Opposing Lethal Wildlife Research When Nonlethal Methods Exist: Scientific Whaling as a Case Study

As our understanding of sentience in certain wildlife species grows, and technological advancements promote non-lethal data collection, we believe that we ought to adjust our field methods to incorporate a regime of best practice that prioritizes non-lethal methodologies over inhumane methods of lethal sampling. In addition, progress already made towards non-lethal methodologies in wildlife research needs to be promoted widely. In this paper, we examine whether lethal methods of whale research, using Japanese lethal scientific whaling as a case study, are ethical when the scientific information can be gained from non-lethal methods, and humane methods of killing are not available. As a part of a simple ethical decision-making model, we explore if a requirement for 'refinement' of scientific technique (sensu Russell & Burch 1959; three Rs), promoted extensively for laboratory-based animal experimentation, has direct applicability to scientific research involving free-living wildlife. We argue that 'refinement' is an appropriate ethical principle in all cases where scientific research involves a choice between non-lethal sampling and the deliberate killing of free-living wildlife for scientific purposes. We conclude that the welfare of individual animals and the conservation of free-living wildlife populations are both worthy of moral consideration and need not be incompatible in humane wildlife research and management