区分个人信仰和科学知识对虎鲸福利的改善-评论

M. Kathleen, M. Heather, A. Zaccaroni, Radhika N. Makecha, Malin Lilly, J. Almunia, Erin E. Frick, Todd Feucht, Grey Stafford, I. A. Charles
{"title":"区分个人信仰和科学知识对虎鲸福利的改善-评论","authors":"M. Kathleen, M. Heather, A. Zaccaroni, Radhika N. Makecha, Malin Lilly, J. Almunia, Erin E. Frick, Todd Feucht, Grey Stafford, I. A. Charles","doi":"10.46867/ijcp.2020.33.00.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":39712,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary\",\"authors\":\"M. Kathleen, M. Heather, A. Zaccaroni, Radhika N. Makecha, Malin Lilly, J. Almunia, Erin E. Frick, Todd Feucht, Grey Stafford, I. A. Charles\",\"doi\":\"10.46867/ijcp.2020.33.00.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39712,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Psychology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46867/ijcp.2020.33.00.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46867/ijcp.2020.33.00.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们对Marino等人关于圈养虎鲸(Orcinus orca)福利的发表提出质疑,因为他们对现有数据进行了歪曲,并使用了不支持断言的引文。Marino等人歪曲了应激反应概念,错误地引用了一些研究,这些研究似乎支持Marino等人关于鲸类动物下丘脑-垂体-肾上腺轴的哲学信仰。需要明确的是,这些虚假陈述并不是科学观点的分歧,因为作者的结论缺乏任何科学依据。对Marino等人的引用进行更广泛的审查,发现缺乏经验证据来支持他们的主张。此外,Marino等人的动物福利方法与传统的动物福利兽医方法不一致,包括他们明显反对使用预防性和治疗性兽医干预措施。虽然Marino等人认为虎鲸的认知和空间需求阻碍了人类对该物种的管理,但对支持这一观点的引用的错误陈述使他们的论点无效。对虎鲸认知和情感需求相关数据的误导性解释,以及与患有创伤后应激障碍和其他疾病的人类所经历的状态进行似是而非的比较,代表了许多用于歪曲有关虎鲸福利知识的策略。这些虚假陈述和谬论不符合可信的同行评议期刊的科学伦理标准(ICMJE, 2018),并且是严格讨论和确定优化虎鲸福利策略的障碍。论文中的断言只不过是结论性的哲学陈述的汇编。我们还想提一下,Marino等人的手稿对比较心理学领域和整个行为科学造成了巨大的损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Probable Play Behavior in a Surgeonfish (Naso vlamingii ) A Case Study of Spontaneous Category Formation and Behavioral Expression in a Language-Trained Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Effortful foraging activity for uncertain food in pigeons Do belugas send sound cues? -Experimental verification of blindfolded imitation among beluga- Comparison of Paired- and Multiple-Stimulus Preference Assessments using a Runway Task by Dogs
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1