Abstract
We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole.
Highlights
This paper contests Marino et al (2019) regarding the welfare of killer whales1 (Orcinus orca) under human care
The focus of this paper is the misrepresentation of available data and promotion of fallacies in Marino et al These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals
We provide evidence that multiple misrepresentations and fallacies exist in Marino et al Based on a thorough examination of the data presented by Marino et al, we conclude that there is currently no support for the posed belief that humans cannot meet killer whale needs
Summary
This paper contests Marino et al (2019) regarding the welfare of killer whales (Orcinus orca) under human care. (See Simmonds (2006) for caution when directly comparing terrestrial and aquatic species.) A review of the references reveals many misrepresentations and false statements in Marino et al.’s (2019) text, as listed in Appendix 1, and discussed later in this document These concerns are not minimized by associating speculation on killer whale affective states, in the absence of corresponding and converging behavioral or functional brain data, with citations concerned with the experience of human prisoners of war and others experiencing depression (Aloni et al, 2018; Başoğlu, 2009; Lupien et al, 2009) or the biochemical and neuroanatomical changes in laboratory rodents that are completely immobilized or deprived of food and water (Bennur et al, 2007; Vyas et al, 2002). Note. 1Selection of individual cases or data that support a position while ignoring a larger body of evidence that contradicts the position 2Vividly detailed descriptions that are intended to convince that a problem exists while appealing to emotion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
