I have started a petition to ban the publication of unethical lethal whale research.
I have attached a transcript of my letters to SpringerLink regarding this issue in chronological order because it makes for more interesting reading. It’s interesting to see Springer’s official stance change completely when they are called out.
Maybe this will make interesting reading for someone… in about 300 years time when people realise that some animals are more important than humans:
From: Dr. Leslie Dean Brown [mailto:info@lesliedeanbrown.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 9:56 AM
To: Onlineservice, SCSC
Subject: TN606818 “I speak for whales” [petition: banning lethal whale research] FS
Hello,
I’ll get straight to the point.
As I’m sure you’re aware, people all around the world are getting more and more annoyed with the Japanese that continue to kill whales and do unnecessary scientific research on them. Many people thought the research was all lies. The really scary part is that it is actually true. Yes, they are in fact researching whales… :-(
I am writing to you because some of these papers have been published in the Journal “Polar Biology” with the latest appearing in 2014:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00300-013-1424-3
I have started a petition to ban lethal whale research:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/656/717/561/ban-japanese-%22research%22-that-is-lethal-to-whales/
I hope you take notice of this petition and reject all publications by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research, North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), the International Whaling Commission (IWC) or any other organisations that are involved in the slaughter of whales and the whale meat industry.
Did you know that the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research openly sells whale meat in exchange for financial support from the public?
It’s right there on their website! Is this how ‘normal’ research is done?!
I know you are all scientists and you didn’t have anything to do with killing those whales directly.
I think we all agree that this is the kind of research that we want to see more of:
- GPS / satellite tracking of whales.
- Simple observation of whales.
- DNA sampling of live whales.
- Ethical research for the conservation of whales
Here’s the kind of research that the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research has published in other journals such as Zygote & the Journal of Reproduction and Development:
- Production of Sei Whale Cloned Embryos by Inter- and Intra-Species Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection of frozen-thawed minke whale oocytes [ovaries].
- Fertilisability of ovine, bovine or minke whale spermatozoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes [ovaries].
- Improvement on in vitro maturation, fertilization and development of minke whale oocytes [ovaries].
- Improvements in More Humane Killing Methods of Antarctic Minke Whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis, in the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic Sea (JARPA).
- Interspecies Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer for In Vitro Production of Antarctic Minke Whale Embryos.
- Validation of the Sperm Quality Analyzer and the Hypo-osmotic Swelling Test for Frozen-thawed Ram and Minke Whale Spermatozoa.
- Attempt at In Vitro Maturation of Minke Whale Oocytes [ovaries] Using a Portable CO2 Incubator.
With research like that, it’s almost as if the Japanese are planning on making Minke whales sterile or something (I mean, some representatives from the whaling industry have said that the reason there are less fish in the oceans is not because of human over-fishing… but because “whales are eating all the fish”)
Is this the kind of research you want to be associated with?
I ask you to put yourselves in the position of the whales. Like us, they’re intelligent creatures. Like us, they have sensory organs. Would YOU like to be harpooned to death with not one but two or three explosive penthrite grenades? … and then carved open later on to be sold as meat? No. I didn’t think so. Would YOU like to have YOUR ovaries and sperm experimented on without YOUR express permission? What about artificial insemination? IVF? Cloning your embryos? WTF? No. I didn’t think so.
It can take a whale up to an hour to die, but NAMMCO didn’t really want to make this information public. In fact they are saying that 20% don’t die ‘instantly’, and take more than 15 minutes. And the ‘average’ time to death is still 3 minutes. I would love to see the people responsible with a harpoon in their back, taking that long to die. I know it is hard for scientists, but please try to have some compassion.
I’m sure some of you will point out the flaws in my logic or data (I admit I am not an expert on this), but my point is, by publishing articles by either the Institute of Cetacean Research, the IWC or NAMMCO, you are indirectly contributing to the deaths of whales and their suffering — you’re actually helping the Japanese whaling industry to continue to justify their scientific research. Now I hope you all think this over very carefully and get back to me and about million other people with some good news (for once).
Sincerely,
Dr. Leslie Dean Brown
ex-science-researcher
From: Onlineservice, SCSC
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 4:08 PM
To: Klapp, Stephan, Springer DE
Subject: TN606818 FW: “I speak for whales” [petition: banning lethal whale research] FS
Dear Stephan,
May you please assist the below customer regarding her query below?
Thank you in advance.
With kind regards, / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
—
Springer Customer Service Center GmbH
Springer Onlineservice
—
Haberstraße 7 | 69126 Heidelberg | Deutschland
tel +49 6221 345-4303 | fax +49 6221 345-4229
233 Spring St | New York, NY 10013 | USA
Tel 1-800-777-4643
onlineservice@springer.com
—
Springer Customer Service Center GmbH is part of Springer Science+Business Media
Registered Office: Heidelberg | Local Court (Amtsgericht) Mannheim, HRB 336546
Managing Directors: Derk Haank, Martin Mos, Dr. Ulrich Vest
On 26/01/2016 20:45, Klapp, Stephan, Springer DE wrote:
Dear Dr. Dean Brown,
Thank you very much your message regarding whaling and whale research.
I, too, like whales very much and wish to sustain a bio-diverse world.
Now, regarding articles published by our journals, including Polar Biology, the publishing company must not interfere with the science published. I think you know why: if a commercial publisher manipulates the topics – or even worse – the interpretations of scientific research we would soon end up in a different world.
For this reason publishers – commercial and non-profit – use a system of checks with editorial boards of independent editors and peer-review. Like every system, this isn’t perfect. But to start telling people what to publish and what to skip – who are we to do that? Yes – it may be painful to look at it from you angle. But where are the limits? Whaling? Genetically-manipulated crops (GMO’s)? Stem-cells? Nuclear research? Particle physics? In medieval times, opening bodies for medical research was sentenced by death penalty; yet people like Da Vinci did it. If we start banning topic after topic, we’ll soon end up at fundamentalists’ greatest dreams of no science at all. Think of the Red Khmer, and Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.
I greatly appreciate your concern and thank you very much for raising it. It is very important to give and receive feedback on a subject of this significance. I am sure you will raise awareness on whaling by the petition you mentioned and by your social media activities.
Kind regards,
Stephan Klapp
| Dr. Stephan A. Klapp | Springer | Global Life Scienceswww.springernature.com/Tiergartenstraße 17 | 69121 Heidelberg | Germany Tel +49 (0)6221 487 8135 (UTC/GMT+01:00; CET) | mobile phone +49 (0)160 96337451 | Skype: Klapp.Springer (online upon notification) | web | fax +49 (0)6221 487 6 8135Branch of Springer-Verlag GmbH, Heidelberger Platz 3, 14197 Berlin Registered in: Berlin | Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 91881 B |
From: Dr. Leslie Dean Brown [mailto:info@lesliedeanbrown.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Klapp, Stephan, Springer DE
Subject: TN606818 “I speak for whales” [petition: banning the publication of unethical/lethal whale research]
Hello,
With all due respect, I think your view is a little catastrophic. At least that’s what my psychologist would say to you.
Is that really the official answer you want the world to see?
Do you want to know what I think? I think that by continuing to publish their data, you are essentially condoning the deaths of whales by Japanese researchers. You’re basically sending out the following message to them: “yes, we agree with what you are doing to whales, please come to US with your data about them and we’ll publish it for everyone to see.”.
You say that you like whales “very much” but as yet you aren’t willing to act on that in the slightest. From where I’m standing/sitting, it doesn’t sound to me that you like them very much at all. If you did, you’d DO something about it Dr. Stephan Klapp. Clearly, you don’t care about whales as much as you care about science. What your last reply tells me is that you prefer to live in a world where numbers take precedence over living beings. And I find that rather sad. You know ‘sadness’? It’s an emotion and I’m starting to think that most scientists could do with a lot more of them.
I am going to turn it 180° on you. Where do you actually draw the line on unethical research? Basically you are stating here that “anything goes”. Let me see if I understand your position correctly. Hypothetically, if I have accurate and reliable data concerning the maximum time that sulfuric-acid-dipped human babies can be kept alive, and I come to you with well-written research paper about it –which is peer reviewed by the right editors– you are saying that Springer will publish my data in the appropriate journal without question? What about if I did a study on genocide or torture? Or worse, genocidal-torture? I guess you would publish that too? That sounds rather absurd. If that’s what science has now become (or what it was always about), then I’m glad I left it when I did. I think it’s plainly obvious that I really don’t care what the science community thinks about me anymore; I left the science world a long time ago.
Right. So now that I’ve told you a piece of my mind… I am not asking you to ban particle physics or GM crops or the data concerning those things. Because those things are those things and this thing is this thing And they are all completely different subjects. So how about we focus on the one specific issue I have raised, which is the publication of lethal whale research. Otherwise everyone starts getting distracted by other unrelated subjects.
In this case, I am not asking you to interfere with the science of lethal whale research. That may be what my petition is ultimately about. But I never asked you to sign my petition. In any case, I’m actually thinking that I should change the name of my petition to “ban the publication of unethical/lethal whale research” [already done].
At a fundamental level, I believe that science = data. Science is merely the collection and interpretation of data. At least that’s the way I was trained to think in my undergraduate degree. To interfere with the true science behind these sorts of articles, you’d really have to interfere with whaling boats, somehow manipulate the original data set or skew the results/discussion/conclusion(s). I’m not asking you to go out there and stop people gathering that kind of data. Their data already exists — for those that truly want to find it. Data doesn’t become ‘science’ simply because it is published. So in that sense I am not asking you to influence, interpret or interfere with the almighty ‘science’. Theoretically speaking, I could do the best experiments in the world right down in my own basement, they could be published 200 years after my death, I’d still likely be called a scientist though, wouldn’t I?
I am not asking you to ban whale research as a whole. I am asking YOU personally to try to do YOUR own part to prevent the publication of very few unethical articles concerning lethal whale research. It’s quite a different thing. I’ll just repeat that. I’m not asking you to ban ALL research on whales that are alive; I am asking you to strongly reconsider publishing research data from one or two very specific organisations that contribute one or two papers annually to the entire international scientific community. What would happen if you did that? All that would happen is that the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research would probably just go to another publisher… and another… and if they kept on being rejected, perhaps they’d start their own scientific journal. It might be called “the journal of unethical cetacean research” or something like that. And it would have a very low impact factor.
When you say:
“if a commercial publisher manipulates the topics – or even worse – the interpretations of scientific research we would soon end up in a different world.”
If that’s your official stance as a publisher is, one of total non-interference in what you decide to send to your printers, then I think the public is going to be very interested in that response. What if your decisions meant that it would become a better world? Is that not the goal of science? To ultimately improve this world? If not, then what is the bloody point of us doing science in the first place? To make it a worse world? Or simply the exact same world but with a lot more data in it? Or what? Because that certainly seems to be the case here…
Do you know what I think the real problem with this world is? Humans have just become so conceited, self-centered and arrogant. We really are. Everything for the humans! As if we need the help! I can tell you right now that whales need help more than any human does. Because there are 6+ billion of us and not nearly as many of them. Personally I’d like to blow five whaling boats right out of the water with five big torpedoes!! But no one dares speak on behalf of animal rights. And whenever people do, other humans instantly and automatically think less of us. We go to prison.
I’d like to remind you that you’re a publisher! You’re not a government! Like it or not, Springer (and others) are still responsible and ultimately accountable for what you (or they) allow to be published. Like it or not, the moral and ethical obligations are still there. If either the representatives of Springer or your independent editors do not make any moral or ethical decisions whatsoever about what to publish, then who does? Nobody? Is that what you are saying? And if what the general public thinks does not change your mind, then I am sorely disappointed in Springer’s official statement.
Personally I think you’re just afraid that this will start some sort of precedent and you’ll have a load of pro-life anti-abortionists petitioning to stop the publication of stem cell research or something more hotly contested and debated. But you know, I don’t think that’s going to happen because, well, it just isn’t. Why not? Well, for one thing, a lot more people have reached consensus about whales than about the other topics you have already mentioned.
You’ll never be sued or held legally accountable for what Japanese whale researchers do to whales in or out of the lab. They do what they do. You can’t control what they do. There’s no way that you can control what they do. You can only control what you can control. You [Springer] can only control what does get published and what does not get published in your own journals. You [Springer] will never be sued or held legally accountable for not publishing scientific data obtained by the Institute of Cetacean Research, NAMMCO or anyone else. Why not? Well, precisely because Springer is a commercial company. In fact you are under no obligations (by anyone) to publish anything at all that you do not like. But what will eventually happen is that if Springer does decide to continue publishing research that the majority of people think is unethical, then Springer will fast become known as an “unethical publisher” of scientific research.
You are intentionally choosing not to discriminate against some types of research and that the reason is that “we would soon end up in a different world”. Is that such a wise choice? I can just see the headlines: “Springer: the unethical whale research publisher”. Do you really want that to happen? Because what will undoubtedly happen is that one or more of the major publishers will make the right choice and the ones that make the wrong choice will look silly.
There is no doubt in my mind that whales suffer greatly during their slaughter. You are now in a position to help protect whales from this exploitation by a few people who only seem to care about money more than anything else. You are are in a position to say “actually, we don’t really like what you are doing anymore and we’d prefer not to publish your data”. It’d be a small initiative, but a nice one.
I’d like to remind you that we now live in a very “politically correct” world. Almost a thousand people think that Springer should take a more pro-active approach to ethical research concerning whales. This is not counting millions of people who haven’t yet seen my petition. By choosing the wrong path, you will only make the petition grow stronger… please do not make the mistake of sinking to the level of the whalers… do not allow it to continue.
Sincerely,
Dr. Leslie Dean Brown
ex-science-researcher
From: Klapp, Stephan, Springer DE
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:52 PM
To: ‘Dr. Leslie Dean Brown’
Subject: RE: TN606818 “I speak for whales” [petition: banning the publication of unethical/lethal whale research]
Dear Leslie (if I may),
You are completely right.
I am having the ethics and compliance checked for this journal.
We have – in the submission system – several gates where authors must respond. Usually, questions regarding sensitive research involving humans or animals are checked. Animal rights are important to us. This is the reason why authors are prompted to these questions.
Now, given your information on the below mentioned articles we’re checking this.
Best,
stephan
| Subject: | RE: TN606818 “I speak for whales” [petition: banning the publication of unethical/lethal whale research] |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:28:13 +0000 |
| From: | Klapp, Stephan, Springer DE <Stephan.Klapp@springer.com> |
| To: | Dr. Leslie Dean Brown <info@lesliedeanbrown.com> |
Leslie,
another update: The ethics and compliances are effective for this journal. If you go to the journal website and click into the instructions for authors, you can actually see them already upfront a publication.
1) Statement of human rights
When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
The following statements should be included in the text before the References section:
Ethical approval: “All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”
For retrospective studies, please add the following sentence:
“For this type of study formal consent is not required.”
2) Statement on the welfare of animals
The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).
For studies with animals, the following statement should be included in the text before the References section:
Ethical approval: “All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.”
If applicable (where such a committee exists): “All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.”
If articles do not contain studies with human participants or animals by any of the authors, please select one of the following statements:
“This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.”
“This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.”
“This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.”
Of course, you will be asked these questions during the submission (make the test yourself).
These instructions and obligations were not installed when the paper you referred to was submitted and published but were installed last fall.
However, meanwhile a number of people at Springer is involved in this case, including management and including the ethics department.
I’ll let you know on how this develops. Thanks again for showing us this case.
Bets,
Stephan
Leave a Reply