The harmful effects of captivity and chronic stress on the well-being of orcas (Orcinus orca)

Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study

“…(3) The references cited must be representative of the relevant scientific literature; that is, the authors must not “cherry-pick” just those studies or pieces of studies that support their claims, while omitting studies or pieces of studies that disagree with their claims [ 34 ]. The paper by Marino et al [ 31 ] repeatedly violates each of these tenets, as discussed below.…”

“…In recent years, the practice of housing and displaying killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) in marine mammal facilities has received a lot of media attention and lobbying from anti-zoo organizations (e.g., [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]), resulting in proposed legislative bans (e.g., [ 29 , 30 ]). A recent paper in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior [ 31 ] purported to review the state of knowledge regarding the welfare of killer whales in captivity, potentially providing a scientific assessment of the kind that could help legislators make informed decisions about this issue. Specifically, Marino et al [ 31 ] argued that, due to the complex needs conferred by their cognitive, emotional, and social characteristics, killer whales cannot thrive in traditional marine mammal facilities.…”

“…A recent paper in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior [ 31 ] purported to review the state of knowledge regarding the welfare of killer whales in captivity, potentially providing a scientific assessment of the kind that could help legislators make informed decisions about this issue. Specifically, Marino et al [ 31 ] argued that, due to the complex needs conferred by their cognitive, emotional, and social characteristics, killer whales cannot thrive in traditional marine mammal facilities. Rather, they argued, captive killer whales exhibit abnormal behaviors and often die at an early age, likely due to chronic stress brought about by captive conditions.…”

“…To do so, they must use sound and rigorous principles of scientific analysis and argumentation, and clearly communicate what is known (and not known) in order to give the public, policy-makers, and legislators the resources they need to participate in constructive dialogue and decision-making [ 16 , 21 ]. Unfortunately, the Marino et al [ 31 ] paper falls short of these standards in a variety of ways, including problematic referencing, overinterpretation of the data, misleading word choice, and fallacious argumentation.…”

“…In the current paper, we highlight several of the major methodological flaws, biases, and misrepresentations of the scientific literature in Marino et al’s [ 31 ] review. Note that the specific examples discussed for each issue are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all instances in the paper, but rather are meant to be illustrative of repeated instances throughout their review.…”