whale use as being necessarily unsustainable, a view we suggest is without justification in the particular circumstances we are discussing (i.e. taking whales for scientific purposes subject to IWC oversight). Holt suggests we defend the lawfulness of the Japanese research program by, he claims, ignoring that "the law of the sea does not authorize unsustainable exploitation of predators in order to enhance the catches of prey species." We fail to see where we have in any place, or by any means, defended the unsustainable use of whales. However, Holt continues with his unsustainability theme, claiming that "whale culling (i.e. the unsustainable use of whale resources) is being promoted…" We see no evidence of this in relation to the research programs under discussion, and Holt offers no such evidence that anyone today is seriously promoting "the unsustainable use of whale resources". If the IWC scientific committees, whose reports we cited, have not concluded that research samples are unsustainably large, Holt's repeated reference to this particular matter appear gratuitously misleading. 

Holt is skeptical of the claim that fish catches "have been declining, at least in part because fish and other marine living resources… are being consumed in vast quantities by whales". Others however, believe research on predator-prey interactions continue to be justified in fisheries research. Indeed, the IWC, at its 2001 meeting, unanimously adopted a resolution to make the study of interactions between whales and fisheries a priority research issue, and a similar initiative has been taken by the FAO Committee on Fisheries. Such concerns are based on a large body of scientific evidence that strongly suggests that marine mammals may impose significant regional impacts on fisheries (e.g., Kenny et al. 1995, Trites et al.1997, Hammill et al. 1997, Stenson et al. 1997, Sigurjonsson and Vikingsson 1998, Bogstad et al. 2000, Folkow et al. 2000, Nilsson et al. 2000) as well as killer whale predation on other marine mammals in the North Pacific (Estes et al. 1998).

References cited 
Aron W, Burke W, and Freeman M. 2002. Scientists versus whaling: science, advocacy, and errors of judgment. Bioscience 52:1137-1140. 
Bogstad B, Haug T and Mehl S. 2000. Who eats whom in the Barents Sea? NAMMCO Scientific Publications 2:98-119. Chavez FP, Ruan J, Lluch-Cota SE, and Niquen M. 2003. From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299:217-221. 
Clapham PJ et al. 2002. The JARPN II program: A critique. International Whaling Commission Document SC/54/026. Clapham PJ et al. 2003. Whaling as Science. Bioscience 53:210-212. 
Estes JA, Tinker MT, Williams TM, and Deak DF. 1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters linking coastal and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:437-476. 
Folkow LP, Haug T, Nilssen KT and Nordøy ES. 2000. Estimated food consumption of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata in Northeast Atlantic waters in 1992-1995. NAMMCO Scientific Publication 2:65-80. 
Francis RC, Hare SR, Hollowed AB, and Wooster WS. 1998. Effects of interdecadal climate variability on the oceanographic ecosystems on the NE Pacific. Fisheries Oceanography 7:1-21. 
Gerber LR, DeMaster DP, and Roberts SP. 2000. Measuring success in conservation. American Scientist 88:316-324. Government of Japan 1990. Distinguishing between Japanese STCW and LTCW in relation to coastal whale-fishery management. International Whaling Commission Document TC/42/SEST3. 
Hammill MO, Lydersen C, Kovacs KM, and Sjare B. 1997. Estimated fish consumption by hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 22:249-257. 
Hare ST, and Mantua NJ. 2000. Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography 47: 103-145. 
Holt SJ. 2003. The Tortuous History of "Scientific" Japanese Whaling. Bioscience 53:204-206. 
Kalland A and Moeran B. 1992. Japanese Whaling: End of an Era? London: Curzon Press. 
Kenny RD, Scott GP, Thompson TJ, and Winn HE. 1995. Estimates of prey consumption and trophic impacts of cetaceans in the US Northeast Continental Shelf ecosystem. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 22:155-171. 
Nilssen KT, Pedersen O-P, Folkow LP, and Haug T. 2000. Food consumption estimates of Barents Sea harp seals. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 2:9-27. 
Orians G et al. 2003. "Scientists versus Whaling": Whose Errors of Judgment? Bioscience 53:200-203. 
Sigurjónsson J, and Vikingsson GA. 1997. Seasopnal abundance of and estimated food consumption by cetaceans in Icelandic and adjacent waters. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 22:271-287. 
Stenson GB, Hammill MO, and Lawson JW. 1997. Predation by harp seals in Atlantic Canada: preliminary consumption estimates for Arctic cod, capelin and Atlantic cod. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 22: 137-154. 
Trites AW, Christensen V, and Pauly D. 1997. Competition between fisheries and marine mammals for prey and primary production in the Pacific Ocean. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 22:173-187.

***********************************************

Top of Page

Response by D. Goodman to Orians et al., Holt, and Clapham et al. 

(Bioscience published a letter from Dan Goodman responding to issues raised by Aron et al., Orians et al., Holt, and Clapham et al. However Goodman's letter [" Japan's Proper Whaling Research," Bioscience 53(5):448 (2003)] was considerably shortened for publication in Bioscience so with the author's permission, INWR reproduces the entire letter below).

Responses to the Aron et al.Forum article "Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment" (BioScience 52(12):1137-1140) by Clapham et al., Orians et al. and Holt (BioScience 53(3)) clearly demonstrate the political nature of the debates about whaling and whale research that involves the killing of whales. All, without substantively addressing the fundamental point made by Aron et al. that in public debate scientists have an obligation to separate their advocacy from their science, repeat criticisms of Japan's whale research made elsewhere without acknowledging that these criticisms have been responded to. While it may appear to those not directly involved in these debates that the above referenced responses are based on science, they demonstrably fail to separate science from political rhetoric and individual scientific views and opinions from the collective scientific opinion of the IWC Scientific Committee. In short, the responses from Clapham et al., Orians et al., and Holt are advocacy that mischaracterizes Japan's whale research programs - rhetoric that is decidedly unhelpful for the uninvolved reader. 

Clapham et al. criticize the Forum article because their paper presented to the Scientific Committee was not referenced, but they fail to note that the report of the Scientific Committee records that all of their criticisms of Japan's whale research were responded to and that there was no agreement in the Scientific Committee on these matters. Their criticisms remain as the views of a number of scientists opposed by a similar number of scientists with different views. Had Clapham et al. intended to present the "science" on these matters they should have referred readers to the report of the Scientific Committee which is available on the IWC's web site. 

Clapham et al. state that Japan's research program in the North Pacific "presumes, on an almost a priori basis, that whales (not humans) are primarily responsible for worldwide declines in fish stocks…." and that "JARPN II (Japan's whale research program in the North Pacific) exists to demonstrate…that whales eat too much fish and therefore should be culled by more whaling." are a mischaracterization of Japan's research program that has become a standard part of the anti-whaling rhetoric. Contrary to these statements, the overall aim of JARPN II is to improve understanding of trophic interactions in the marine ecosystem and thereby contribute to the development of an ecological management approach for the resources in the western North Pacific. While Clapham et al. claim that because the current IWC's management system does not use ecosystem management, none of the information to be gained from the research is of relevance to the IWC, they ignore the fact that the IWC unanimously adopted a resolution making the study of interactions between whales and fisheries a matter of priority. They also ignore the fact that the FAO's Committee on Fisheries and the Johannesburg Plan adopted at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development have urged the development and implementation of ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. As whales have a huge biomass in the world's oceans and as they have been shown, at least in some areas, to consume huge quantities of fish that are the target of fisheries, it remains scientifically legitimate to ask questions concerning trophic interactions and ecosystem dynamics. That is, unless of course Clapham et al. or Holt, who is guilty of the same misrepresentations, can convince us all that whales eat only turnips. 

Other statements made by Clapham et al. accusing Japan of being "obstructive", of not participating in a workshop held last year and of not providing data may appear to be "scientific" concerns -- but they are not. There is more than a little irony in the fact that these scientists criticize the research, its methods and data at the same time they seek to deny Japanese scientists the normal first right of data publication by insisting that the data be provided to them. Their statements on the need to use lethal methods are also highly misleading. For example, the statement that "Rather the issue is that lethal methods are not required to obtain information needed for population assessment." and their comment on the value of biopsy sampling misses the point that the main purpose of the research is to collect data on whale diets as input for ecological models. Similarly, their reference to "catch samples already analyzed or archived" misses the point that while such samples provide some qualitative data for some areas they do not provide the quantitative data required as input to these models. Their comment also ignores the fact that such samples were taken more than 30 years ago and were not random samples but samples taken from a directed fishery. The reference in Clapham et al. to catch levels that would be produced by the IWC Revised Management Procedure (RMP) is disingenuous at best. All of the authors know that the RMP was not developed for, and is not intended to apply to, research whaling. 

The criticisms of Japan's whale research program by Orians et al. are in a similar fashion demonstrably political advocacy rather than "scientific" in nature despite their protestations to the contrary and their claim that it is the research rather than their criticisms that is "politically corrupted". Take for example their claim that the research "results in the needless deaths of hundreds of whales each year, despite a global moratorium to which Japan is legally bound;" and their statements "…the increasingly transparent commercial nature of Japan's "scientific" whaling." and "Using the guise of science to issue so-called relief whaling quotas took the pretense of scientific whaling to a new level of overtness". On their face, these are unquestionably political statements rather than "scientific" views that provide strong support for the concerns about professional irresponsibility raised by Aron et al. 

Holt's letter seems to have little to do with the substance of the article by Aron et al. His main point is an accusation that Japan's whale research is an "abuse of scientific provisions in the ICRW" supported by a distorted description of history which omits the critical point that much of the rationale for support of the moratorium was related to the uncertainty of the science and management of whale stocks. "Scientific justification" for the research did not, as Holt claims, have to be "constructed" rather, the research was initiated in response to the "constructed" rationale for the moratorium. Further, his personal interpretation that "the ICRW provision was certainly not written with the idea that funds from product sales would constitute a major financial contribution ..." is just that, a personal interpretation. It should in no way be construed, as he attempts to do, as a legal argument in support of his view that Japan's research is an abuse of Article VIII. Holt's statement that "the SC [Scientific Committee] advised the commission that the Japanese program provided no information relevant to management of any future whaling under the RMP" is a misleading and selective quote that ignores the other comments concerning the positive value of the research results and their usefulness in RMP simulation trials. 

Holt, who has been a practitioner of anti-whaling advocacy for longer than any of the authors included in Clapham et al. and Orians et al., provides the ultimate unsubstantiated political view that Japan's contributions to international fisheries meeting are ".. unscientific non-sense being touted by the Japanese delegation at every United Nations and international meeting on the subject of future food supplies". He is entitled to his opinion but it is opinion, not fact. 

Finally, since it is clear that the science and politics related to whales and their management have become inseparable, a few comments on the context within which these discussions take place are in order. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) which was adopted in 1946 and which established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has as its objective to provide for the conservation of whales for the benefit of the whaling industry and its consumers (see final paragraph of the preamble to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946). Notwithstanding this, the now institutionalized discourse within the IWC reflects a strong difference of views concerning the purpose of the ICRW between members wishing to sustainably utilize abundant species of whales for food and those wishing to protect all whales irrespective of their population status and irrespective of their legal obligations as signatories to an international treaty. As a former U.S. IWC Commissioner describes it, "As an example of good faith international negotiations, the IWC is mostly a disaster."(Knauss 2001). In short, rather than adopting regulations to ensure that whaling is sustainable, regulations adopted since 1982, namely the moratorium on commercial whaling and the sanctuary in the Antarctic, are counter to the purpose of the ICRW and without scientific foundation. Excessive moral passion, the misinformation of certain NGOs and Governments that have taken a politically expedient position because they no longer have a whaling constituency, have made the IWC essentially dysfunctional. These factors have also "had serious negative impacts on the scientific debates within the IWC where science has often been manipulated and rendered irrelevant because alleged scientific concern has been used as a surrogate rationale for protectionist views" (Butterworth 1992).

References cited 
Butterworth DS. 1992. Science and sentimentality. Nature. Vol. 357: 532-534. 
Knauss JA. 2001. Forward. Pages vii-viii in Friedheim RL, ed. Toward a Sustainable Whaling Regime. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Edmonton (Canada): CCI Press.

***********************************************

 

Top of Page