Human Embryo Debate

Jordan Bailey

Critics are outraged by a definition of “human embryo” given in October of 2011 by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ was asked by the German Supreme Court to give such a definition in an effort to clarify the European Union’s directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions established in July of 1998. The goal of the 1998 law was to determine what processes and inventions would be patented, or government protected, in the sensitive realm of genetic research. Specifically, the directive aims to establish the human body at all stages of development not patentable. For years, ambiguous wording in the directive allowed scientists and researchers to defy the true purpose of the regulation and continue with human embryo research, until the German Supreme Court requested a clarification of the document by the ECJ. Despite opposition from scientists and researchers, the ECJ had full rights to establish an official “human embryo” definition, on the grounds that it was a purely scientific definition used solely to clarify a pre-existing law, and was given by the most qualified group in Europe to make such a decision.

The ECJ ruled, “A human embryo…comprises an ovum activated to divide by fertilization or any artificial means. Moreover…any research involving human embryonic stem-cell lines is immoral, because such cell lines are originally derived from fertilized eggs” ("Nature" 291-92). Essentially, the ECJ claimed a human embryo to be any female reproductive cell that has been fertilized, and outlawed any research done on stem cells produced from such fertilized eggs. Many scientists and researchers reject this ruling because they fear it will limit future research possibilities, but a clarification of the term was unquestionably necessary. Scientists and lawmakers have been dancing around the subject for years, leaving enough ambiguity in wording to allow such research to continue despite rules and regulations that appear to state otherwise. A concrete definition of the term does not necessarily limit research; it simply provides a guideline for future laws on the sensitive subject to be based around. Opposers to the ECJ ruling are making unjust inferences about the decision without grounds to do so. Furthermore, the fact that the German Supreme Court asked the ECJ for this definition affirms the fact that it was necessary.

Scientists who disagree with the decision claim that the ECJ is not qualified to give such a definition based on the fact that its members are judicial figures and not scientists with experience in stem cells or patenting, but as the highest court in Europe the ECJ has every right to make this declaration. The members of the ECJ may not be scientists or stem cell experts, but they are trusted to interpret the most difficult laws and have dealt with controversial issues in the past. Such as their 2011 ruling on marketing products with traces of genetically modified organisms. Specifically, the ECJ ruled that a brand of honey containing pollen derived from genetically modified maize was illegal. The decision was controversial because many felt that it would drastically limit production possibilities of food producers. Controversial rulings are a difficult but necessary part of the judiciary process in order to maintain a definite collection of rules and regulations.

Moreover, the definition given by the ECJ was purely scientific. According to Volume 22, No. 4 of Human Reproduction, the ECJ’s definition is spot on biological. The definition given in this 2006 scholarly report states that a human embryo is “a discrete entity that has arisen from either the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or
any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, 
and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.” Essentially, the article declares a human embryo to be a “thing” with distinct existence produced by the division of a fertilized egg that has been fertilized by either natural or artificial means, and is younger than eight weeks old. This report ignores controversial debates and ethics and gives a purely biological definition of a human embryo, with which the ECJ’s definition is entirely in line.

A basic definition of a human embryo does not limit any potential scientific research; it simply establishes a guideline for rules and regulations of such research to be formed. Scientists and the public have jumped to interpretations of a ruling that simply discusses patent law.











Works Cited

Findlay, J.K., M.L. Gear, P.J. Illingworth, S.M. Junk, G. Kay, A.H. Mackerras, A. Pope, and H.S. Rothenfluh. "Human Embryo: A Biological Definition." Human Reproduction. 22.4 (2006): 905-11. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/4/905.full.pdf>.



"Error of Judgement." Nature. 480.7377 (2011): 291-92. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7377/full/480291b.html>.

So Precious, Yet So Vulnerable

When ENIAC, the first computer, occupied lab as big as a lecture hall in Pennsylvania University, his creator could never perceive some of its descendants are as thin as 0.6 cm after 70 years. Comparing the human history, 70 years are just a blink. But during this time period, not only computers themselves have been upgraded to smaller and faster models, but also their derivatives and they changed our society patterns a lot. With the creation of computers, our world production travels in a light speed. Working efficiency accelerates; it increases the productivity, etc. Thus it’s not exaggerating to say that computers are the greatest creation in the 20th century.

Recently in an issue of “Nature” magazine published on 26 January, one of the articles embraces computer technology by talking about how helpful they are in scientific surveys and researches. Particularly, he refers to those derivatives-portable electronic devices, such as iPad and other e-books tablets. Under such strong overwhelming appreciation, he seems to forget the vulnerabilities of computer technology and those devices, which include fragility in both physical way and security way; moreover it might falsely recorded the data. These vulnerabilities do not limit themselves in computer technology only. In 1967 Soyuz 1, a Soviet spaceship, was launched into space. On its way home, it crashed and killed one astronaut due to technical issues. It follows that advanced technology often requires extreme concentration and care, even a tiny mistake can cause a fatal catastrophe.

As those portable devices play an increasingly important role in helping us organize and manage documents and files, it is a heavy strike to us if they are simply not functioning. Michelle James, an Alzheimer's disease researcher at Stanford University, is quoted in the article that she already shifts all her research results and lab notes from standard lab books to on her iPad. She sounds so happy that as if she just gets released from the yokes of writing everything down. But imagine her iPad drops on the ground, all her precious materials will be lost. Unless she could wrap up her iPad with shockproof materials, or lay a thick rug on the floor where she stands, her iPad could easily be broken just after a few hits. Although she might argue she’d be very careful to prevent those hits happening to her iPad, it still happens regardless of how careful she could be. Numerous videos could be found on Youtube about how their iPads are broken after hitting on the ground from above 1 meter. “While trying to remove the cable it slipped out of my hand at no more than two feet from the floor. It hit the floor at one of its edges and sadly it cracked the complete screen.”, says an iPad owner from a website.

In this case, the screen is broken, but it’s ok because it’s easily replaceable. However, there are more iPad owners reporting how their iPads got completely broken after hitting on the ground. IPads, as well as other alike portable electronic devices are made of many tiny and exact elements. These elements are very fragile, and if any little one of them breaks, the whole machine will not be able to function properly. Among all the possible ways that could break iPads, hitting and water are the most powerful ones. As the hitting can break the elements, water jams the circuit inside iPads, which means a fatal damage.

As considered a more progressive operating system, Apple also installs iOS in iPads. On top of all the benefits iOS holds, it claims it is immune to all viruses. Because every virus was created to attack Windows operating system, it might take a while for the hackers to react to iOS. Nonetheless, the legend is about to be smashed now. A piece of recent news shows that a first virus was found in one iPad. What makes it this case worse is that after a careful examine, this virus was actually an iPhone virus infecting iPad. Since iPhones, MacBooks and iPads all run the iOS. Thus this consistency gives a bigger and smoother platform for the virus writers. Moreover, “Goatse Security, the white-hat hackers (an Internet hacker) that exposed the iPad's problems keeping email addresses under wraps, is back with a warning about additional risks to owners of the tablet.” Also, in a letter from Goatse Security to AT&T, these hackers claimed that they’ve found a bug, which they can use to attack the devices and the devices won’t be able to detect it. In numerous movies and films, one can find case alike that a hacker uses a virus to steal money from a bank or distort some tiny digit number in a research. In this case, would Michelle James be able to memorize all her data correctly? She might be able to do so if there is only a survey, what if the number increases to 100, or even 1000? While the public embraces the security of these devices, they forget how vulnerable they could become.

The two weakness of portable electronic devices discussed above are visible. When they happen to one’s devices, computers or laptops, one can detect them right away, and then look for solutions. In this case, my third point might seem a bit vague and bizarre. Just imagine a electronic device are physically unbroken, and it is free of any viruses, what happens if it records data incorrectly? Or what if they disobey our orders and process the data in a wrong way while functioning correctly? In 2004’s hit sci-fi movie “I, Robot”, humans are living in a world where robots do every piece of work. While robots are taking over more and more work, humans are becoming more and more dependent on them, and finally they decide to take over the world. 

Well, robots may seem a bit unrealistic in this case since we can’t even make an artificial robot. However, the cases about computers gone wrong are not a rare case anymore. Recently, due to computers errors, a prison released 1000 high-risk prisoners. It is confirmed that the errors are leaks in prisons evaluation programs, which misleads the prisons guards to falsely evaluate the prisoners' levels of risk. In this case, Michelle James might argue that the program writers should be more careful to prevent alike events happening again. However, programs are man-made, computers are man-made. As long as they are man-made, they are not flawless. Apple claimed they are flawless, but under such examination, a flaw can still be found.

Conclusion: At some point, I strongly agree computers are beneficial, and I embrace them for doing a great job to improve our life. However, it does not mean they are thoroughly perfect in every way. It is important to see that they have weaknesses, too. Either they do not perform properly or they are dropped on the ground by careless hands. Hence, I oppose complete dependence on them, and meanwhile we should keep on doing old practices like using pens and papers, because we can hardly and completely get rid of them nowadays.

Works Cited

Colon Raul, Ipad 2 very fragile, 2011. Web. 27 Feb 2012. 

Richardson, Heather. "First IPad Virus Spotted.". Apple Tablet IPad, 6 Apr. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. 

Perton, Marc. "Security Experts Claim IPad Vulnerable To New Attacks" The Consumerist. 14 June 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. 

Choney, Suzanne. "Computer Errors Free 450 High-risk Prisoners." Technolog. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. 

Better Safe than Sorry

Photo by Dave W. Dave W. Clarke

Nature presented a review article in which a large number of ecologists said that the nature of a species should carry more weight than the origin. That whether or not a species is native to the environment which it now lives in should not outweigh what it does to the environment. While the ecologists made a convincing claim that some biodiversity occurs when an invasive species enters, no one can oppose the fact that an alien species actually do major harm to the local environment. Invasive and alien species, both interchangeable names, must be nonnative, and able to do harm to the surrounding environment as defined by the US Forest Service. The counter argument was never really refuted, which means in some ways that the harm can never be reversed. One can refute many harmful examples from ecologists’ research by just stating different examples of species that don’t do as much damage instead of going back and retaliating the claims just made. From a global perspective, invasive species do more harm to environments than good. And while some of them may appear to not be consequential at all, it’s better to be safe than sorry. Some of them may not be harmful, but we can hardly get rid of the threat of something that can evolve and is not native to the immediate or existing environment. Nonnative species, in any means, will harm the original ecosystem.

Nonnative species can carry out peaceful lives, not harming the environment they have infiltrated. Most, however, will become invasive species. They will convert, just because they have the upper hand and it is only natural for them to take over. Species can invade easily when the environment is not prepared, and take over the resources it offers. Or even prey on the other species that it now cohabitates with. When a species can come and take all of the resources meant for other species, it spreads rapidly to other recesses of the ecosystem. This further displaces the native species and gives them less to live off of. Another large problem of unforeseen nonnative species is the fact that the species will have no natural predators. If there is nothing to contain the species and keep it them checked, then once again, the species is free to take over more space unrivaled.

 The ecologists that wrote the nature opinion article state several cases of nonnative species that completely destroy other species and even create collateral damage for humans. Most of the examples they give aren’t denied. One of the examples they use is the one of the zebra mussel. The zebra mussel came to North America in 1980s and has caused the water utilities and power services millions (possibly billions) or dollars clogging up pipes. Avian malaria was another one they even used, saying that it killed over half the native species of Hawaii when it was brought over. These accusations are met unopposed by any sort of case for them. The ecologists do not make an attempt to refute the counter argument to their own thesis statement. This must mean that there are cases which there is no good side. It is just a purely harmful invasive species, and while there are some specific cases that were no doubt found and used voraciously in this article, most nonnative species do not have the good side to cover up the bad one.

The case was also made by these ecologists that the fact that since the environment is constantly changing, the addition of nonnative species cannot be affecting the ecosystems and environments of the native species that much. Environments are going to change not according to the species that are introduced to its population, but by the original population itself. Unknowingly, the environment may be weakening or strengthening itself to outside intruders. By saying that we should not be so concerned with nonnatives being invasive is to say that the environments can handle themselves. True, when an ecosystem changes, we may not need to try and restore it exactly back to the way it was before, but you can’t assume that just because something has benefits, that it doesn’t also have a bad side too. Especially when people introduce a new species on purpose to an ecosystem. Some nonnative species are known for having two faces, so to speak. For example, the Himalayan blackberry, which produces edible berries, was originally planted for food and for beauty. However, it increases fire risk and horribly crowds out native plants. So some species may have little impact on the world around them, but how many species are we willing to overlook because of the good? The world loses billions of dollars every year, just trying to combat species that are places they shouldn’t be.

Ecologists propose that we don’t stop our protection of ones we know are bad, but remember the ones that may have good potential. We would not be taking into account what happens if or when the nonnative species evolve though. The ecologists are saying the environments are changing so, why not let the ones that aren’t doing bad things to coexist. Well, as the environment changes, so do the species inside it. They adapt. And who’s to say that a nonnative species, with no predators and an outside advantage won’t evolve into something invasive and harmful? I believe the better plan would be better safe than sorry . To assume that most or all nonnative species have the potential to act on their ability to be invasive. Ecosystems created themselves based on a set of animals that weren’t supposed to change. The original ecosystems function the best at keeping up the biodiversity of the area, instead of relying on good nonnative species to do so. So yes, we should take into account the good, but we cannot automatically cancel out the possibility of the bad.



Works Cited

Davis, Mark A. "Don't Judge Species on Their Origins." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 8 June 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

"Non-Native Species." JNCC. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

"Pacific Northwest Research Station." Invasive Species. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

Oil in the Arctic

Catherine Auten 

Photo by: winkyintheuk

In April 2010, the British Petroleum oil rig exploded sending one hundred and seventy million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The full extent of the damage caused by the spill is still unknown. Recently, the Arctic Circle countries have become concerned that this type of devastation could appear on the coast of Antarctica very soon. Countries like China, Japan and the United States are extremely interested in drilling for oil in the Arctic. The only effective way to police these countries efficiently is to allow the Arctic Circle countries to provide their own standards for drilling activity off their shore line.

In a recent article published in Nature, the author proposed a way to prevent a disastrous oil spill from occurring in the Arctic (Nature, 5-6). The author claimed that the Arctic Council should create a binding agreement for all countries interested in drilling for oil in the Arctic (Nature, 5-6). However, the Arctic Council’s history shows its reluctance to create binding documents. Since its creation in 1996, the Council has only produced the Antarctic Treaty, declaring Antarctica a peaceful continent, and the Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Agreement which binds the countries within the Arctic Circle to participate in efficient search and rescue procedures. Besides these two documents, the Arctic Council on serves as a forum for Arctic countries to discuss issues and possible solutions.

The Center for American Progress’s website posted an article expressing the Arctic Council’s inability to handle the pressing issue of drilling for oil because it lacks “unified, strategic management structures.” The author cited that, in the Council’s fifteen year history, it has only produced two binding documents; this lack of legislation proves that the Council lacks the ability to move quickly enough for the current drilling issue.

The most effective way to prevent an oil spill in the Arctic is for each country to set its own standards for drilling, making them responsible for the effects of a spill. If a spill occurred, the clean up and recovery would be the responsibility of the particular country where the spill occurred. This encourages each country to take the most extreme precautions when allowing oil companies to start drilling.

Canada has already developed a similar strategy to what I have outlined above. Canada requires that all ships weighing over three hundred tons, or any ship carrying potential pollutants, register before entering the Canadian territory. This plan is a non discriminatory way for Canada to police its territory. If countries wanted to begin drilling in Canadian territory, a similar plan of action could be devised.

By allowing individual nations to set their own standards for off-shore drilling, the countries within the Arctic can expect better protection against the dangers of a spill. While the Arctic Council could serve as a place for these countries to agree on a similar course of action, it should not be left up to the Arctic Council to create a binding agreement regarding oil interests in the Arctic; the issue is too pressing to rely on an organization which has consistently proved to be resistant to action.

Works Cited

"Poles Apart." Nature. 482. (2012): 5-6. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

A New Take on Alcoholics

Jordan Bailey

Photo by Lynda Giddens

A recent study contradicts previous evidence that decreased ERN, the brain’s response to making an error, is a general characteristic of substance abuse. In previous studies and experiments, researchers concluded that those who suffer from substance abuse generally have a lower ability to detect when they have made a behavioral error, thus explaining why substance abuse patients often engage in erratic or dangerous behavior that is typically avoided by sober people. But a recent study shows that alcoholic patients who suffer from one or more additional psychological disorders differ from those who have alcoholism and no other disorders. This study has found that alcoholics who also have anxiety disorders display a greater ability to control behavioral errors than those who do not have anxiety disorders. The study suggests that sub-groups of alcohol dependent patients exist and need to be further researched.


This study focuses specifically on alcohol abusers who have co-occurring psychological disorders. An observational study was done on 44 male participants aged 18-55. Twenty-one of which were alcoholics, eight were alcoholics with anxiety disorders, and 15 participants were healthy controls. To account for confounding variables, the study excluded men who were on medication that has been shown to affect ERN, those who have had recent significant changes in their medical history, and those with psychotic symptoms.


The men were given a series of choice reaction tests. In this type of test, participants are asked to perform one action for a certain stimulus, and perform a different action for another. For example, participants are asked to push one button if a light turns red, and push another if they are shown a yellow light. These tests are graded based on skill, accuracy, and speed. Choice reaction test results revealed alcoholics scoring higher in harm avoidance, reward dependence, and persistence categories. Participants were also given Eriksen Flanker tests, a group of tests designed to measure the ability of patients to avoid impulses that are inappropriate for the context. In these tests, alcoholics exhibited longer reaction times but equivalent accuracy.


Test results, along with ERN amplitudes and personality characteristics, were compared between alcoholics and non- alcoholics. Additionally, the study explored the relationship between ERN amplitude and psychological disorders in alcoholics. The study’s findings are based largely on ERN measurements. Increased ERN, or a greater ability to control one’s behavior, is generally exhibited in those who have anxiety disorders. Decreased ERN, a lower ability to control one’s behavior, is often seen in patients with disorders such as ADHD or borderline personality disorder. ERN amplitudes, or the extent to which participants are aware of their errors, were increased for alcoholics and for alcoholics with anxiety disorders. These findings are in contrast with existing research on substance abusers.


Scientists previously thought that decreased ability to process error contributed to alcoholism, but this study shows that reduced action monitoring is in fact not a general component of substance abuse. Alcoholics who suffer from additional psychiatric disorders therefore create a novel category of alcoholics who exhibit different symptoms and therefore require different methods of treatment. These findings demand further research for patients addicted to other substances with psychological disorders.






Work Cited:
Schellekens, Arnt, Ellen de Bruijn, Christa van Lankveld, Wouter Hulstijn, Jan Buitelaar, Cor de Jong, and Robbert Verkes. "Alcohol dependence and anxiety increase error-related brain activity." Addiction Research Report 105.11 (2010): 1928-34. EBSCOhost. Web. 05 Feb 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=101&sid=06e4be1d-6d23-49f8-92f5-9ebc55fc68c6@sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl

The Secret Life of the Sumatran Tiger

Photo taken by Gakige

Constance Edmonds
Sumatran tigers are a shy species of animals. Actually most of the animals in the Sumatran rain forest are. It makes sense that the tigers of Sumatra (Panthera tigris sumatrae) would keep to themselves because they are quite high up on the endangered species list.  They run in small packs, making them hard to find and even harder to track. And also they are still sought after for their pelts and meat.  With these variables in mind, the fact that there is not a lot of knowledge or recording of how these tigers interact with their prey comes as no surprise. The Journal of Zoology thought this lack of information was interesting and so they went about accumulating all research done on the Sumatran tiger using motion activated cameras and how well it gets along with what it eats. Researchers think that the animal the tiger will most likely prey on are the ones who have no defenses.

For a time period, animals in the Sumatran rain forest could not be observed at all.  When camera-trap equipment was invented, researchers then had a means to watch and record animals that were introverted. When scientists started researching with the camera-traps, they recorded oddly varied densities and even where they were occupying the landscapes.  They did not however, really focus on the tiger-prey interactions. Nothing on prey was given much thought in fact.  There was not much about what type of prey they stalked, nor where they lived.  So to get information on what the tigers were eating, researches focused on what species were near the tigers and had some correlation to the tiger population.  Something else that would help would be cross referencing activity patterns between prey species and the tigers. In other words, seeing where things a tiger would eat cross paths with the tiger daily.  Interestingly enough though, to date, no research on this has been done.

How they got their findings is they spent a great deal of time in a very large park.  Kerinci Seblat National Park (KNSP) covers 4 territories or provinces in the central west area of Sumatra. This area in Sumatra is actually known as a ‘Level 1 Tiger Conservation Landscape’, because it is believed to hold probably one of the best survival chances for the endangered tigers.  Unfortunately the tigers are not even safe there.  Poaching and deforestation due to farming threaten to expend the tiger species permanently. Four different studies, working from 2004 to 2007, set up camera-trap equipment in the park to collect data on the tigers and their supposed prey.  The cameras were infrared, or in other terms they were heat activated. Every time something passed one that had a body temperature, the camera turned on.  The cameras were places by trails left by tiger-sized animals. They were left alone, but checked every two weeks to get their film changed.

The results recorded from these cameras over the course of the years actually surprised the researchers a little.  From the beginning it had made the most sense for the tiger to be attacking tapir (an almost pig like animal).  Tapir are reasonably sized for the Sumatran tiger, and they also do not have any sort of tusk, horn or sharp protrusion to hurt a tiger with.  But tigers were not found to be hunting the tapir as often as they thought. They instead were found to mostly be hunting Muntjac (a smaller, more adorable deer).  They figured out that the reason for this occurrence was that tapir are found to be most active during the night, as in late night. Tapir are almost completely nocturnal. While occasionally a tiger will be out at this time, it’s quite dark and for most of them they are not really going anywhere of importance.  Muntjac, poor creatures, are most active at the same time that the tigers are active, dawn and dusk.  This makes them prime target to be tiger prey.

Sumatran tigers are beautiful creatures that are unfortunately on the endangered species list.  Timid animals, not much information was know about them and how they interact with other animals and prey around them.  With this study, not just tiger-prey interactions were found, but also activity patterns and knowledge on where they live. Hopefully with this new addition to the small amount of intelligence previously researched, the Sumatran tiger can slowly make a comeback out of endangerment.

Works Cited

Linkie, M., and M. S. Ridout. "Assessing Tiger-prey Interactions in Sumatran Rainforests." Journal of Zoology 284.3 (2010): 224-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Hunting Whales to Preserve Them?

（Photo by Dalli58 )

When Japanese whaling ships return to Southern Ocean every year, they bring the international attention in addition to their whaling tools. Year after year, they take away a number of whales and leave the scenes of blood floating on the ocean. This bloody conduct has already drawn condemnations from all over the world, especially from New Zealand and Australia. But this ritual still carries on because whaling is a very controversial international issue. Rather than ecology, more and more people now regard it as a political issue, which can only be done via political ways. Not completely comprehending what drives Japanese to finish annual “ritual” and how Australia has appointed itself as a Southern Oceanic guardian, Adrian Peace argues the irreconcilable cultural perspectives of Japan prevents them from being consistent with Australian in this article, and how those cultural differences resulted in their political standpoint in whaling.

Australia uses the media such as TV, newspaper and radio to spread the idea that whales belong to them. Whales are considered as vulnerable and intelligent specie. Thus, their choice of coming back to the same place, like the southern ocean where Australia is located, is considered a self-induced behavior. In the moral sense, it is a behavior like the weak going for the asylum that drives the Australia to think they possess the whales. Under these situations, it causes the Australian to have responsibilities. Every year reposts of crowds gathering for whales rescues are easily seen on TV and newspaper, including the remote and little-inhabited islands. It is in their nature to preserve and rescue whales. Moreover, whales watch tours are elaborated to a high moral level that the tourists are not just paying to watch some marine animals, but rather they pay to get close to whales, human-like specie. Their money is used to help preserve them. This strategy extends role of “Protector of Whales” from Australian to tourists from all over the world.

After all, the whales become a symbol that should be approached with proper manners and humanities. Thus whatever actions would cause harm to them would be heavily criticized as barbaric, or cruel. However, Japan is one of the exceptions. For this pro-whaling side, people argue that it is one of Japanese honorable rituals to kill whales and eat their meat. Other than that, Arne Kalland argues that whale meat solved Northern Japanese famine in early 20 century, which makes it a common item on the menu and dinner able. Moreover, in Japanese character, the word for whales is kujira, which indicates it’s just a fish rather than a mammal. So in their view, fish is kill-able without bearing any sins. Even their dominant religion-Buddhism does not restrict the idea of eating fish, let alone some western condemnation thousands of miles away. It is worth noting that as the world increasingly criticized Japanese’s whaling as a source of food, Japanese established Institute for Cetanean Research cover up their whaling, an alternative in response to the world. The ICR was especially established for whales’ scientific research, justifying their hunting of whales. Although IRC’s function does remain controversial among the western critics, its research results are announced every year in the media. With these detailed work, the critics fail to make harsh comments as they did before, and thus they are gradually losing credibility in this case.

The author admits that although he tries hard to map out the cultural factors, there are actually more factors from other categories should be put into consideration. Historical factors that some traditions were brought back to life are forgotten. Economic factors that some markets are wiped out are prosperous. Also, factors of times and locations are influential. In expansion, ever since Australia closed its last whaling station in 1978, it strived to become the most powerful anti-whaling country in the world. In 1982 when IWC made an announcement to defer whaling, Japan was then forced to quit commercial whaling, however it established whales research program, called ICRW, which allowed whaling (“The Whaling Dispute In The South Pacific: A Japanese Perspective”) As whaling continually remains a controversial issue, this whaling war would never come to an end.

Works Cited

"The Whaling Dispute In The South Pacific: A Japanese Perspective." Journal Of East Asia & International Law 4.2 (2011): 449-456. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.

Peace, Adrian. "The Whaling War: Conflicting Cultural Perspectives (Respond To This Article At." Anthropology Today 26.3 (2010): 5-9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.