Relevance of ethical review to whaling conducted under the auspices ofscienceWhaling for scientific purposes is permitted under Article VIII of the International Convention for theRegulation of Whaling (see chapter 6). Any proposal for lethal scientific research on whales (‘scientificwhaling’) must be submitted to the Scientific Committee of the IWC for review. This Committeeconsists of scientists from contracting governments to the IWC, <strong>and</strong> invited scientists from othernations, with the necessary expertise to assess the validity of research projects.A requirement of the review is that “an evaluation of the likelihood that the methodology will lead toachievement of the scientific objectives” is carried out (as per requirements laid out in the Report of theInternational Whaling Commission 36, 133). Any contracting government can submit such a proposal.Scientific reviews of proposals are carried out by the Scientific Committee, <strong>and</strong> involve lengthy review<strong>and</strong> comment upon the initial proposals, interim results of long-term projects, <strong>and</strong> analyses of thevalidity of results from finished projects. However, at no point is an ethical review of the proposalconducted, although the IWC has acknowledged the validity of an ethical review process. In 1998 aresolution was passed requesting that the Secretariat of the IWC conduct a comprehensive review ofethical considerations applied in other international scientific organisations (IWC 1999a). TheSecretariat’s review led to the general conclusion that existing international ethical guidelines stress thatresearch should aim to cause “the minimum of stress <strong>and</strong> distress, suffering <strong>and</strong> pain, <strong>and</strong> at the sametime considering if the research results can be achieved using fewer animals or by other (non-lethal) means”(IWC 1999b).ETHICS AND WHALING UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT107Were an ethical review to be carried out on Japan’s <strong>and</strong> Icel<strong>and</strong>’s whaling proposals, a number of issuesof relevance would emerge (see Table 2). Concerns have regularly been raised by some members of theScientific Committee as to the likelihood of the lethal research proposals actually achieving their aims.Some scientists in the Scientific Committee have criticised Japan’s research programmes, stimulatingrepeated debate on the scientific validity of the studies (IWC 1999c, IWC 2000, IWC 2001, IWC2003b).In 2003, Icel<strong>and</strong> presented its first proposal for scientific permit whaling in 14 years <strong>and</strong> various viewswere expressed, including the statement that “this proposal is inadequate especially in its description ofsample sizes” <strong>and</strong> “concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of the sampling scheme to meet theintended objectives” (IWC 2003c, p.48-49). In fact, Icel<strong>and</strong>ic scientists acknowledged that the samplesizes in their proposal for lethal research may not be adequate to resolve all of the objectives of theproject (IWC 2003c, Annex Q, p.11).When doubt is so clearly cast upon the validity of a scientific proposal <strong>and</strong> its ability to achieve its aims,then the lethal take of any animals is likely to be judged as unethical. Additionally, if the specifiednumber of animals to be used will not achieve a conclusive result, then the research proposal must beseen as flawed. An ethical approval permit would not be issued for this work in other areas of animalresearch.A number of non-lethal methods are regularly used to address questions similar or identical to thoseproposed in the permit whaling programmes. Non-lethal biopsy sampling is widely used to collect smallplugs of tissue from live cetaceans. A technique for ‘scrubbing’ a cetacean’s skin is also used to collect
skin samples, without the need for any more invasive procedure. These techniques enable rapid <strong>and</strong>comprehensive collection of samples without killing the animals <strong>and</strong> call into question the justificationfor killing whales to assess population genetics.Techniques now exist to collect faeces from a whale as it swims, using a net to scoop up the sample nearthe water surface <strong>and</strong> to carry out DNA amplification to analyse the species composition within thesamples <strong>and</strong> hence in the diet (Jarman et al 2003). This technique is very valuable as it enables repeatedsampling of the same individual <strong>and</strong> construction of dietary profiles over time. Such techniques bear nowelfare cost to the animals being studied.The method of euthanasia is a critical consideration during ethical review. In the case of scientificpermit whaling, the killing method is the same as that applied to the commercial slaughter of whales:explosive harpooning on the open seas. A review of current killing efficiencies (see chapter 6) revealsthat the scientific permit whaling conducted by Japan is actually less efficient than commercial whaling.Because the method of euthanasia (harpooning) in special permit whaling immediately kills less thanhalf of whales after first being struck (see chapter 6) it is likely that this method would be consideredethically unacceptable by the ethical review process in other areas of animal research.Table 2. Comparison of the 3Rs with current practice of Whalingunder Scientific Permit108A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIESReplacementKilling whales to determinestock structureKilling whales todetermine dietKilling whales to determinepollutant levelsReductionRefinementNon-lethal biopsy sampling is widely used to collect tissuefor genetic analysis. Such sampling techniques are more effectivethan killing the animals.Techniques now exist to sample whale faeces <strong>and</strong> constructdiet from the DNA profiles provided.Pollutants research can be carried out using biopsy sampling,using samples from str<strong>and</strong>ed cetaceans <strong>and</strong> by analysingincidental catches.The scientific validity of the number of whales killed has beenrepeatedly questioned in the Scientific Committee of the IWC.Current killing methods are deemed to be inadequate byvirtue of the time taken for the whales to die (chapter 5.1).
- Page 5 and 6:
ForewordWhales are highly evolved a
- Page 7:
1 Executive SummaryThis review exam
- Page 11 and 12:
2 A background to whalingPhilippa B
- Page 13 and 14:
y the weapon’s enormous recoil, w
- Page 15 and 16:
Japan currently whales in the Antar
- Page 17 and 18:
Otto, K. 1997. Animal Pain Behaviou
- Page 19 and 20:
Protecting the welfare of animals i
- Page 21 and 22:
Toothed whales (Odontoceti)Toothed
- Page 23 and 24:
Social behaviourMother-calf pairsOn
- Page 25 and 26:
to store and pass on information to
- Page 27 and 28:
Communication in great whalesThe mo
- Page 29:
Self-awarenessOne of the most compe
- Page 32 and 33:
J.G.M. Thewissen), pp. 158-162. Aca
- Page 34 and 35:
Whitehead, H., Waters, S. and Lyrho
- Page 36 and 37:
humanitarian purposes the time take
- Page 38 and 39:
Welfare and the modern IWCFrom 1980
- Page 40 and 41:
1996 UK proposes guidelines for col
- Page 42 and 43:
Section TwoWhale killing6 Commercia
- Page 44 and 45:
Table 1 Commercial, special permit
- Page 46 and 47:
It can be argued that the figures f
- Page 48 and 49:
Since struck and lost whales can in
- Page 50 and 51:
equipment to Russian subsistence wh
- Page 52 and 53:
This is the time from the throwing
- Page 54 and 55:
Table 3 Aboriginal Subsistence Whal
- Page 56 and 57:
International Aid For Korean Animal
- Page 58 and 59:
29 In Resolution 1999-1, the IWC no
- Page 60 and 61:
For example, Greenland and the Faro
- Page 62 and 63: the past they made an important con
- Page 64 and 65: however, has been made on the exten
- Page 66 and 67: hunt indicate that the whales are s
- Page 68 and 69: 8 Weather, sea condition and shipmo
- Page 70 and 71: chance of fog decreases from 15 to
- Page 72 and 73: experienced in December, or y could
- Page 74: 9 The potential stress effects ofwh
- Page 77 and 78: Both chase and pursuit cause stress
- Page 79 and 80: and manifest in a series of lethal
- Page 81 and 82: Ridgeway, S. H. (1966). Dall porpoi
- Page 83 and 84: 10 Euthanasia of cetaceansPhilippa
- Page 85 and 86: for the task. The correct target ar
- Page 87 and 88: whales the size of minke whales (Ø
- Page 89 and 90: 11 Review of criteria for determini
- Page 91 and 92: It is apparent from Figure 1, that,
- Page 93 and 94: interpreted criteria, comparisons o
- Page 95 and 96: 90A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATI
- Page 97 and 98: 12 A comparison betweenslaughterhou
- Page 99 and 100: include levels of premature mortali
- Page 101 and 102: the emphasis during some whaling op
- Page 103 and 104: affect an immediate and thereby law
- Page 105 and 106: Table 1 Animal welfare and the Sche
- Page 107 and 108: CIWF Trust, 2002. Farm Assurance Sc
- Page 109 and 110: 13 Ethics and whaling under special
- Page 111: Table 1. Consideration of the 3Rs i
- Page 115 and 116: IWC (2001) Report of the Scientific
- Page 117 and 118: Whales and the lawCetaceans (and wh
- Page 119 and 120: scientific and technical committees
- Page 121 and 122: ASCOBANS came into force in 1994. F
- Page 123 and 124: The Treaty of the Panama Canal, ena
- Page 125 and 126: 2 As a result, their need for prote
- Page 127 and 128: law says, but also the extent to wh
- Page 129 and 130: 15 Whaling and welfarePhilippa Brak
- Page 131 and 132: commercial whaling. Times to death
- Page 133 and 134: eath). Using the current criteria t
- Page 135 and 136: possibility of establishing a simil
- Page 137 and 138: international customary law and exi
- Page 139 and 140: 16 Summary of conclusionsModern day
- Page 141 and 142: Glossary136A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE
- Page 143 and 144: 138A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
- Page 145 and 146: Appendix IIColour plates©Mark Voti
- Page 147 and 148: 142A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
- Page 149 and 150: Figure 13. Processing minke whales