No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The scientific value of scientific whaling
Abstract
Scientific whaling has polarized opinion for decades, and its scientific value has been intensely debated. Here, the output of scientific whaling programs is examined by comparing it to the scientific output pertaining to whales of countries that do not practice scientific whaling. Between 1986 and 2013, whaling and non-whaling countries produced, on average, similar total numbers of publications that were directly relevant to the goals of the scientific whaling permits issued by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), and similar numbers of papers that were relevant to whale ecology and conservation but not directly related to IWC goals. Half of the scientific productivity of scientific whaling countries resulted from non-lethal data collection. One-third of publications by whaling countries were published in peer-reviewed outlets, compared to twice as many for non-whaling countries. Publications by whaling countries were cited ~4 times less often than those of non-whaling countries, with no evidence of citation discrimination against whaling countries since the citation rates of papers that did and did not use lethal sampling were similar. These academic criteria suggest that although the overall volume of science produced by scientific whaling countries is similar to that of non-whaling countries, the quality of the science is not. Arguably, academic criteria are not the best way to assess the usefulness of science for management and conservation, but demonstrating links between the science produced by scientific whaling, its integration in management plans and actions, and shifts towards sustainable exploitation or recovery of whale populations is challenging.
Although Norwegian and Japanese fishermen killed almost identical numbers of whales in the last two decades, they were subject to a largely uneven attention from the international community. While Japan was significantly shamed by all actors, the attention on Norwegian whalers was much smaller. Why is that? The article first conceptualizes the gaps in contemporary shaming literature and shows that whereas lots has been written on why and how states shame, much less has been written about why some actors are shamed more and some less. To remedy that, it then adopts post-structural theoretical position and the methodology of discourse analysis to deconstruct anti-whaling campaigns against Japan and Norway. The analysis shows that whereas Japanese culture was often depicted as cruel and barbarous, and its science as faulty and illegitimate, Norway was largely spared of this discourse. I argue that this difference can be ascribed to differing identities between the Euro-American anti-whaling camp and Japan.
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field [1],[2], and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research [3], and some health care journals are moving in this direction [4]. As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies [5]. In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [6] evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement [7].
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [8]. In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1: Conceptual Issues in the Evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
Completing a Systematic Review Is an Iterative Process
The conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on the scope and quality of included studies: thus systematic reviewers may need to modify their original review protocol during its conduct. Any systematic review reporting guideline should recommend that such changes can be reported and explained without suggesting that they are inappropriate. The PRISMA Statement (Items 5, 11, 16, and 23) acknowledges this iterative process. Aside from Cochrane reviews, all of which should have a protocol, only about 10% of systematic reviewers report working from a protocol [22]. Without a protocol that is publicly accessible, it is difficult to judge between appropriate and inappropriate modifications.
Scientific whaling is one of the most publicly contentious applications of marine ecological research today. An evaluation of the second phase of Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) program in the western North Pacific (JARPN II) is soon to be conducted under the auspices of the Scientific Committee (SC) of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Previous IWC SC reviews identified serious problems with the programs, yet reached inconsequential conclusions, and the JARPN II review is the first under a new format. The basic design of this study-forestomach sampling coupled with acoustic and trawl surveys for prey-is an unsophisticated approach to investigating the foraging ecology of Balaenoptera spp. Published results of the JARPN II feasibility study demonstrate problems with the execution of field work. Data analyses were simplistic. Nonlethal studies into the foraging ecology of Balaenoptera spp., using far fewer resources, have produced more definitive information. The recent changes in the IWC SC review process should result in unambiguous advice on how to improve the design of JARPN II. If the review recommends improvements that are not acted upon by the program's proponents, the IWC may need to decide whether the JARPN II program can be considered to be scientific research under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
Torrissen, O., Glover, K. A., Haug, T., Misund, O. A., Skaug, H. J., and Kaiser, M. 2012. Good ethics or political and cultural censoring in science? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 493–497.
Peer-reviewed journals are the cornerstones to communicating scientific results. They play a crucial role in quality assurance through the review process, but they also create opportunities for discussions in the scientific community on the implications of the results or validation of methods and data. This requires that journals adhere to commonly accepted scientific standards and are open about their editorial policy. Norwegian scientists experience problems in getting research on minke whales accepted for publication where the data have been collected in association with commercial whaling. The journal Biology Letters refuses to publish papers based on data from the Norwegian whale register while publically claiming a sole focus on scientific quality. Although there are good arguments for claiming that clearly unethical research should not be rewarded with scientific publications, one also has to realize that some fields of research are beset with unresolved ethical and cultural debates. In these cases, it is to the benefit of the progress of science, and indeed society, to be open about the issues and support arguments through scientific studies. Political or cultural censoring of scientific information will in any case jeopardize the role of journals in quality assurance of scientific research and undermine the credibility of science as a supplier of objective and reliable knowledge.
It appears to be a challenge for some scientists to exercise the same skepticism and rigor they employ in their own area of expertise to questions of science that fall outside their specialty. Although this may not be 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 judgement 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 con- sequences 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 environ mental 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 decision-making 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).
In an open letter published last year in the New York Times, 21 distinguished scientists (including three Nobel laureates) criticized Japan's program of scientific research whaling, noting its poor design and unjustified reliance upon lethal sampling. In a recent Forum article in BioScience, Aron, Burke, and Freeman (2002) castigate the letter's signers and accuse them of meddling in political issues without sufficient knowledge of the science involved in those issues.
Eighteen years after initiating scientific whaling in Antarctic waters, Japan presented a new and more ambitious program to the International Whaling Commission (IWC); the proposal was made in early June during the IWC’s annual meeting in Ulsan, Korea. Japan now wishes to more than double its annual catch of Antarctic minke whales (from about 440 to 935), and to expand lethal sampling to include an additional yearly take of 50 humpback and 50 fin whales. Unlike catches for commercial whaling, scientific catches are unregulated. Since 1987, Japan has taken some 6,800 minke whales from Antarctic waters, despite ongoing criticism of the relevance and direction of Japan’s research. The IWC was set up to regulate commercial whaling and to conserve whale populations, under the authority of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Following a well-documented failure of management that led to the collapse of most global whale populations, the IWC set a zero quota for commercial whaling (the moratorium). This was made effective from 1986. Norway, the former Soviet Union and Japan initially objected to the moratorium, but Japan withdrew its objection and ceased commercial whaling in 1988.
Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.
When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new `disease', female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited—not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times). `But,' the news editor wanted to know, `was this paper peer reviewed?'. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not. Well, had it been? I had read it much more carefully than I read many papers and had asked the author, who happened to be a journalist, to revise the paper and produce more evidence. But this was not peer review, even though I was a peer of the author and had reviewed the paper. Or was it? (I told my friend that it had not been peer reviewed, but it was too late to pull the story from the front page.)
Full list of co-signatories to a Correspondence published inhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7586/extref/529283a-s1.pdf
The International Whaling Commission (1WC) has a zero quota for commercial whaling, creating a moratorium that has remained in place since the 1985/6 season. Despite the moratorium, Japan has continued to issue permits to whale for scientific purposes. The recent order for preliminary measures of protection by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case and the findings of the WTO Appellate Body in the Shrimp case have prompted questions over whether Japan has abused its sovereign right to issue scientific permits to whale, and whether it is meeting its treaty obligations in good faith. The article concludes with a finding that an abuse of right to conduct scientific whaling will depend upon the evidence regarding the primary purposes of the right, the significance of the research and the scale of any commercial activities.
In March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that a Japanese whaling program in the Antarctic, ostensibly for scientific purposes, was not sufficiently research-oriented and thus was illegal ( 1 ). The ICJ's critical assessment represents the first time that scientific whaling has been reviewed by an authoritative body outside the International Whaling Commission (IWC). With Japan considering a replacement program, and the IWC meeting later this month, we discuss minimum realistic actions the IWC should take in response to the ICJ judgment. More broadly, we believe the approach used by the ICJ in reaching its judgment provides a precedent for how arbitrators might assess scientific principles when resolving complex technical disputes.
This paper argues that evaluations of basic research are best carried out using a range of indicators. After setting out the reasons why assessments of government-funded basic research are increasingly needed, we examine the multi-dimensional nature of basic research. This is followed by a conceptual analysis of what the different indicators of basic research actually measure. Having discussed the limitations of various indicators, we describe the method of converging partial indicators used in several SPRU evaluations. Yet although most of those who now use science indicators would agree that a combination of indicators is desirable, analysis of a sample ofScientometrics articles suggests that in practice many continue to use just one or two indicators. The paper also reports the results of a survey of academic researchers. They, too, are strongly in favour of research evaluations being based on multiple indicators combined with peer review. The paper ends with a discussion as to why multiple indicators are not used more frequently.
Commercial whaling by Japan, the Soviet Union and Iceland has been widely condemned. But until scientific studies of whale populations are carried out, an informed decision about commercial whaling cannot be made.
What different countries get for their research spending.
I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.
• citations
• impact
• unbiased
- Y Fukui
- H Ishikawa
- S Ohsumi
Y. Fukui, H. Ishikawa, S. Ohsumi, Difficulties in publishing research results from
scientific whaling, Mar. Mamm. Sci. 21 (2005) 781-783.