TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Discussion
Are ethical and moral ‘values’ relevant to the assessment of the science carried out under the auspices of
the International Whaling Commission? I argue that they are: a progressive viewpoint on animal care
requirements in science, already adopted by many members of the convention, could appropriately be
applied to the scientific work of that convention. Some of the components of an ethical review are
already routinely covered within discussions in the Scientific Committee. Additionally, the Commission
itself has stated that: “non-lethal techniques available today will usually provide better data at less cost to
both animals and budget” (IWC 2003a).
Therefore, I propose that it is both appropriate, and important, to establish an ethical review process
under the auspices of the IWC, and to review the large-scale lethal whaling programmes currently being
conducted in the name of science. Scientists already operating under such legislative controls in their
own countries should see no conflict in incorporating such requirements into the review of scientific
permits for whaling.
Without an ethical review, even if valid science is conducted during scientific permit whaling, there is a
danger that it will not be acceptable for publication in international journals. This would prevent the
dissemination of the gathered information and effectively render any valid science that may be
conducted useless due to its inaccessibility
Ultimately, the scientific merit of a proposal is a fundamental consideration for any ethical review
process. It has been suggested that a badly designed research programme, whether peer reviewed or not,
is inherently unethical (Jennings et al. 1998). Given that whaling programmes have received sustained
criticism of their scientific validity from peers, and contain no consideration of animal welfare at all, it
seems appropriate that they must be deemed ethically unacceptable.
References
Anon (2003) Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim. Behav. 65, 249-
255.
ANZCCART (2003) Information about Replacement, Refinement and Reduction – The Three Rs.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/front/three_rs.htm
Bradshaw, R.H. (2002) The ethical review process in the UK and Australia: the Australian experience of improved
dialogue and communication. An. Welf. 11, 141-156.
Gillespie, A. (2000) Whaling under a scientific auspice: the ethics of scientific research whaling operations. J. Int.
Wildl. Law & Policy, 3, 1-49.
Home Office (2000) Appendix J: The ethical review process. Pp. 99-100. In: Guidance on the operation of the
animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. HC 321. TSO, London.
IWC (1999a) Resolution on whaling under special permit. 1998-4. In: Report of the International Whaling
Commission, Appendix 5.
IWC (1999b) Chairman’s Report of the 51st Annual Meeting. 14.2, p.28.
IWC (1999c) Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cet Res Manage (Suppl.) 1, 45-46.
IWC (2000) Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cet Res Manage (Suppl.) 2, 54-56.
ETHICS AND WHALING UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT
109