This is an
article that I have been dying to write for a while now. My university has been
accused of using whaling data in a project recently http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/aberdeen-university-under-fire-over-whale-slaughter-1-3200216.
This caused quite a stir, especially in the Biological Sciences students who
were shocked. After poking about and asking people, a few of us found that the
data that were used, were from already harvested whales. Some students were
still shocked while others, much like myself relaxed. In the end of the day
data are data and so long as they were done ethically or in the past then there
is no reason why they shouldn’t be used. Now I don’t know exactly what the data
were used for. Talking to some people around university it seems to be for a
PhD project that dealt with the effect of whaling as well as whale watching on
whale species but then others say it had to do with whale physiology. I hardly think it is relevant at this stage.
Allow me to
elaborate. Science that deals with wild animals in their natural habitat is
tricky. Some animals can be elusive, migrate, budget cuts can prevent you from
doing exactly what you want, extreme weather conditions or extreme environments
are few of the reasons why science is hard to conduct with wild animals.
Scientists in general try their best to obtain their own data but will not shy
away from using data from other sources. Whether these sources are volunteers
conducting surveys on their own time ( as per the case of Shorewatch done by
WDC which is an excellent use of volunteer time and locations), hunters
reporting kills, trappers reporting catches, roadkill sites, sightings and so
forth. The internet alone is filled with sites where everyday people can log in
and report sightings of animals. These
data are used by scientists, NGOs, of even government organizations and find
themselves in academic journals as well.
It is a matter that needs to be understood by the general public.
Scientists are not always able to collect fresh data and hence may use older
data which might have been gathered in less ethical ways or with questionable
means.
Now this is
where it falls to the individual. Some scientists may have no quarrel using
data from any source so long as the data can help them gain an understanding of
what is going on. Others may take a more
ethical route and prefer to make sure that animals have been treated fairly.
Others simply try not to disturb the animals. There are myriad ways of thinking
and whether they are right or wrong is simply a matter of perspective.
In my
opinion, using the whaling data was fine. I understand the fact that in a way,
the whaling industry is still supported if you use the data but the animals are
dead and the data is already collected. Sure, this may be used to justify
further whaling and I am not for that. I
do not agree with whaling due to the damage it does to the general population
and the fact that whales cannot recover
from such harvesting easily. But in this particularly case the data are already
present so why not use them. It is a moral conundrum surely but it won’t change
the fact that these animals are dead already. In a way it is best that they at
least be used for something.
My main
issue is the way journalism has handled the particular subject. Flaring articles accusing the university for
whaling while very little was actually given in terms of what had
happened. Like most press these days,
some articles were unbiased and provided information and some didn’t. This led
to a confusing state both amongst students, staff and the rest of the world. Maybe if it was handled better by both the University
and the press then no confusion would have happened and people would be able to
reach a conclusion on the own on whether they support what happened or not.
In the end
of the day what appeared to be a shocking story ended up being a matter of
personal views and opinions as the fog cleared out, but some damage may have
already been done that may be irreversible.
Once again don’t trust what you read and question everything at least once
before you believe it.
No comments:
Post a Comment