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

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

Elephant conservation: Reviewing the need and potential impact of cognition-based education

Conservation education programs centered on animal cognition seem to be effective in bringing humans closer to non-human species and thereby, influencing their conservation attitudes. Systematic evaluation of the impact of cognition-based education programs on the attitudes of participants has revealed positive feedback and an appreciation towards the species of interest. However, such evaluations are rare for species like elephants, who suffer severe conservation challenges such as high degrees of conflict with the local community. In this paper, we review the need for cognition-based education programs in elephant conservation as well as the need to evaluate these programs to assess their impact on conservation attitudes. In particular, we emphasize the need for such programs in the native ranges of elephants, which are more prone to human-elephant conflict, and argue that exposure to such programs may potentially increase the collaboration of the local community towards conservation efforts

Wild About Dolphins: Learning About Research Through Study Abroad

The Psychology Department at Eastern Kentucky University, in collaboration with the Dolphin Communication Project (DCP), offered a study abroad class on cetacean behavior, ecology, and cognition during the 2015 spring semester. The class consisted of two portions, an eight-week seminar that took place during the spring semester, and a field portion that took place for 12 nights (June 8th – June 20th) in Bimini, The Bahamas. During the seminar portion of the class, students read and discussed scientific literature related to a variety of topics on cetacean cognition, behavior, and ecology and during the field portion of the trip, students continued to have classroom sessions and discussions, but specifically focused on the eco-tourism, conservation, behavior, communication, and cognition of Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), both of which DCP conducts long-term field research on. Additionally, students learned the proper techniques of dolphin identification, which they were able to apply while on DCP’s wild dolphin research trips, where they also learned how the array worked (a device designed to collect visual and audio data on wild dolphins), learned how to collect environmental data, and learned ways in which to spot dolphins during varying wave conditions. Additionally, students aided in collecting underwater photographs and field notes on wild dolphins. Although students did not conduct their own research or analyses, their experience allowed them to gain valuable experience not only in the research process, but also in the challenges and techniques related to collecting research on animals in the field

Brief Report: Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) may Demonstrate

Pioneering studies of animal personality appeared in the 1970s (e.g., Adamec, 1975; Buirski, Plutchik, & Kellerman, 1978; Stevenson-Hinde & Zunz, 1978). These studies proposed personality differences and examined behavioral tendencies that would be predicative of those personality traits. These studies began a surge of interest in consistent individual characteristics among individuals of various species, and during the past few years, research has begun to focus on animal personality more seriously. This line of research has resulted in a number of studies revealing individual differences in personality traits in such diverse species as primates, marine mammals, insects, fish, invertebrates, and birds (Gosling, 2001). Animal personality is defined as an individual animal’s unique and stable patterns of behavior (Gosling, 2001). Based on this definition, there are often two main goals of animal personality research: 1) determine if individuals within a species exhibit distinctive patterns of behavior and 2) determine if these patterns are consistent and stable over time and in a variety of contexts

The Role of Touch in the Social Interactions of Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)

In order to successfully engage in social interactions, it is necessary to recognize and respond to the communicative cues provided by the other participants in these interactions. Communicative signals can occur in a variety of sensory modalities, including vision, sound, olfaction, and touch. In this study, we focus on the role of touch in the social interactions of elephants. Both aggressive and nonaggressive tactile behaviors were examined. In all cases, the body parts used to initiate tactile behaviors as well as the body parts that received these tactile behaviors were analyzed. Significant differences were seen in the overall frequency of tactile behaviors initiated and received by each elephant, as well as in the frequency of aggressive and nonaggressive tactile behaviors initiated and received by each elephant. The trunk was the body part most commonly used to initiate and receive tactile behaviors. The influence of several factors on the observed tactile behavior patterns are discussed, including the influence of social rank and movement in the social hierarchy

Brief Report: Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) may Demonstrate

Pioneering studies of animal personality appeared in the 1970s (e.g., Adamec, 1975; Buirski, Plutchik, & Kellerman, 1978; Stevenson-Hinde & Zunz, 1978). These studies proposed personality differences and examined behavioral tendencies that would be predicative of those personality traits. These studies began a surge of interest in consistent individual characteristics among individuals of various species, and during the past few years, research has begun to focus on animal personality more seriously. This line of research has resulted in a number of studies revealing individual differences in personality traits in such diverse species as primates, marine mammals, insects, fish, invertebrates, and birds (Gosling, 2001). Animal personality is defined as an individual animal’s unique and stable patterns of behavior (Gosling, 2001). Based on this definition, there are often two main goals of animal personality research: 1) determine if individuals within a species exhibit distinctive patterns of behavior and 2) determine if these patterns are consistent and stable over time and in a variety of contexts

Development and Validation of Elephant Conversation Attitudes Scale

The purpose of this study is to develop and validate an Attitudes toward Elephant conservation (AEC) Scale and Attitudes toward Elephants (AE) Scale. According to the tripartite model of attitudes (i.e., Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960), there are three distinctive components of attitude (affective, cognitive, and behavioral). We developed initial items based on the tripartite model and the literature review of the previous attitude toward animals scales. We validated both scales by ensuring content validity through subject matter experts’ review, internal structure of the scale through factor analysis, and relationship to the existing scale. We selected the final items for the AEC and AE Scales using quantitative and qualitative item analyses. Initial validation data were collected from college students (N = 291) through online questionnaires. We found a relatively low reliability of some subscales and a negative relationship between the behavior component of the AEC scale and the other two components. Factor analyses generally supported the three-factor structure of the AEC and AE Scales. All components of the scales were positively related to Animal Attitudes Scale (Herzog, Grayson, & McCord, 2015) except for a behavior component of the AEC Scale. Sampling of the behaviors in elephant conservation should be evaluated