Post by Tamrin on Jan 21, 2012 22:16:54 GMT 10
This week’s Catalyst features a world first. As the debate hots up about Japan’s scientific whaling program – whether it’s a sham, whether it’s justified – we’ve decided to tackle the issue head on. We’ve collected all the research papers the Japanese program has produced over the last 18 years, rented a room, and locked three experts inside – they’re not allowed out until they’ve judged every paper and delivered a verdict. What’s been discovered? How many animals have died for that information? And was it worth it? As Japan massively escalates it’s whale research program, and the Australian government fears June’s International Whaling Commission meet will turn the tide back to commercial whaling, we answer these questions and more as we investigate the science of scientific whaling.
Prof Archer: Well I think the first thing we’ve got to do is look through every one of those papers and decide which ones have been peer reviewed. Because if they haven’t been peer reviewed they don’t have credibility in the scientific community.
Well we’ve divided them now into the unrefereed papers and the papers that have been through a peer review process. And there’s 55 of those. We’ve been fairly generous. Where we’re not sure we’ve given them peer review status.
Dr Jonica Newby, Reporter: So now, we’re going to separate out the really useful papers from the useless.
Mike Archer: Oh here’s a ripper. Fertilisability of ovine, bovine, that’s sheep cows and minke whales spermatazoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes. This is taking whale genetic material, putting it into cows. Oh man
Mike Archer: Oh here’s a ripper. Fertilisability of ovine, bovine, that’s sheep cows and minke whales spermatazoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes. This is taking whale genetic material, putting it into cows. Oh man
Well of the original 55 we’re down to 14 that could be relevant.
Narration: Finally, our panel will separate out the papers that could only be produced by lethal research.
Narration: Finally, our panel will separate out the papers that could only be produced by lethal research.
Prof Archer: Alright, that’s it. And from that whole pile of papers we’ve got a total of one, two, three, four papers that can be said to be peer reviewed, that have some relevance to developing or managing a whaling industry and also would require lethal sampling of whales to get that information. Just four papers.
Nick Gales: So with the eighteen year program and sixty eight hundred whales divided by four papers - that means 1700 whales killed for each one of those four papers.
Nick Gales: So with the eighteen year program and sixty eight hundred whales divided by four papers - that means 1700 whales killed for each one of those four papers.
