<![CDATA[
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#003366" link="#003399" vlink="#006699" alink="#00CCFF">
<p align="center">1ST BIENNIAL WORKSHOP<br>
ON<br>
ETHICS IN<br>
MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH</p>
<p align="center"><br>
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA<br>
DECEMBER 14, 2003</p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"><br>
CONVENED BY:</p>
<p align="center">CHARLES LITTNAN<br>
NOAA FISHERIES</p>
<p align="center">TIM RAGEN<br>
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION</p>
<p align="center"><br>
<br>
PROGRAM</p>
<p><br>
Time, Topic and Speaker<br>
<br>
9:00<br>
Introduction: Including Results from an ethics survey conducted at SMM Conf.
2001 Charles Littnan/Tim Ragen<br>
9:20<br>
Minding Animals: Ethics and Human Intrusions Marc Bekoff<br>
10:10<br>
The ethics of research and enhancement permits Steve Leathery<br>
10:30<br>
Break <br>
10:40<br>
Ethics and environmental impacts of research involving marine mammals: some
brief (and biased) thoughts.<br>
Peter Corkeron<br>
11:00<br>
Tagging Marine Mammals: Ethics and Field Research<br>
Dave Johnston/Andy Read<br>
11:20 Evaluating the effects of field research handling on study subjects: Hawaiian
monk seal case study<br>
Jason Baker<br>
11:40<br>
Ethics in Captive Marine Mammal Research<br>
Pam Tuomi <br>
12:00<br>
Lunch <br>
1:00<br>
Professional ethics in marine mammal research<br>
Ian Boyd<br>
1:20<br>
The ethics of scientific whaling: what are the alternatives?<br>
C. Scott Baker/Phil Clapham<br>
1:40<br>
Recognizing the Ethical Dimensions of Marine Mammal Science<br>
David Lavigne/Tim Ragen<br>
2:00 Afternoon Break <br>
2:20<br>
General Discussion and Summary Session: Outputs <br>
</p>
<p>ABSTRACTS</p>
<p>MINDING ANIMALS: ETHICS AND HUMAN INSTRUSION</p>
<p>Marc Bekoff<br>
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder marc.bekoff@colorado.edu</p>
<p>In this talk I'll discuss some 'big questions' concerning the ethics of human
animal and non-human animal interactions. Among the areas I'll<br>
consider are the differences between animal welfare and animal rights, different
'levels' of concern (individuals, populations, species,<br>
ecosystems), how different forms of intrusion influence animals and may even
interfere in finding reliable answers to the very questions in<br>
which we're interested, how to minimize our impact, should we be doing what
we're doing, and why we must care about how we influence the lives of<br>
other animals with whom we share our planet.</p>
<p></p>
<p>THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH AND ENHANCEMENT PERMITS</p>
<p>Steve Leathery<br>
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources.
NOAA Fisheries<br>
Steve.leathery@noaa.gov</p>
<p>In the U.S. scientific research and enhancement permits are an exception<br>
to a moratorium on human activities that have the potential to disturb, injure,
or kill marine mammals. Thus, activities conducted under such permits should
not only conform to accepted professional standards for sound scientific methods,
they must also be consistent with the purposes and policies of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) and, where applicable, the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Under the MMPA, there is an explicit imperative to ensure that human activities
not be allowed to diminish marine mammal species and populations beyond the
point at which they cease to be a significant functioning element of their ecosystem.
The ESA further directs federal agencies to actively seek to conserve listed
species and utilize their authority in the conservation of the ecosystems upon
which listed species depend. The MMPA, ESA, and their implementing regulations
further constrain the circumstances under which an exception to the moratorium
can be granted. In addition to being bona fide science, activities conducted
under a research or enhancement permit must be humane and should not present
any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals. Research
should not, by itself, or in conjunction with other activities, have a significant
adverse effect on marine mammals. For enhancement activities, the results should
directly benefit the species. It is, therefore, incumbent upon permit applicants
to justify why they should be granted an exception to the moratoriums, and,
in the case of ESA-listed species, why their research cannot be accomplished
with non-ESA listed species. It is also essential that permit applicants ensure
that their research will not be unnecessarily duplicative or result in unnecessary
stress, pain, suffering or other adverse effects.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>ETHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RESEARCH INVOLVING MARINE MAMMALS: SOME
BRIEF (AND BIASED) THOUGHTS.</p>
<p>Peter Corkeron<br>
Institute of Marine Research, Tromso, Norway<br>
peter.corkeron@imr.no</p>
<p> Minimizing the impact of our research on target and non-target species may
seem like a self-evident goal for most researchers. However, we all manage a
trade-off between environmental impact and the conceptual power of a project
to answer questions of interest. When we design research projects, questions
such as "What field technique do I use?" or "What is my project
design?" are influenced by the scientific and national culture in which
we live. From my contrasting experiences in Australia and Norway, I shall explore
two ethical ramifications of this. </p>
<p>The first considers the role of scientific culture in study design. Obsessional
falsificationism can lead to asking small questions that can be answered well,
rather than asking the questions that need answering. But ignoring the design
component of field projects can lead to research that, before it starts, is
doomed to failure. If our research is supported in order to answer applied questions,
we have an ethical obligation to find a balance between these polar opposites.
</p>
<p>The second considers the relationship between politics, funding and ethics.
Political imperatives often dictate the general questions that applied ecological
research must address. However, sometimes politics dictate field techniques,
with direct consequences for the environmental impacts of research, and the
likelihood that the research can actually answer the question that it is supposed
to address. Scientists may acquiesce to political imperatives at the expense
of scientific quality in order to ensure funding, or may have little choice
other than to obey those who control the purse strings. What are the ethical
implications of this? What happens when a feedback loop develops between the
politics of funding and the scientific culture of study design?</p>
<p></p>
<p>TAGGING MARINE MAMMALS: ETHICS AND FIELD RESEARCH</p>
<p>Dave Johnston and Andrew J. Read<br>
Duke University Marine Laboratory Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth
Sciences135 Duke University Marine Lab Road Beaufort NC 28516<br>
davej@duke.edu</p>
<p><br>
The use of radio and satellite-linked transmitters, data loggers, passive identification
transponders and other physical markers (often referred to collectively as tags)
has allowed scientists to better understand the roles of marine mammals in their
ecosystems and, in some cases, to inform management decisions. Nevertheless,
many telemetry and marking methods raise ethical questions regarding animal
use and scientific integrity. For example:</p>
<p>Is the behaviour of marked animals modified such that data collected through
these means is representative of unmarked counterparts? When does this matter?
How do we tell?</p>
<p>Do these methods have the potential to harm individual animals or adversely
affect populations? What guides our decisions on whether or not to use these
methods in such situations? </p>
<p>To date, there has been very little discourse on the ethical issues associated
with tagging marine mammals. In the present paper, we discuss potential reasons
why marine mammal researchers generally avoid such discourse and argue that
it is increasingly important that the ethical issues associated with such research
be identified and, where possible, resolved. </p>
<p>We illustrate that tagging, as a collective method, has grown in popularity
and is becoming accessible to more marine mammal biologists. Finally, we describe
some basic ethical considerations for tagging methods and conclude with the
recommendation that appropriate professional societies adopt guidelines for
the ethical treatment of marine mammals in all forms of field research</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF FIELD RESEARCH HANDLING ON STUDY SUBJECTS: HAWAIIAN
MONK SEAL CASE STUDY</p>
<p>Jason Baker<br>
Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program<br>
Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries<br>
jason.baker@noaa.gov</p>
<p>A familiar dilemma in conducting wildlife research is that invasive methods
are often required to obtain important data, yet handling may<br>
negatively affect individual research animals and potentially alter the very
parameters of interest. This raises a variety of questions for<br>
researchers to consider. What, if any, are the impacts of research handling
on individual study subjects and the populations to which they<br>
belong? Do the benefits of the research justify those costs? Do handling or
research protocols affect behavior or other parameters of interest to<br>
the extent that the study subjects no longer represent the population of interest?
I will present the approach taken thus far to address these<br>
questions with regard to research activities undertaken to promote recovery
of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>ETHICS IN CAPTIVE MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH</p>
<p>Pam Tuomi<br>
Alaska SeaLife Center, Alaska<br>
Pam.tuomi@alaskasealife.org</p>
<p><br>
Captive research incorporates the added dimension of husbandry into an already
complex ethical matrix. Careful consideration must be given to obtaining, feeding,
housing, training and collecting data from the animals we need to answer the
various questions we are asking. Animal care and project planning are closely
controlled by outside mandates such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the Animal Welfare Act but how we function within and beyond these guidelines
defines our ability to maintain healthy animals and obtain the highest possible
quality of information from them. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH</p>
<p>Ian L. Boyd<br>
NERC Sea Mammal Research Unit, Gatty Marine Laboratory, University of St Andrews,
St Andrews KY16 OBP, UK<br>
ilb@st-andrews.ac.uk</p>
<p>All research must be done within an ethical framework. Those who work with
animals have to include some additional ethical considerations in this framework.
The principle at the centre of this framework is that the benefits of the research
must outweigh the costs. However, it is often difficult to undertake a proper
cost-benefit analysis because both costs and benefits may not be tangible at
the time of the assessment. Potential costs are often easier to rationalize
than potential benefits and there is a danger that an excessively precautionary
approach to research could prevent progress. Where animal-based studies are
concerned, costs include the severity of the procedure being undertaken or that
the procedure could endanger already threatened populations. Rather than relying
on cost-benefit analyses alone, pursuance of the principles of the "3 R's"
(Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) should be a central plank of best practice.
Best practice also includes ensuring that the information collected as a result
of experimental procedures on animals is published and that data are made available
to the widest possible community. An ethical framework must include rules about
data access because it is unethical for individual scientists to reduce the
potential benefits from research by restricting (either intentionally or unintentionally)
access to data. Marine mammal researchers will need to move quickly to a new
understanding that includes community ownership of the data they gather. This
raises the issue of ensuring that credit is given where credit is due because
protectionism towards data comes from insecurity felt by individual researchers.
It also raises the issues of what is intellectual property and how can we ensure
best ethical practice without infringing the legitimate rights of individuals
(and their employers) to a just reward for their contribution. Respect for these
rights is an element within the ethical framework of research that is as important
as respect for the rights of the animals being studied. I suggest that progress
can only be made if both problems are tackled simultaneously. We have powerful
legislation that protects the rights of animals. New legislation in Europe is
placing an obligation on individual researchers to provide access to their data.
We need to balance this with protection for the rights of the researcher. I
propose a system for licensing access to data that protects the rights of individual
researchers but, at the same time, allows them to fulfill their obligations
to maximize the benefits from their research.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>RECOGNIZING THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE</p>
<p><br>
David M. Lavigne1 & Timothy Ragen2 <br>
1Senior Science Advisor, International Fund for Animal Welfare, 1474 Gordon
Street, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1L 1C8 (dlavigne@ifaw.org).<br>
2Scientific Program Director, U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West
Highway, Room 905 <br>
Bethesda, MD 20814 USA (tragen@mmc.gov).</p>
<p><br>
According to a traditional view, still widely held in some circles, scientists
are objective and unbiased, natural resources policies should be based on "sound
science," and "management of wild living resources" has evolved
from an "art" into a "science." In this worldview, science
and ethics are poles apart: science is what physicists, chemists, geologists,
and biologists do in their respective laboratories; ethics is what philosophers
do. A competing view - and the one we hold to be self-evident - is that every
human - scientists included - is an emotional being, complete with a set of
values and built-in biases. In this latter worldview, science and ethics interact.
While such contrasting views have been debated for ages, the discussion of science
and ethics at meetings of marine mammal scientists is a relatively recent phenomenon.
To date, that discussion has focused on specific topics such as the handling
of animals in the field (including the application of tags, protocols for dealing
with stranded animals, guidelines for whale-watching, etc.), and the care of
captive animals both in research facilities and in public aquaria. In addition,
we suggest that there are some broader issues to consider. An examination of
the Society for Marine Mammalogy's website and journal reveals, for example,
that it has adopted - without much public debate or acknowledgement that we
are aware of - a particular set of ethical values that extend beyond the realm
of science (following Kellert's scheme: from scientistic and ecologistic values
to utilitarian, and dominionistic), largely to the exclusion of other values
that are prevalent in modern society (e.g. humanisitic, aesthetic, symbolic,
and negativisitic values). Similarly, the Society appears to have adopted (or
accepted) a subset of the various objectives (following a classification scheme
developed by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) that
society collectively holds for marine mammals. These include some "socioeconomically
oriented objectives" (e.g. scientific uses, providing commodity yields,
ecotourism, etc), a suite of "ecologically oriented objectives" related
to the maintenance of biodiversity, and some "ethically oriented objectives,"
such as enhancing the survival chances of species at risk. We suggest that such
fundamental ethical positions almost certainly influence the direction of scientific
research and, if we are not vigilant, bias the interpretation of research results.
They may also bias the advice scientists provide to policy makers and managers
while, at the same time, constrain the discussion of specific ethical issues,
such as those mentioned earlier.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC WHALING: WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?</p>
<p>C. Scott Baker1 and Phillip J. Clapham2</p>
<p>1School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Private<br>
Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand<br>
cs.baker@auckland.ac.nz<br>
2Large Whale Biology Program, Northeast Fisheries Science<br>
Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA</p>
<p>In belated recognition of the global over-exploitation of whale populations,
the International Whaling Commission (IWC) voted in 1982 to impose an<br>
indefinite moratorium on commercial hunting. Although the moratorium has been
in effect since 1986, whaling has not stopped. Some member nations<br>
continue to hunt whales for aboriginal and subsistence use, or for scientific
research under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation<br>
of Whaling (ICRW) that established the IWC. Article VIII is the provision governing
the issuance of special permits "to kill, take and treat whales for<br>
purposes of scientific research". This provision was crafted at a time
when no viable alternatives existed to lethal sampling, and catches under scientific<br>
permit were used to study limited numbers of whales to inform the management
of whale stocks. Now, however, there is increasing concern that<br>
'scientific whaling' by Japan and the proposed program by Iceland, are simply
vehicles for continuing catches at commercial levels under the guise of<br>
scientific research. The extent of this hunt is not trivial: the Japanese program
in the Antarctic (JARPA) has been ongoing for 16 years and has killed over<br>
5900 Antarctic minke whales. The Japanese program in the North Pacific (JARPN)
has been ongoing since 1994 and has killed over 1,000 North Pacific<br>
minke whales. In 2001, this program expanded to include Bryde's, sei and sperm
whales.</p>
<p>Here we review recent criticism of the Japanese scientific whaling program.
First, the continued commercial sale of products from this program acts as a<br>
cover for illegal or unregulated exploitation of other species. Second, the
primary scientific objectives of the program are not required for the effective<br>
management of whaling under the current Revised Management Plan (RMP), and thus
do not fulfil the original intent of Article VIII. Third, the quality of<br>
research overall is poor, as judged by the number of resulting scientific publications
in international peer-reviewed journals. Finally, the scientific<br>
whaling programs have never been the subject of a review for ethical animal
experimentation protocols. How would such a lethal program fare in a review<br>
by ANZCCART or other international scientific societies and their journals?
In such a hypothetical review, we consider the scientific justification for
the lethal<br>
research, as reviewed by the Scientific Committee of the IWC, and how the stated
objectives of the programs would be better met by non-lethal methods.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>RELATED REFERENCES</p>
<p>Brown, S. R. Ethical considerations in marine mammal management. Journal of<br>
the American Veterinary Medical Association 214[8], 1175-1177. 1999. </p>
<p>Kastelein, R. A., P. R. Wiepkema, and C. Slegtenhorst. 1989. The use of<br>
molluscs to occupy Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in human<br>
care. Aquatic Mammals 15: 6-8.</p>
<p>Kastelein, R. A. and P. R. Wiepkema. 1989. A digging trough as occupational<br>
therapy for Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in human care.<br>
Aquatic Mammals 15: 9-17.</p>
<p>Kastelein, R. A., M. Paasse, P. Klinkhamer, and P. R. Wiepkema. 1991. Food<br>
dispensers as occupational therapy for the walrus (Odobenus rosmarus<br>
divergens). International Zoo Yearbook 30: 207-212.</p>
<p>McBain, J. F. Cetaceans in captivity: A discussion of welfare. Journal of<br>
the American Veterinary Medical Association 214[8], 1170-1174. 1999.</p>
<p>Borski, R. J. and R. G. Hodson. 2003. Fish research and the Institutional<br>
Animal Care and Use Committee. ILAR J 44: 286-294.</p>
<p>Brown, S. R. 1999. Ethical considerations in marine mammal management. J.<br>
Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 214: 1175-1177.</p>
<p>Burton, M. S. 1993. Scientific study in a small zoo. 1993 Proceedings of the<br>
American Association of Zoo Veterinarians 337-346.</p>
<p>Dover, S., L. Fish, T. Turner, and A. Kelley. 1994. An inspector's view of<br>
the new animal welfare regulations concerning environmental enrichment. 94zv<br>
285.</p>
<p>Goodrowe, K. L. 2003. Programs for invasive research in North American zoos.<br>
ILAR J 44: 317-323.<br>
Jessup, D. A. 2003. Opportunistic research and sampling combined with<br>
fisheries and wildlife management actions or crisis response. ILAR J 44:<br>
277-285.</p>
<p>Jones, D. R. Animal Welfare Act Regulations And Policies. 125. 1997.<br>
Houston, Texas. 1997 PROCEEDINGS AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ZOO VETERINARIANS.</p>
<p>Klein, P. N. Towards The Greater Good: Finding Common Ground With Animal<br>
Protection Organizations. 171. 1998. American Association Of Zoo<br>
Veterinarians And American Association Of Wildlife Veterinarians 1998 Joint<br>
Conference Proceedings.</p>
<p>Kohn, B. and S. L. Monfort. Research at Zoos and Aquariums: Regulations and<br>
Reality. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 28[3], 241-250. 1997.</p>
<p>Martin, H. D., S. C. Wilson, and J. L. Carpenter. 1992. Animal welfare and<br>
wildlife in captivity: A perspective on veterinary ethics and<br>
responsibilities. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 23: 273-275.</p>
<p>Powell, R. A. and G. Proulx. 2003. Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals<br>
for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and<br>
common sense. ILAR J 44: 259-276.</p>
<p>Shellabarger, W. and T. A. Reichard. Death of a sloth bear (Melursus ursinus<br>
inornatus) at the Toledo Zoo: when the checks and balanaces fail. Baer, C.<br>
K. 275. 2001. 2001 Proceedings Joint Conference American Association of Zoo<br>
Veterinarians, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, Association<br>
of Reptilian and Amphibian Veterinarians, and National Association of Zoo<br>
and Wildlife Veterinarians.</p>
<p>Stoskopf, M. K. 2003. Introduction: All of the world is a laboratory. ILAR
J<br>
44: 249-251.</p>
<p>Swanson, W. F. 2003. Research in nondomestic species: experiences in<br>
reproductive physiology research for conservation of endangered felids. ILAR<br>
J 44: 307-316.</p>
<p>Watkins, D. U.S.;Department of Agriculture update: Animal Welfare Act<br>
compliance. Baer, C. K. 279. 2001. 2001 Proceedings Joint Conference<br>
American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, American Association of Wildlife<br>
Veterinarians, Association of Reptilian and Amphibian</p>
<p></p>
</body>
]]>