Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeDuplicity from Institute of Cetacean Research
Posted by kiore11 on 20 Feb 2013 at 20:45 GMT
I notice that the Institute of Cetacean Research, the Japanese whaling responsible for continued killing of whales in the Southern Ocean under claims of "research", are stating on their website that this excellent peer-reviewed study is one of theirs. Yet their institution was not named in the acknowledgements. Furthermore, the methods for biopsy were those approved by the University of Auckland Animal ethics committee, according to the methods sections.
I have in the past been strongly critical of the regulatory process around animal experimentation in New Zealand, prticularly the way the cost benefit analysis favours experimenters and profits over animals. However, I do know that animal ethics committees strictly adhere to the laws of New Zealand, and therefore would not countenance killing of whales, which is illegal in New Zealand. The bioassays must therefore have used non lethal and less intrusive means of sampling DNA than the harpooning methods favoured by the Institute of Cetacean Research.
The claims by the ICR need to be challenged by the editor or the authors, and a request needs to be made to remove the paper from their website.
RE: Duplicity from Institute of Cetacean Research
PLOS_ONE_Group replied to kiore11 on 21 Mar 2013 at 17:52 GMT
A citation and link to this article by Sremba et al. (2012) is posted on the website of the Institute for Cetacean Research (ICR) under 'Research Results JARPA/JARPII': http://www.icrwhale.org/J.... The implication of this, that the publication is associated with the ICR's lethal research program (JARPA/JARPAII), is misleading. No member of ICR is included as a coauthor or in the acknowledgements of this article.
The ICR listed the article because it used 17 mtDNA control region sequences of blue whales (under the heading 'Haplotype identity and phylogenetic relationships') obtained from biopsy samples collected by the JARPA in the Antarctic, but the ICR has agreed to modify the website so readers understand the nature of the papers listed.
RE: RE: Duplicity from Institute of Cetacean Research
kiore11 replied to PLOS_ONE_Group on 22 Jun 2013 at 21:35 GMT
I just checked and they have altered their wording to acknowledge that there is no "formal agreement" with the authors or funders of this article, but to my mind their wording and including the article is still misleading. From a plagiarism point of view it is rather like claiming credit for Hamlet for lending Shakespeare a pencil. From the point of view of your reputation, I am not sure whether it is in the interest of PLOS ONE to be associated with such a dubious organisation.
RE: RE: RE: Duplicity from Institute of Cetacean Research
csbaker replied to kiore11 on 26 Jul 2013 at 18:40 GMT
The reader might be interested in the larger debate on the legitimacy of the Japanese scientific whaling program in the Antarctic (JARPAII), now underway in the International Court of Justice in The Hague,
http://www.nytimes.com/20...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news...
The Governments of Australia and New Zealand argue that scientific whaling is a front for commercial whaling and have asked the Court to order Japan to cease implementation of JARPAII. The Institute for Cetacean Research, which derives much of its funding from the commercial sale of products from whales killed in JARPAII, presumably has a strong interest in supporting the Government of Japan’s claim for the scientific credibility of this programme.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Duplicity from Institute of Cetacean Research
MattJHodgkinson replied to csbaker on 31 Jul 2013 at 11:42 GMT
Dr Baker, who commented above, wanted to note that he is a co-author of the article by Sremba et al. (2012) that he is commenting on.