Liz Slooten: Scientific ploy a poor excuse

Opinion

Scientific whaling. As a marine biologist, I find this term to be spin at its ugliest. I cannot see how whaling, dressed up as science, can have even a semblance of credibility.

Accepted scientific practice is something that has been developed over many decades. It is based on sound scientific design which is scrutinised by experts in the field before being put into practice.

Good science is all about accurate, carefully controlled gathering of data, detailed analysis, robust scientific discussion, peer review, then publication.

When I look at Japan's so-called scientific whaling programme I see few and sometimes none of these elements, and certainly nothing that would withstand proper scientific review.

Every step of the way these research proposals fail to stand up to accepted scientific scrutiny.

The research questions proposed are poorly defined, have no direct relevance to the management of whaling, and often lack any hypothesis able to be tested.

For example, Japan's scientific whaling programme in the North Pacific was described as a feasibility study, even though it did not include performance measures to assess its success or failure. And you can add to that a poor sampling design, a lack of sensitivity analyses, and selective or inappropriate use of data or methods to estimate whale numbers.

If undergraduates put forward such deeply flawed research proposals they would be failed.

Japan has killed more than 6800 minke whales as part of its so-called scientific programme and wants to take even more.

Of great concern is an unrealistic assessment of the likely impact of scientific catches on whale population levels. These are formulated despite the lack of adequate assessments in some areas and in the face of evidence which points to depleted populations in other areas.

There also seems to be an assumption that whales, not people, are primarily responsible for declining fish stocks, ignoring the inherent complexity of the marine ecosystem.

Members of the International Whaling Commission's own scientific committee concluded that scientific whaling exists to demonstrate that "whales eat too much fish and therefore should be culled by more whaling".

The Japanese refuse to allow independent analysis of the data they claim to have gathered, and much of what they have bothered to publish has not been put through the sort of peer review or scrutiny expected of legitimate research.

Japan refuses to take part in International Whaling Commission workshops to explore alternative approaches to developing ecosystem models that include whale populations. Non-lethal techniques - such as photographic identification, visual and acoustic surveys and analysing genetic material from biopsy or skin scrapings - can often provide better data on population structure and at a lower cost.

Despite all this Japan has been seeking approval for its proposed second phase of special permit whaling which will more than double the annual catch of minke whales, and include fin and humpback whales.

Targeting fin and humpback whales is of particular concern. Between 1904 and 1973, about 720,000 fin whales and 200,000 humpbacks were killed, and not enough is known today about the level of their populations.

Not surprisingly the 120-member International Whaling Commission scientific committee won't officially comment on Japan's proposals - a strong protest at the fact that Japan's existing programme has still not been subject to any credible peer review.

Unfortunately, it can only be a protest. If it were a proposal for commercial whaling it would have to be cleared by the scientific committee, but because it is a proposal for "scientific whaling" the commission's rules mean Japan can do as it likes - and it probably will.

* Dr Liz Slooten, a senior lecturer in zoology at the University of Otago, has represented New Zealand on the IWC scientific committee since 1992.