In a letter published in the latest issue of Marine Mammal Science, Ryan et al. (2023) proposed that the ethics codes of the Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM) and its journal are contradictory and should be revised to avoid ambiguity and confusion. Their arguments are based on a recent age-determination study conducted on the Antarctic minke whale (Yasunaga et al., 2022), which, according to Ryan et al. (2023), was not conducted in line with the guiding principle of the SMM that researchers should “Adhere to the highest standards for treatment of animals used in research in a way that contributes positively to sustaining natural populations and ecosystems.” However, we disagree with these assertions by Ryan et al. (2023) and believe that Yasunaga et al. (2022) does meet the ethics code of Marine Mammal Science and that publication of the study was the right decision by the journal. Furthermore, we do not see any inconsistencies between the ethics codes of the SMM and its journal and, therefore, do not see any logical reason for them to be revised. The samples used by Yasunaga et al. (2022) were obtained under a special scientific permit as part of the New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP-A), which, according to Ryan et al. (2023), “was permitted by the Government of Japan, despite a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which shut down the very similar whaling program that preceded it (JARPAII).” They further argued that the killing method for Antarctic minke whales used under NEWREP-A was not appropriate for adhering to the guiding principles of SMM and its journal and that “…there is no evidence provided that the killing methods even satisfy the weaker requirement to be the most humane and rapid available….” However, we believe their arguments are misleading or definitively wrong. Here we refute the mistakes in their arguments. As noted by Ryan et al. (2023), the ruling by the International Court of Justice was on a previous research program called JARPAII. The Japanese government developed the more recent NEWREP-A program based on specific guidelines offered by the ICJ to develop a research program in line with Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). In particular, the ICJ did not reject the use of lethal sampling for certain specified purposes (para. 83, ICJ, 2014). Furthermore, the NEWREP-A program was reviewed by an international Expert Panel (IWC, 2015) and subsequently by the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC, 2016). Ryan et al. (2023) did not mention the process that was undertaken to develop the scientific and legal basis of NEWREP-A. The killing method used in NEWREP-A was the penthrite harpoon grenade. Ryan et al. (2023) note that “Time-to-death measurements commonly exceeded 10 min with the routine use of asphyxiation as a secondary killing technique.” This opinion is based on a publication by Gales et al. (2008), which in turn is based on a video taken by an environmental organization (Greenpeace) that recorded the killing of 16 Antarctic minke whales under the original JARPA program in the 2005/2006 austral summer season. In fact, since the 1993/1994 austral summer season, investigations and improvements related to whale-killing methods have been made by Japan in response to an action plan developed at an IWC Workshop in 1992 (IWC, 1992) and to a resolution on humane killing adopted in 1993 (IWC, 1993). These efforts have translated into a reduced time-to-death and increased instantaneous death rate (Mogoe et al., 2015). Observations and investigations on this subject have been conducted by experienced biological researchers stationed on research base vessels (Ishikawa, 2010; Ishikawa & Shigemune, 2005; Øen, 2021). NEWREP-A was developed under specific objectives related to the assessment and management of the Antarctic minke whale, and it is true that there were different opinions within the IWC Scientific Committee on the utility of the research to respond to those objectives. NEWREP-A was halted in 2019 after Japan withdrew from the ICRW and started sustainable commercial whaling in its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. The same occurred for a similar whale research program in the western North Pacific (NEWREP-NP). These programs left behind unique data and sample sets that represent around 30 years of systematic research in both the Antarctic and western North Pacific. Importantly, these data and samples are now considered “historical” and must be used to learn more about the biology of whales and contribute to the conservation and management of the whale species involved. Indeed, several studies using these data and samples have been published recently in international journals (Nishimura et al., 2021; Taguchi et al., 2023; Ten et al., 2022; Uchida et al., 2021). Perhaps most importantly, these data and sample sets have also been used to calibrate nonlethal methodologies (e.g., Goto et al., 2020; Inoue et al., 2019). Thus, we believe that Yasunaga et al. (2022) meets the ethics codes of Marine Mammal Science and that there is no need to revise and make consistent the ethics codes of the SMM and its journal, despite the arguments raised by Ryan et al. (2023). Genta Yasunaga: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Satoko Inoue: Writing – review and editing. Takeharu Bando: Writing – review and editing. Takashi Hakamada: Writing – review and editing. Yoshihiro Fujise: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.