Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole

Influence of occlusal loading on peri-implant clinical parameters. A pilot study

Objectives: To investigate the relation between occlusal loading and peri-implant clinical parameters (probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival retraction, width of keratinized mucosa, and crevicular fluid volume) in pa - tients with implant-supported complete fixed prostheses in both arches. Material and Methods: This clinical study took place at the University of Valencia (Spain) dental clinic. It included patients attending the clinic for regular check-ups during at least 12 months after rehabilitation of both arches with implant-supported complete fixed ceramo-metallic prostheses. One study implant and one control implant were established for each patient using the T-Scan®III computerized system (Tesco, South Boston, USA). The maxil - lary implant closest to the point of maximum occlusal loading was taken as the study implant and the farthest (with least loading) as the control. Occlusal forces were registered with the T-Scan® III and then occlusal adjust - ment was performed to distribute occlusal forces correctly. Peri-implant clinical parameters were analyzed in both implants before and two and twelve months after occlusal adjustment. Results: Before occlusal adjustment, study group implants presented a higher mean volume of crevicular fluid (51.3±7.4 UP) than the control group (25.8±5.5 UP), with statistically significant difference. Two months after occlusal adjustment, there were no significant differences between groups (24.6±3.8 UP and 26±4.5 UP respec - tively) ( p =0.977). After twelve months, no significant differences were found between groups (24.4±11.1 UP and 22.5±8.9 UP respectively) ( p =0.323). For the other clinical parameters, no significant differences were identified between study and control implants at any of the study times ( p >0.05). Conclusions: Study group implants receiving higher occlusal loading presented significantly higher volumes of crevicular fluid than control implants. Crevicular fluid volumes were similar in both groups two and twelve months after occlusal adjustment

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare \u2013 a commentary

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.\u2019s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic\u2013pituitary\u2013adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors\u2019 conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.\u2019s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.\u2019s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales\u2019 cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales\u2019 cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.\u2019s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole

Effect on osseointegration of two implant macro-designs : a histomorphometric analysis of bicortically installed implants in different topographic sites of rabbit?s tibiae

To evaluate the effect of two different implant macro-designs on the sequential osseointegration at bicortically installed implants in the rabbit tibia. A further aim is to compare the osseointegration at different topographic zones. 27 New Zealand rabbits were implemented. Two implants, one for each macro-design (Ticare Inhex® or Ticare Quattro®, Mozo-Grau, Valladolid, Spain), were randomly implanted in the diaphysis or metaphysis of each tibia. The flaps were sutured to allow a submerged healing. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4 or 8 weeks. Ground sections were prepared and analyzed. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for newly formed bone in contact with the implant surface, being about 16%, 19% and 33% in both groups, after 2, 4, and 8 weeks of healing. Bone apposition was slightly higher in the diaphysis, reaching values of 36.4% in the diaphysis, and 29.3% in the metaphysis at 8 weeks of healing. It was observed that the implant position showed a statistical significance regarding BIC values at 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis fails to detect statistical significant differences for the interaction between implant designs and topographic site. Ticare Quattro® design had a slight better BIC values at diaphysis sites across healing stages, but without reaching a statistical significance. The both implant macro-designs provided similar degrees of osseointegration. Bone morphometry and density may affect bone apposition onto the implant surface. The apposition rates were slightly better in diaphysis compared to metaphysis

Lugar(es)

Catálogo de la exposición colectiva celebrada en la sala de exposiciones de la Facultad de Bellas Artes de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid entre el 14 y el 30 de enero de 201

Adequació i senyalització de la senda de la Sima de l'Aigua des de la Barraca d'Aigües Vives (València) i millora de l'entorn de la font de la Falzia

L'itinerari, objecte del present document, es situa a la vall d'Aigües Vives, dins del terme municipal de Carcaixent. És tracta d'un recorregut de 3,7 quilòmetres de distància que naix junt al llavador o safareig de la Barraca d'Aigües Vives, a 86 metres sobre el nivell de la mar (m.s.n.m.) i ens condueix per dins del Barranc de la Falzia fins a la Sima de l'Aigua, situada a altiplà de les muntanyes del Realenc, a 370 m.s.n.m. entre els límits dels termes municipals de Carcaixent i de Simat de la Valldigna. Històricament aquest itinerari era utilitzat per la gent que vivia al llogaret de la Barraca d'Aigües Vives i treballava als forns de calç repartits per la serra del Realenc. En l'actualitat és un itinerari freqüentat per excursionistes i caçadors, encara que la major part dels visitants que rep continuen sent els habitants de la Barraca que s'acosten a l'indret de la font de la Falzia. És objecte del present projecte desenvolupar les diferents actuacions encaminades a la adequació del sender amb finalitat turística, cultural, educativa i recreativa que ajuden a realitzar un ús respectuós d'un espai natural.Almunia Catalá, FJ. (2013). Adequació i senyalització de la senda de la Sima de l'Aigua des de la Barraca d'Aigües Vives (València) i millora de l'entorn de la font de la Falzia. Universitat Politècnica de València. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/32084Archivo delegad