与捕鲸者合作的科学家的伦理和法律考虑:冰岛当代捕鲸成果的国际研究案例研究

Q2 Social Sciences
Conor Ryan, V. Papastavrou, P. Sand
{"title":"与捕鲸者合作的科学家的伦理和法律考虑:冰岛当代捕鲸成果的国际研究案例研究","authors":"Conor Ryan, V. Papastavrou, P. Sand","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores some ethical and legal issues regarding international research conducted on whales killed by Iceland since it resumed whaling in 2003. In total, 35 peer-reviewed publications and 11 conference presentations were identified, wherein international research directly or indirectly relied on contemporary whaling for samples or data. The authors of these publications were affiliated with 56 institutions from 13 countries. Parallels are drawn between this research and the offshoring of biomedical research that exploited weaker regulations elsewhere. Ethical assessments were rarely included in the reviewed papers, and none of them addresses the issue of compatibility with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) or with the laws and ethical standards within the countries where the researchers are based. Diplomatic efforts to uphold international treaties to protect whales may be undermined by research using the outcome of whaling. Government grants were used by research institutions in four ICRW member countries (Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) where the governments had formally objected to Iceland’s reservation against the ICRW whaling moratorium. Researchers and their institutions may become tacitly complicit in contemporary commercial and alleged scientific whaling, when these activities may not be consistent with the ethical standards or laws within their own countries. Greater transparency is needed among academic institutions, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, funding bodies, journals, and professional societies regarding legal and ethical issues when data or samples from such whaling operations are used. Ethical frameworks need to be developed analogous to those used in international biomedical research and other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical and Legal Considerations for Scientists Collaborating with Whalers: A Case Study of International Research Using the Outcome of Contemporary Whaling by Iceland\",\"authors\":\"Conor Ryan, V. Papastavrou, P. Sand\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article explores some ethical and legal issues regarding international research conducted on whales killed by Iceland since it resumed whaling in 2003. In total, 35 peer-reviewed publications and 11 conference presentations were identified, wherein international research directly or indirectly relied on contemporary whaling for samples or data. The authors of these publications were affiliated with 56 institutions from 13 countries. Parallels are drawn between this research and the offshoring of biomedical research that exploited weaker regulations elsewhere. Ethical assessments were rarely included in the reviewed papers, and none of them addresses the issue of compatibility with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) or with the laws and ethical standards within the countries where the researchers are based. Diplomatic efforts to uphold international treaties to protect whales may be undermined by research using the outcome of whaling. Government grants were used by research institutions in four ICRW member countries (Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) where the governments had formally objected to Iceland’s reservation against the ICRW whaling moratorium. Researchers and their institutions may become tacitly complicit in contemporary commercial and alleged scientific whaling, when these activities may not be consistent with the ethical standards or laws within their own countries. Greater transparency is needed among academic institutions, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, funding bodies, journals, and professional societies regarding legal and ethical issues when data or samples from such whaling operations are used. Ethical frameworks need to be developed analogous to those used in international biomedical research and other disciplines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文探讨了冰岛自2003年恢复捕鲸以来,对其捕杀的鲸鱼进行国际研究的一些伦理和法律问题。总共确定了35份同行评审的出版物和11份会议报告,其中国际研究直接或间接依赖于当代捕鲸的样本或数据。这些出版物的作者隶属于13个国家的56个机构。这种研究与利用其他地方较弱监管的生物医学研究的离岸外包有相似之处。伦理评估很少包括在被审查的论文中,而且没有一篇论文涉及与《国际捕鲸条例公约》(ICRW)或研究人员所在国家的法律和伦理标准的兼容性问题。维护保护鲸鱼的国际条约的外交努力可能会被利用捕鲸成果的研究破坏。政府拨款被四个ICRW成员国(西班牙、瑞典、英国和美国)的研究机构使用,这些国家的政府正式反对冰岛对ICRW暂停捕鲸的保留意见。研究人员和他们的机构可能成为当代商业捕鲸和所谓的科学捕鲸的同谋,而这些活动可能不符合他们自己国家的道德标准或法律。在使用此类捕鲸活动的数据或样本时,学术机构、政府机构、非政府组织、资助机构、期刊和专业协会需要在法律和道德问题上提高透明度。需要制定类似于国际生物医学研究和其他学科中使用的伦理框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical and Legal Considerations for Scientists Collaborating with Whalers: A Case Study of International Research Using the Outcome of Contemporary Whaling by Iceland
Abstract This article explores some ethical and legal issues regarding international research conducted on whales killed by Iceland since it resumed whaling in 2003. In total, 35 peer-reviewed publications and 11 conference presentations were identified, wherein international research directly or indirectly relied on contemporary whaling for samples or data. The authors of these publications were affiliated with 56 institutions from 13 countries. Parallels are drawn between this research and the offshoring of biomedical research that exploited weaker regulations elsewhere. Ethical assessments were rarely included in the reviewed papers, and none of them addresses the issue of compatibility with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) or with the laws and ethical standards within the countries where the researchers are based. Diplomatic efforts to uphold international treaties to protect whales may be undermined by research using the outcome of whaling. Government grants were used by research institutions in four ICRW member countries (Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) where the governments had formally objected to Iceland’s reservation against the ICRW whaling moratorium. Researchers and their institutions may become tacitly complicit in contemporary commercial and alleged scientific whaling, when these activities may not be consistent with the ethical standards or laws within their own countries. Greater transparency is needed among academic institutions, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, funding bodies, journals, and professional societies regarding legal and ethical issues when data or samples from such whaling operations are used. Ethical frameworks need to be developed analogous to those used in international biomedical research and other disciplines.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信