Sdentific review of issuesraised by thMemorr ifa~
A.ustrraliainduding its two Appendices
U..as all,;e
April 9, 2013
1About the Author
lars Wall!l}eis currently Professor Emeritus of Physiology at the University of Oslo. Hetook
his MDand a PhDin physical chemistry in Oslo in 1965. Hewas Professor of Physiology at
the Faculty of Medicine ofthe University of Oslofrom 1988 to 2008, and before that
Professor of Applied Statistics and Mathematical Modelling at the Faculty of Science from
1970 to 1988. He has aIso held part-time positions as Research Directorat the Instituts of
Marine Research in Bergen and Professorat the Department of Arctic Biologyat the
University ofTroms!l}.
Hiscurrent research is in the field of cardiovascular control mechanisms in man and other
large mammals (reindeer, seals and whales), and he has developed non-invasive ultrasound
instruments for such studies. Hehas aIso published papers inthe fields of sensory
neurophysiology, neuronal nets, robust statistical methods, historical demography,
population biology, reproductive epidemiology, and on methodology in the natural sciences.
Professer Walhlleis President of Academia Europaea (the European Academy of Science and
Humanities). He isScientific Adviserto the Norwegian Government on Marine Mammals and
aIso scientific director of Norwegian research on marine mammals, a post he has held since
1986. He has aIso been President of the Norwegian Academy of Science and letters,
Chairman of the Norwegian Population Panel, Director ofthe Norwegian research
programme on acid rain, Chairman of the Norwegian Research Board for Envlronment and
Development, Chairman of the Standing Committee for Lifeand Environmental Sciences of
the European Science Foundation, and Panel Chairfor Applied Biologyinthe European
Research Council. Further biographical details are given in Appendix Aand at
http://folk.uio.no/larswa/e index.html.
2My understandingof my mandate asexpertwitnessunderthe Rulesof the Court
1have been asked bythe Government of Japan to prepare an independent report providing
a scientific reviewf certain issues raised bythe Memorial ofthe Government of Australia,
dated 9 May 2011, inthe case WhalingintheAntarctic(Australiav.Japan) before the
International Court ofJustice. 1was ln particular asked to consider certain questions relating
to Appendix 2 of the Memorial. This contains an independenÙeport by Dr.Marc Mange! of
the University of CalifornlaSanta Cruz,bearingthe tltleAnAssessmentofJapaneseWha/e
ResearchProgramsUnderSpecialPermitintheAntarctic(JAR PA,JARPAIl)asProgramsfor
PurposesofScientificResearchinthe ContextofConservationandManagementof Who/es.
The Government of Japan aIso aslcedme to provide this independent Expert Opinion in
preparation for possible appearance as an expert witness under Article57 of the Rules of
Court lnthe above case.
1have chosen to present the issues 1was aslcedto consider under the following five
headings:
1. Comments on the restrictive and therefore misleading general understanding ofthe
concepts 'scientific research' and 'scientificmethod' as presented by Dr.Mange! inAppendix
2 to the Australian Memorial, includingcomments on the claimthat Japanese scientists have
not determine clthe necessary sample size by 'established' statistical methods.
2. Comments on the daim that ali information necessary to improve the management of
whaling couId be obtained by non-lethal methods.
3. Comments on the daim that research whaling carried out under Article VIIIshould be
restricted to research whlch could improve conservation of whales and management of
whaling.
4. Comments on the criticism of other parts ofthe lethal research carried out under JARPA
and JARPAIl.
5. Comments on important scientific developments since the two memorials were prepared.
ln considering the approach to follow, 1have not received any particular instructions or
guidelines beyond the questions Jisted above. 1have thus not been given any guidance asto
choice of methods or principles in support of scientific arguments, nor have 1been given any
indications asto the range or depth of scientific evidence to be provided in the report. This
statement is addressed to the Court, and 1assume that the judges do not have in-depth
scientific knowledge of the field. Forthis reason 1have not found it necessary to set out
detailed scientific evidence, but have tried to indicate in general terms which deliberations
myviews are based on.
Adiscussion of these issues involves complex conceptual and mathematical questions,
notably in probability, induction and statistical inference. ln particular, concepts such as
power analysis and statistical significance are important in marine ecology, population
dynamics and sampling, includlng choice of sample sizes. Although these issues may underlie
complex scientific components of the scientific research programmes under consideration in
this case, the question iswhich conceptual frameworks willbe of practical assistance to the
Court indelivering its judgment.
31have chosen not to include a scientific overview of statistical topics, concepts and methods,
nor any references to the ample scientific literature and related evidence or the usual
apparatus of statistical and other scientific references, as 1consider that they may not
necessarily be helpful in this context. Nor have 1included a large amount of factual and
scientific material.hile 1would aIsobe prepared to answer oral questions, 1concluded that
my independent report would be of most practical assistance to the Court if,on the basis of
transparency as to my own background and experience and according to my best judgment,
it answered the key questions 1have been asked as directly possible, based on the scientific
arguments raised in the Memorial, and particularly its Appendix 2. To some extent this
approach is a Iso dictated bythe methodology and assertions of Dr.Mangel in his Appendhc.1
believe it is possible to discuss some of these issues in ordinary language, and have
attempted to do so. 1have aIsochosen to inelude examples drawn from various fields of
work in which 1have been engaged, particularly cetacean population dynamics. However,
there are aIso examples from scientific fields that may at first glanee not appear to be
directly related to whaling, but that in my opinion nevertheless may help to shed light on
sorne ofthe issues discussed.
Scientificreview
Background: 1have read the Memorial of Australia, including its two appendices, and the
Counter-Memorial of Japan. 1have also read both the original and the modified research
proposais for JARPAand JARPAIlsubmitted to the SclentificCommittee of the International
Whaling Commission (IWC),and a number ofthe scientific papers which have been
published from these research programmes. 1participated inthe three first (open)
evaluation meetings ofthe Japanese research programmes.
1have attended the meetings of the IWCScientificCommittee every year since 1987, from
1989 as head ofthe Norwegian delegation. From 1990 onwards, 1have also been a member
of the Norwegian delegation to the annuaiiWC Commission meetings, and 1have tal<en part
in a large number of speciaiiWC meetings arranged either bythe Scientific Committee or by
the Commission itself. From 1995 to 2009 1chaired the Scientific Committee's Sub
Committee on Bowhead, Rightand GrayWhales, which prepared advice on safe catch limits
on two of these species for the Russian and the US(Aiaskan)aboriginal hunt. Duringthe last
three years (2010-2012), 1have chaired the Sub-Committee which has been dealingwith the
problems connected with estimating mlnke whale abundance inthe Southern Ocean. After
about ten years of difficult scientific discussions, the Sub-Committee was able to reach
agreement on estimates last year (2012), and these were subsequently accepted bythe full
ScientificCommittee.
Thisis an Expert Opinion devoted to science and scientific methods. ln light of the highly
politicized context of sorne topics, 1believe it isfair to briefly characterize my own emotional
and intellectual views on whaling, although this is not an issue here. 1consider that whaling
is an ethically permissible human activity similarto the hunting of large terrestrial mammals,
provided that two conditions are fulfilled.These are that the hunt must be biologically
sustainable, and that animal suffering duringthe hunt and the killingmust be kept to a
minimum, comparable to the Jevelwe accept inthe hunting of large terrestrial mammals.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific evidence that whales or dolphins have more
4highlydeveloped mental abilities {intelligenceor emotions) than large terrestrial mammals
like pigs, moose, wolves and elephants.
1. Commentsonthe restrictiveandthereforemisleadinggeneralunderstandingofthe
concepts'scientificresearch'and 'scientificmethod'aspresented by Dr.Mange/in
Appendix 2 to the AustralionMemorial,includingcommentson theAustralianclaimthot
Japanesescientistshavenot determinedthe necessarysamplesizeby 'established'
statistlcalmethods
Dr.Mangel's Appendi>cindu des a ten-page chapter called "Characteristics of a program for
purposes of scientiflc research" {Memorial, pp 349-359), which presents the author's general
understanding of "scientiflc method". This interpretation isin my view too restrictive and
does not provide an adequate description of research as it iscarried out in different
biologicalfields. Dr. Mange! daims that "inaccordwithgeneral/yacceptedprincipfesof
scient/ficpracticea programforpurposesofscientificresearch:
a)Hasanover-archingconceptua/frameworkthat feadsto aset offocusedquestions
(hypotheses);
b)Empfoysthe correctset ofempiricaltoo/sto answerthequestionsincludingsettingsampie
sizeswithsoundstatistica/reasoning,andlinkingmathematicalmodelsanddata
appropriately;
c)Hasproperassessmentthroughthe communityofsclentists." (p 350).
This is perhaps an adequate- though somewhat idealistic and oversimplified -description
of research in afairly advanced biologicalfield inwhich there are generally accepted
hypotheses about the main functional connections inthe system under investigation.
However, not many biological disciplines are this advanced at present, and especially not
ecological disciplines.
Existingknowledge about the Southern Ocean ecosystem isvery limited. This makes it
difficultto tell which observations are likelyto be important for an understanding of the
dynamics of the system. ln this situation, ali physical, chemical and biological oceanographie
data that can be collected may be considered potentially valuable, not only data relevant to
specifie hypotheses.
Ofcourse there are always general hypotheses behind any collection of primary data, which
suggests to the researcher the type of data that might be of interest at the time or in the
future. However, these underlying hypotheses are often vague and not easy to formulate in
scientific language. Thus, Dr.Mange! is, inthis context, in error to daim th"--sciencedoes
notconsistofsimplyaccumulatingdata.lndeed,wenowoftenface the problemof data
'pofsonfngb 'yhavingtoomuchdataandtaolittleunderstanding", and further "Simpfyput,
the essenceofscienceisto extractknowledgefromdataand,ifonedoesnot knowin
advancehowthe datawillbeanalyzedto extractsuchknowledge,onelsnotreadyto co/lect
thedata." (p 350). The research carried out under the JARPAand JARPAIlprogrammes
includes bath data collection to test specifie hypotheses and collection of data to provide
background primary data in physical and biologicaloceanography, which may be vatuable in
the future. lt iseasy to provide examples from the history of biology of research projects
5during which data collected without any specifie hypothesis in mind turned out to be of
great value for an understanding of the dynamics ofthe system under investigation.
Letme take one well-known e>camplefrom the history of biology: Gregor Mendel (1822-
1884) published his article "Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden" (Experiments in Plant
Hybridisation) in 1866. Hisexperiments showed that the inheritance of certain traits in pea
plants follows particular patterns, today known as Mendel's laws of lnheritance. These
subsequently became the foundation of the biologicaldiscipline of genetics. But Mendel did
not start his worl<with ciearlyformulated hypotheses. And he did not confine himself to
studying inheritance in peas, but aIsotried to find patterns of lnheritanee by cross-fertilising
varieties of mice and bees, but without success. Between 1856 and 1863 he cultivated and
studied sorne 29 000 pea plants. Hestarted with 34 varieties of one particular pea species
which he obtained from different plant breeders, and cross-fertilised the different varieties.
Sorne properties of the hybrids were intermedlate between the properties of the parent
plants, but others showed a different pattern. After years of observations he decided to use
for his further experiments 22 varieties of peas with characteristics that remained constant
through the generations. ln hisfinal experiments, he studied seven of these traits in detail. lt
isvery ciear from his description that most of the time was spent on detailed observations,
tryingto id~nt patterns in what he observed, which is not at alisurprising, sinee the
prevailing idea at the time was that hybrids should show properties intermediate between
the parents. Only at a late stage did Mendel formulate histwo laws as hypotheses.
Another e>camplecornes from environmental research inwhich 1was involved myself. lnthe
early 1970s, the public and scientists in Norway noticed that first salmon and later trout
seemed to be disappearing from lakes and streams in Southern Norway. The general
hypothesis was put forward that the fish were being killedby acidification of the water
caused by long-range transport of sulphur compounds from British and German facto ries
and power plants. Alarge-scale Norwegian research programme was established bythe
Ministry of the Environment (SNSF1974-1980). 1was appointed its scientific director from
1976. Usingmethods from medical epidemiology, we soon established that the geographical
distribution offish mortality was as expected on the basls of geology and deposition of acid
from the air. However, the Britishauthoritles did not accept the results. Their daim was that
fish kept in captivity could survive much higher levels of acid than those they were exposed
to in Norwegian lakes. So another major research programme was established (the Surface
Waters Acidification Programme (SWAP),1986-1990), this time involvingcollaboration
between the RoyalSociety, the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters and the Royal
Swedish Academy of Science. 1continued as head ofthe Norwegian part of this programme.
The programme soon confirmed the main findings from the Norwegian programme, but the
question asked by the Britishauthorities remained unanswered. The scientists then started
to collect ali kinds of data from the acid rain, from the soil and from the runoff. They were
searching for a possible unknown factor which could expiain the death of the fish. They
looked for various organlc molecules and different metal ions which were known to be toxic,
without results. The random analyses finallyshowed that the toxicity was correlated with
the concentration of aluminium ions inthe water {released bythe acid from the soil).The
result was unexpected, since previously aluminium was considered to be non-toxic.
However, further investigations showed that it was a special molecular form of aluminium
which was the toxic component. Thisexample clearly shows that a random search within a
6large set of possible chemical and physicalvariables, i.e. a bread collection of data, may yield
important results without a specifie hypothesis as the starting point. Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher accepted the results on behalf ofthe Britishgovernment at a Royal
Society meeting in London in March 1990, where the Norwegian and Swedish Prime
Ministers were also present.
Today powerful computer programs exist that can be used for such 'exploratory data
analysis', or 'data mining',as it issometimes called. Their development was initiated in1977
by the distinguished American statisticlan John W Tukey (1915-2000). He made fundamental
contributions to statistical practice and articulated the important distinction between
exploratorydata analysls and confirmatory data analysis,believing that much statistical
methodology placed too great an emphasis on the latter. 'Farbetter an approximate answer
to the right question, which is often vague, than an e'cactanswer to the wrong question,
which can always be made precise' (Tukey1962). Dr.Mangel's comments in his
methodological chapt er on 'theproblemofdata 'poisoningb 'yhavingtaomuchdata' (p
350) and on 'exploratoryanalyses'which'rare/ywork' (p 351), clearly show an outdated
approach to this development. The projects carried out under JARPAand JARPAIlare in my
view a good mix of projects carried out to test specifi!=hypotheses and projects in which data
were collected wlthout predetermined hypotheses with the intention of investigating
whether any lnteresting information couIdbe extracted. ln reality the re are no sharp
boundaries between the two types, but a continuum from precisely specified hypotheses,
through problems which are precisely formulated, but not inthe language typical of a
hypothesis (e.g. has there been any change in the age of sexual maturity of minke whales
duringthe JARPAyears?), to sets of variables that were recorded because the scientists
suspected or hoped that sorne interesting information would materialise. For example, as 1
understand it, the morphometric and stomach contents data were collected without any
prier hypotheses or assumptlons, and have nevertheless yielded very interesting scientlfic
results.
One very important finding, based on both genetic and morphometric data from JARPA,is
that minke whales inthe area between 35°E and 145°W consist of two stocks, which may be
calied the lndian Ocean stock and the Pacifiestock. They mixduring the summer feeding
season in an area around 160°E,but separate again when they migrate north to their
breeding areas inthe austral autumn. The results show no indication of further subdivision
of the two stocks, which is a significant finding because of its implications for possible future
implementation of RMP.
These results are very important for the implementation of the Revised Management
Procedure (RMP),and in general for the management of minke whaling inthis area. Two
other sets of results, based on systematic measurements of blubber thickness and on
stomach contents, respectively, show that blubber thickness and stomach contents have
decreased substantially over the JARPAperiod (and the beginning ofthe JARPAIlperiod),
when controlled for a number of other variables which influence these measurements.
These two time series show that substantial changes must have occurred in the Antarctic
ecosystem duringthe last twenty years.
7Dr.Mange! daims (p 362) that 'theonlyclearlyidentifiablehypothesisinJARPA orJARPAIlis
thekrillsurplushypothesis,accordingto whichthe over-harvestingof the greatwhaleslead
to akrillsurplus,whichinturnleadto anabundanceofminkewhales.' He quotes Murase et
al (2006), who wrote th at the krillsurplus hypoth'hasbeencentraltheoremof the
Antarcticecosystemstudy', and daims that 'lndescribingthe possible'krisurplus'asa
'centraltheore Mmu~raseet alsuggestthat fthasalreadybeenproven.' Murase's choice of
words may have been unfortunate, but it is certainly not the case that Murase or other
Japanese scientists regard the krillsurplus hypothesis as proven. ln many papers they discuss
the relative merits ofthis hypothesis and other possible explanations, such as changes inthe
ecosystem caused byglobal warming. The krillsurplus hypothesis is an interesting
hypothesls, but it is definitely'theon/yclearlyidentifiablehypothesisinJARPAorJARPA
Il'.
Setting samplesize
Arepresentative example of Dr.Mangel askingfor 'an exact answer to the wrong question''
is his treatment of 'SettingSample Sizes'(p 352). Hewrit'Settingthe sizeof asampleof
datato be takeninorderto est/mateanunknownparametersoasto test ahypothesis
dependson:
a)howaccuratelythe parameterneedstobeknown(howclosethe averagevalueof the
est/mate isto the unknownparameter);
b)howprecise/yitneedsto beknown(howmuchvariationsurroundsthe estimate ofthe
averagevalue);and
c)whatkindsofstatisticalassessmentswillbedonewiththe data.
Forma/statisticalmethodologyprovidesproceduresbywhichthe samplesizerequiredto
obtainaspecifiedconfidencethatwehaveinaparticularconclusioncanbe determined.'
lt is correct that formai statistical methodology provides procedures for determining the
required sample size. However, this requires very strict conditions to be fulfilled, for example
the statistical distributions of the variables under investigation must be known bath under
the 'nuithypothesis' (=no change} and under the 'alternative hypothesis' (=a change of at
least a certain specified magnitude). Meeting such conditions isusually unrealistic in
environmental and fisheries research.
Even inscientific fields where it lsreasonable to assume that the necessary background
information isavailable, statistical power analysis, as this discipline of statistics is called,
turns out to be beset by difficulties.Thiscan be illustrated with an example from medicine.
let us assume that we have an established pharmacological treatment for a common
condition, e.g. high blood pressure, and that a new drug isdeveloped for the same
condition. Ata certain stage inthe development the new drug willbe tested in a formai
statistical test ('double blind',randomised) against the old. Howmany patients of a certain
kindwouIdwe have to recruit? Thisisthe question about sample size. lnthis case it isin
theory possible to answer alithree questions a},b}and c)above. Since different patients
give different responses (e.g.liin blood pressure) to the same treatment, we need to know
the distribution ofthe responses inthe patient population, and we also need to know (or
assume) the distribution ofthe responses inthe same population und er the new treatment.
Then we have to decide how small an lmprovement we are interested indetectlng, and the
8probability of being able to detect that the new drug is better than the old (calied the power
of the test). Ifthese conditions are fulfilled, we can calculate the necessary sample size.
However, even inthis type of dean situation in medical research, the calculations very often
turn out to be misleading, and subsequent analyses show that the sample was far too smali
(because the patient population turned out to respond differently from what was observed
previously). Forthis reason, many clinicaltrials are now carried out either by increasing the
sample size considerably above that calculated byformai methods (a 'precautionary'
approach), or by using sequential statistical methods, where no sample size is determined
beforehand. 1have together with a graduate student developed a sequential version ofthe
common Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) two-sample test, which is now used in many clinicat
trials because of the difficulties involved in calculating sample sizes.
lt can be difficult enough to determine the necessary sample sizefor one precise hypothesis
in environmental sciences, because the distributions of the variables are often not known
with sufficient accuracy. The problems increase considerably when the investigation involves
many hypotheses and also important scientific questions which the researchers wish to
investigate without yet having established precise hypotheses (exploratory investigations). ln
this situation, the standard statistical theory would have to be used for each of the precise
hypotheses, with sorne addition to sample size as precaution to account for any incorrect
assumptions about the statistical distributions. The final decision about sampie size would
then have to be the largest ofthe different sample sizes determined for each hypothesis.
Many of the sample sizes determil'led inthis way bythe Japanese scientists yield numbers in
the range GOD-1000minke whales peryear or more for JARPAIl.1have repeated the
calculations for a few ofthe variables by makinga set of necessary assumptions, and believe
that the numbers are of the right order of magnitude for many ofthe scientific questions
when the aim isto obtain clear results within a period of sb<years. Forother questions the
sampies are clearly too smali, but insuch cases a longer observation period may give
interesting results, as illustrated bythe blubber thickness and stomach contents data series
mentioned above. Longerdata series have also proved to be needed for population
modelling.
There are addition al considerations that must be taken lnto account when sample sizes are
determined. When research proposais are discussed in research councils or other funding
bodies, an Important question is always whether there issufficient funding available to carry
out the research. lt would be impossible to carry out a major research programme inthe
Southern Ocean uslng a large research vesse( with crew and bunker oil,often at sea for
many weeks, without aIsoensuring sorne income from the operation. The importance of this
isgenerally accepted infisherles research, where research vessels are often issued with
quotas for the relevant fish species to fund at !east part of the research. Forexample, this
has been the case for Norwegian research on Greenland halibut, and to a fesser extent for
Norwegian research on mackerel, cod, herring, saithe and haddock. Sorne of the fish which is
caught is of course used inthe research, but the rest issold on the market to cover part of
the costs of the research programme. Thisisfar from uncommon practice in other fishing
countries as weil. 1have specifie knowledge about the Russianfisheries research inthe
Barents Sea. Japan has chosen to cover part ofthe costs of its whale research programmes
byselling whale products on the commercial market. Toobtain sufficient income inthis way,
9the yearly catch has to be of a certain magnitude. Again, a catch of the order oSOD-900
whales per year does not seem to be unreasonable, on the clear condition that the re is
absolutely no chance that this willresult inoverexploiting the minke whale stocks. This
condition has been established beyond dispute for the two minke whale stocks in the
relevant area of the Southern Ocean.
Havingsaid this, it must be admitted that the Japanese scientists have not always given
completely transparent and clear explanations of how sample sizes were calculated or
determined, and on reading the research proposais for JARPAand JARPAIlsubmitted to the
IWCScientific Committee, 1often had the impression that sample sizes were also influenced
byfunding considerations. However, even larger sample sizes than 850 would have been
advantageous for sorne ofthe sclentific questions. Furthermore, results that do not reach
the magical 5 %significance level may also, in retrospect, be found to add to scientific
knowledge. Depending on the circumstances and subsequent analysis, such results may
indicate anomalies or variations that are worth investigating further. Setting a 5% level isto
sorne degree discretionary and based on convention, and results with significance
probabilitiesin the range 5-10 %,and the corresponding confidence intervals, stiJlcarry
appreciable weight.
The Memorial states that 'aproperinterpretationofthe words"forpurposesof"as usedin
the phrase"forpurposesofscientificresearch"/ArticleV/If,1/ requiresthat the activitybe
assessedto be genuinelymotivated byanintentto conductscientificresearch,andnotfor
anyotherpurposeorpurposes.' 1cannot speak for the legal interpretation. However, this
tepic isimportant here as it aIso relates to cornmon conditions and standards for the
planning and conduct of scientific research in general.
1agree with the first part of this statement above, but not with the second part. Aslong as
an activity is genuinely motivated by an intent to conduct scientific research, other
additional motivations, e.g. obtaining sorne of the funding by selling products, may even be
regarded as an advantage and not as a counterargument. Thissituation is not specifie to
Japanese whalingresearch orto lethal whalingresearch otherwise. Similar additional
motivations are generally found lnfisheries research, as mentioned above, and also in many
types of medical research (e.g. studies ofthe effect of vaccination against papillomavirus in
preventing cervical cancer, which also aim to vaccinate a substantial proportion of the young
female population} and in archaeology (in connection with construction or road building}.
Mixed motivations are common in many different types of costly research programmes.
2. Commentsonthe Austrolioncla/mthot aliinformationnecessaryto improvethe
management of minke wholingcouIdbeobtainedbynon-lethalmethods
lt is Important under this heading to keep two issues separate. The first (1)is how to obtain
and improve the information needed to run the 'RevisedManagement Procedure for baleen
whales' (RMP)in its current version. The second (Il}is how to obtain information that could
be used to improve management procedures (e.g. the RMP}inthe future. Myinterpretation
of the Japanese research proposais for JARPAand JARPAIlisthat they are designed to
obtain information needed to resolve both issues.
101) Information necessary to run the RMP:
The practice that has developed inthe IWCScientificCommittee isthat the information
necessary to set maximum catch quotas by running the eurrent version of RMPis a) the
catch history for minke whales inthe different regions ofthe Southern Ocean, b) at least one
abundance estimate, againfor each ofthe different regions ofthe ocean, and c) lmowledge
about the stock structure of minke whales inthis ocean.
The information required under a) and b) is obtalned by non-lethal means, but inthe
Japanese research programmes, the genetic information necessary to determine stoclc
structure isobtained from samples of lcilledwhales. Morphometric data from killed whales
provide additional information on stock structure.
The Memorial and Dr.Mangel's assessment in Appendix 2 {p362) daim that DNAanalyses of
biopsy sampies obtalned non-lethally from minke whales can provide sufficient genetic
Information to determine stock structure. lntheory this is correct, but in practice it would be
Impossible. Aresearch programme with the primary goal of obtaining a large number of
biopsy samples from minl<ewhales in the Southern Ocean wouId be prohibitively expensive
inthe absence of funds generated through the sale of meat from whales caught as part of
the programme.
Moreover, for reasons of logistics,the number of biopsies that couIdbe obtained with a
similar effort to that inthe current research whaling programme would be far lower than the
number of genet lesampies obtained from killedwhales du ringthe research whaling.
ln more detail, the difference isexplained bythe constraints on biopsy sampling. Samples
are obtained by shooting a syrlnge (a hollow steel tube) into the skin and subcutaneous fat
(blubber) of a minke whale. The syringe with its contents (the biopsy) then falls off. lnthe
Japanese research programme, it is retrieved by means of the string attached to it. lnthe
Norweglan whale research programme, a darting airgun {the 'larsen gun')is used to shoot
the needle into the skin ofthe whale, whereas the Japanese use a crossbow. Bath deviees
are rather imprecise, and the projectile has a lowstarting velocity. This means that the
vessel has to be quite close to the whale. lnthe Norwegian programme, the distance from
the whale is usually no more than 1()-15m, and in the Japanese programme, 18 m is
regarded as the maximum distance. The maximum distances for firing a harpoon during a
whale hunt are considerably longer. Norwegian minl<ewhalers are advised not to fire ifthe
distance to the whale is more than 50 m, and commonly operate from a distance of about 30
m. ln Japan, 60 m is regarded as the upper limit inthe minke whale hunt, and in practice 20
m isthe lower limit. ln conclusion, the vesse! needs ta be much doser to a whale to obtain a
blopsy than to fire a harpoon. Weather conditions in the Southern Ocean do not always
permit the use of Zodiacs or other smali boats to get close to whales. Since it is difficultto
get sufficlently close to whales wlth the large whalingvesse!, the number of biopsies that
can be obtained by one ship willbe much smaller than the number of whales that can be
killedduring the same period.
Areasonable conclusion isthat it isonlyfeasible to obtain a sufficiently large number of
genetic samples from minke whales by lethal sampling.
112) Information that could be used ta improve management procedures:
The eurre nt RMPsets relatively law catch limlts because of uncertainties about the
productivity levels of whale stocks. The population models that are being developed may
produce information on the lower bound of the productivity level. If,for a specifie stock,
research results make it possible to raise this lower bound, this wouIdallow for larger
catches without any lncrease ln perceived risi<ta the resource. This has a clear bearing on
the question asto what may constitute the most important additional research activity that
could be used to improve management procedures in the future. ln my viewthis is
undoubtedly modelling population dynamics using a variety of methods. Over time, this
could be extended to take species interaction into account.
Most of the models depend on information about the age ofthe animais. Dr.Mangel admits
in his appendix that 'therearestlllnoeffectivenon-lethalmeansof ageingwhales,sa ifage
informationlsabsolute/yrequired,thenlethaltakelsa/sarequired' (pasn but he continues
by stating that 'thereareproblemswithreadingthe earplugsat al/andoften a largenumber
ofthe ki/ledanimaisdonotprovidereadableear-plugs.' (p 366). Dr. Mangel is referring to
Lockyer{2010) here, but this quete does not give a fair and representative picture of her
findings. Lockyershowed in her blind'age determination of minke whale earplugs from
JARPAthat the Japanese age readings were generally reliable. Moreover, age Information is
clearly required for many ofthe investigations involvingmodelling of population dynamics.
These may provide a way to explore long-term changes in minke whale abundance and the
carrying capacity ofthe ocean for minke whales.
Akey difference between age data derived from l<illedwhales and the information obtained
from sighting surveys isthat the former provides information on the sizes of individual year
classes, and thus on recruitment patterns, whereas the latter can only produce estimates of
total abundance. Thus, lethal research methods give a much stronger information base for
attempting to ascertain the impacts of environmental change.
These important modelling studies were initiated by Butterworth and Punt, continued by
Punt and Polacheck, and are currently being refined by Punt. Validage determinations are
very important for these virtual population analyses (VPA),the related catch-at-age
modelling investigations/ the determination of age of sexual maturity and its change with
tlme, and many ether analyses. Other observations that are only available from killedfemale
whales, and which could be of importance for the improvement of management procedures,
are the reproductive history ofthe individualwhale and possible changes inthe pregnancy
rate.
Forthe data obtained from the hunted whales ta give useful results, it is important that
these whales can be regarded as a random sample from the whale population interms of
age distribution, area distribution and time duringthe season the whales spend feeding in
the Southern Ocean. lt ls impossible to obtain a perfectly random sample inthis l<indof
fieldwork. However, the Japanese sclentists have designed the sampling procedure carefully,
and in my judgement the sampies are likelyta be sufficiently random for most purposes.
Data are generally collected in a slmilarway infisheries research, and also in medical
epidemiological research to choose an example from another scientific field.
1
123. Commentsonthe cfaimthot researchwhalingcarriedout underArticleVIIIshouldbe
restrictedto researchwhichcouldimproueconservationof whalesandmanagement of
whaling
On p.8, the Memorial appears to limit ArticleVIIIof the Convention to'scientificresearchin
the contextof conservationandmanagementof whales'. Again,1cannot speak for the legal
interpretation, but 1note that this assertion isaddressed insorne detail in the Japanese
Counter-Memorial. Speaking from my own scientific experience, including in the Scientific
Committee ofthe IWC, 1 once againfind this to be too restrictive an interpretation of the
purposes of scientific research. This isaIsoillustrated bythe deliberations within the
Scientific Commlttee itself, which has accepted other reasons for conducting lethal research.
The 1986 IWCResolution on /lethal/ Scientific Research Programmes includes the following
criterion:'{1)Theresearchaddressesaquestionorquestionsthotshouldbeansweredin
orderto conductthe comprehensiveassessmentorto meet othercritical/yimportant
researchneeds.' (38th RIWC1987, p 27). Fromthe context and from the discussion in the
Commission it was clear that 'othercritical/importantresearchneeds' did not have to be
related to comprehensive assessments of whale stocks or be relevant for management of
whaling. When Norway presented its plans for scientific whaling in 1987 and 1991 (a
feasibility or pilot study of 50 whales from 1988 to 1990, then a full study of approximately
300 whales from 1992 to 1994), the justification given was not at alithat the results from the
research would be of value for management of minke whalinginthe North Atlantic, but that
Norwegian fishermen were concerned about interactions between whales and commercially
important fish stocks (RIWC43, p 29, 1993). ln order to consider this problem, scientists
needed to investigate the diet of minke whales and how muchthey were takingof various
species in different regions of the ocean and at different times of year. The information from
the research programme was later used ina multispecies simulation model, MULTSPEC.In
1987 and 1991, the discussions in both the ScientificCommittee and the Commission
focused on whether studying the feeding ecology of minke whales could be considered a
'crlticallyimportant research need'. The criterion cited above from the 1986 Resolution was
later listed in Annex Vof the ScientificCommittee Report ofthe 52nd meeting, 'Guidelines
for the Review of ScientificPermit Proposais' (JCRM,3 Suppl 2000), and has been used in ali
discussions on scientific permit whaling after 1986. Nevertheless, the Memorial (including
Dr. Mangel's assessment in Appendix 2) repeatedly daims that any valuable lethal research
programme must be motivated by its importance to the conservation and management of
whale stocks. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Asmentioned above, this argument
has never even been raised bythe ScientificCommittee.
4. Commentsonthe criticismof otherpartsof the lethalresearchcarriedout under JARPA
and JARPA Il.
ln addition to objectives dealing with improving the conservation of whales and
management of whaling, both JARPAand JARPAIlhave aIsohad more general ecological
objectives, e.g. 'Elucidationofthe role ofthe whales inthe Antarctic marine ecosystem' and
'Elucidation of the effect of environmental change on cetaceans'. Severai of the comments
on these aspects of the Japanese research programmes inthe Memorial appear to be devoid
of sclentific basis and even tendentious and misleading. For example, on page 211, the
13Memorial states the following about the Japanese objective of "monitoringtheAntarctic
ecosystem" and the accompanying justification for lethal fieldwork in JARPAIl"lnfact the
AntarcticecosysteminftsordinarymeaningcoversamuchJargerareathanthe narrow
regioninwhichlapan conductsitswhaling." The reality isthat thi"narrowregion" covers
the area from 60°5to the ice edge and from 35°Eto 145°W,which is exactly 180° or half of
the circumference of the Antarctlc.
Many of Dr. Mangel's comments in his Appendix on the corresponding research projects
appear to me to be equally erroneous. Accordingto hlm,the following non-lethal methods
are available and should be used instead of lethal takes: chemical and biochemical analyses
of biopsies of skin and blubber for pollutant and metabolites, collection and analyses of
faeces for feeding studies, and satellite tagging for study of whale migration. lt istrue that
satellite tagging of many large whale species has been successful, but this is not the case for·
minke whales. The success rate isvery low, and the few successful tags do not last long,
probably because of the strong drag on equipment attached to a fast swimming whale. This
is aIso recognised by Australlan sclentists. DrNickGales write"Taggingof thisspecies
[minkewhole]wi/1/ike/yon/ybeachievedwithasignificantinvestmentofeffort." (IWC
SC/62/012, p 6}.Thus the information Dr. Mange! gives on tagging methodology (p 367) is
definitely incorrect as regards minke whales. Forobvious practical reasons, it is impossible to
collect faeces of minl<ewhales inthe Southern Ocean. Moreover, even ifsuch samples could
be collected, they would only give information about food Items, not about the quantity of
food eaten. Sl<inand blubber samples may give information about sorne pollutants
(especially fat-soluble pollutants), but not ali, and not about pathological changes, for
example in the Jiver,l<ldneysor reproductive organs.
Sections 5.49 to 5.81 (pp 215 to 230) ofthe Memorial repeat many of the misunderstandings
and much ofthe erroneous information presented in Dr.Mangel's Appendix, which are
referred to above. These include the misunderstanding ofthe availability of satellite tagging
technology for minl<ewhales, which isdescribed as the 'go/dstandardof methodo/ogy', and
the claim that 'a//importantresearchneedsforconservationandmanagementof whalescan
be appropriately(and--- moreeffective/y)addressedusingmodernnon-lethaltechniques;
Workthat doesrequirelethalmethods- suchasobtainingdataonthe ageof whales
throughexaminingthelreorplugs- iseitherunreliableorunimportant.' 1have discussed
above why these daims are ciearly erroneous. The suggestion that the amount of prey
consumed can be estimated through allometric techniques (using whale Jengths determined
non-lethally at sea to assess food intal<e)is, at best, a hopeful guess at what might be
possible in the future. lt is not an accepted methodology today.
The Memorial daims that three different methods for estimating circumpolar Antarctic
minke whale abundance 'haveyieldedvast/ycontradictoryresu/ts,provldingcurrent
abundanceestimatesforAntarcticminkewhalesranglngfrom338,000to 1,486,000.The
reasonsfor thesesignificantdifferencesare,asyet, undetermined' (p 59). These figures are
not correct. ln 2011, the year when the Memorial was written, the range of best estimates
for the 'current' estimate (based on the third circumpolar survey, CPIll)was 382,000 to
712,000, as can be seen from Appendix 1(by de la Mare, Kellyand Peel}and inthe Scientific
Committee report (JCRM,12 Suppl p 25-26). However, the latter also states that work was in
progress to determine the reasons for the differences between the statistical models. This
14work was successfully completed in 2012, as explained in part 5 below. There is now full
agreement inthe Scientific Committee on the abundance estimates from CPIland CPIll,and
the decline from CPIlto CPIllis not statistically different from zero at the 5 %leve!.Thus the
statement 'However,alithese methodsdemonstrateasignificantdeclineincircumpolar
minkewhaleabundancesouthof 6o•s between1985and2004' (p 59) is no longer justified.
The chapter on 'Development on whale conservation and management measures under the
IWC'in the Counter-Memorial of Japan (pp 90 to 138) gives an interesting and detailed
history of post-1972 developments in whale management regimes. However, in my view
the re are two aspects of these developments that are not discussed insufficient depth:
1) The discussion inthe IWCScientificCommittee on multispecies management of marine
species includlngwhales started much earlier than specified in this chapter (and presented
in Figure 3-1). lt began as early as 1987 in connection with the plans for JARPAand for a
Norwegian feasibility study of the feeding ecology of minke whales inthe North Atlantic, and
was continued in subsequent years.
2) lt iscorrect that the Commission adopted the RMPin 1994 by consensus. However, an
Important part of the RMP,the Catch LimitAlgorithm (CLA),had already been adopted by
the Commission in 1991, at a meeting held in Reykjavik.ln its presentation ta the
Commission, the Scientific Committee gave a range of possible values for a particular
parameter (the 'tuning levet' (TL)),but the Commission decided in a resolution that a specifie
value was to be used infurther development ofthe RMP(the highest value ofTL, which
gives the lowest quotas). Many states, includingJapan but not Norway, accepted this
decision, even though it had no scientific basis, because they expected that the moratorium
would be lifted the following year. Aswe know, this did not happen. The question ofthe TL
was an important part of the discussions duringthe 'Future of the IWC'process (2007-2010),
and is aIsoof sorne importance for possible future implementation ofthe RMPfor Antarctic.
minke whales. The Scientific Committee began to work towards its implementation in 1992,
but stopped in 1994 when the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was established. Duringthis two
year period, the Committee suggested that the 'SmaliAreas' used for implementation of the
RMPshould be 10• sectors; however, in sorne sectors, a highTLcould cause problems for
commercial whaling. The 'SmallAreas' used in any future implementation should in my
opinion be based on the stock structure results obtained from the JARPAand JARPAIl
genetic and morphometric investigations. These stock structure results could not have been
obtained without lethal sampling.
5. Commentsonimportantscientificdevelopmentssineethe two memorlalswere
prepared.
Duringthe last ten years, there has been heated discussion ln the Scientific Committee
concerning the abundance of minke whales in the Southern Ocean. Three circumpolar
IDCR/SOWER surveys were carried out between 1978 and 2004. Eachcircumpolar series
took at least sixyears, since at most only one 60° longitudinal sector could be surveyed each
year. The Scientific Committee accepted the results of both the first (CPI)and the second
(CPli)survey, but was disturbed when the results from the first sectors surveyed during CPIll
15became available, and there were strong indications that abundance inthese sectors was
mu ch lower than estimated during CPIl.
Sincethen, two pairs of scientists have tried to improve the estimation methods, following
different approaches. The Japanese scientists Okamura and Kitakado developed one
method, called the Ol<method, while Bravington and Hedley (Australia/UK)developed
another, caliedthe SPLINTRmethod. When these two methods were applied to the primary
sightingdata from CPIJand CPIII,they gave very different results. The OKmethod gave much
higher abundance estimates than SPLINTRM . yimpression from the Commission meetings in
this period isthat the differences were interpreted in the context ofthe political conflict
between Australia and Japan. The ScientificCommittee's Sub-Committee for ln-Depth
Assessment set up an Abundance Estimation Worl<lngGroup to try to resolve the
differences. lt consisted ofthe four scientists mentioned above and three independent
scientists with statistical expertise. However, when 1became chair of bath the Sub
Committee and the working group in 2010, 1gained an impression of the worl<of the two
pairs of scientists quite different from that which was prevalent inthe Commission. Ailfour
were genuinely concerned to resolve the problems and understand the reasons for the
differences in the results.
After severai years of hard worl<,involvingcleaning of the primary data, applying the two
methods on simulated data, and makingthe changes in bath methods that proved to be
necessary, the estimates for both CPseries were doser together. lnJune 2011, the worl<ing
group, the Sub-Committee and the ScientificCommittee concluded that it should be possible
to reach an agreement by the following year, and that 'fromprefiminarycalculations,the
Committeeagreesthat thefinalestimatesforeachAreawillmostlikelyliebetween the
numbers givenbythe two methods--- andbeprobab/yc/oserto the OKest/mate.' This
turned out to be the case. ln 2012, the working group and the ScientificCommittee
presented agreed estimates for alisectors from bath CPIIand CPIIIto the Commission. The
total circumpolar estimate for CPIIwas 720,054 minke whales, with a 95% confidence
interval of 512,000 to 1,012,000. ForCPIIIthe estimate was 514,783 minl<ewhales, with a
95% confidence interval of 361,000 to 733,000. lt was concluded that '-- -anullhypothesis
ofnochangeinovera/1 abundancebetweenthetwo periodswouldnot berejected' fat the
5%significance level/.
lt is clear from the Memorial (and especially Appendix 1 by de la Mare, Kellyand Peel) that
at the time of writing in 2011 the Australian scientists did not believethat the differences
could be resolved, and that they were convinced that the Jower abundance estimates,
involvinga large decline from CPIIto CPIll,were Jlkelyto be most accurate. Developments
since then mean that the arguments inthe Memorial that use this as a postulate can no
longer be considered valid.
16 AppendixA
LARSWALL0E
ADDRESS INFORMATION
P.O. Box 1103Blindern, N0-0317 Oslo
Street address: Sognsvannsveien 9, Oslo, Norway
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
1961 Cand. mag. (chemistry, physics, mathematics) B.Sc., University of Oslo
1965 (Jun.) Cand. real. (physical chemistry) Ph.D., University of Oslo
1965 (Dec.) Cand. med. M.D., University of Oslo
1968 Dr. med. (simulation study of neural nets) Ph.D., University of Oslo
1965- 1968 Research Fellow in Physiology (Faculty ofMedicine, University of Oslo)
1968 - 1970 Assistant Professor of Physiology (Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo)
1970- 1978 Associate Professor oflnformatics (Faculty of Science, University of Oslo)
1978 - 1988 Professor of Informatics and Head of the Department oflnformatics
1988- 2008 Professor ofPhysiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo
1995-2005 Research Director (part time), Institute of Marine Research inBergen
2002-2007 Professor II (part time), Department of Arctic Biology, University ofTroms0
2008- present Professor emeritus ofPhysiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo
PROFESSIONAL IDSTORY
1974- 1988 Chief Scientific Advisor to the Ministry ofEnvironment
1976- 1980 Director of the Norwegian research program on acid rain (SNSF)
1977- 1984 Member of the Norwegian Medical Research Council (NAVF-RMF)
1981- 1984 Chairman of the Norwegian Population Panel
1983- 1988 Chairman of the Management Group of0KOFORSK- an applied ecology
research programme
1984- 1990 Norwegian member of The Management Group of the UK-Scandinavian
1 Surface Waters Acidification (research) Programme (SWAP) (The Royal Society
The Royal Swedish Academy of Science - The Norwegian Academy of Science and
Letters)
1986- 1987 Organiser and member of the International Group of Scientists Appointed
by the Norwegian Government to Review the Basis for Norway'sHarvesting of
Minke Whales
1986-present Chief scientific adviser to the Norwegian government on management of
marine mammals
1988- 1994 Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Norwegian Marine Mammals
Research Programme
1988- 1992 Chairman of the Norwegian National Comrnittee for Environmental Research
(re-organised to the following Research Board in 1993)
1993-2001 Chairman of the Norwegian Research Board for Environrnent and
Development (One of six research boards in The Research Council ofNorway)
1989- present Head of the Norwegian delegation ta the Scientific Comrnittee of the
International Whaling Commission (IWC)
1993-2004 Member of the Board of The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
1993- 1996 Chairman of the Science Class of the Academy
1997-2004 President of the Academy
1995-1998 Norwegian Member of the European Science Foundation's (ESF) Standing
Cornmittee for Life and Environrnental Sciences (LESC)
1999-2003 Chairman ofESF- LESC
2000-2005 Member of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Health Research
2001 -2004 Member of the European Research Advisory Board for the European
Commission (EURAB)
2004-2006 Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal
Commission (NAMMCO)
2004-2008 Chairman of the Section for Organismic and Evolutionary Biology of
Academia Europaea
2008-2011 Panel Chair ofPanel LS 9 (Applied Biology) of the European Research
Council
22008 - 2014 President of Academia Europaea- The European Academy of Science and
Letters
PRESENT PROFESSIONAL QUALJIFICATION
President of Academia Europaea
Scientific Adviser to the Norwegian Government on Marine Mammals
MEMBEROF
Academia Europaea
The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
The Royal Norwegian Society of Science and Letters
The Physiological Society(UK.)
The Royal Statistical Society (ill<)
The American Physiological Society (US)
The American Statistical Association (US)
HONOURS AND AWARDS
1992 FridtjofNansen Award for his physiological research
2002 Commandeur dans l'Ordre des Palmes Académiques (France)
2005 Kommand0r av Den Kongelige Norske St. Olavs Orden
(Commander of the Royal Norwegian Order ofSt. Olav)
2009 Order of the Rising Sun, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon (Japan)
PUBLICATIONS
A complete list of the approximately 200 scientific publications by Lars Wal10e and his
research groups can be found on his home page http://folk.uio.no/Iarswaindex.html
Most ofthe publications are in the scientific disciplines ofneurophysiology and
cardiovascular physiology. The most relevant publications for the court case are listed below:
Statistics - planning of experiments
G.U. Fenstad, L. Wal10eand S.0. Wille: Three tests for regression compared by stochastic
simulation under normal and heavy tailed distribution of errorScandj statist1977, 4:
31-34.
3G.U. Fenstad: A comparison between the U and V tests in the Behrens-Fisher problem.
Biometrilca1983, 70: 300-302. ·
G.U. Fenstad, M. Kjrernes and L. Wall0e: Robust estimation of standard deviation. J statist
comput simu/1980, 10: 113-132.
E. Slcovlund and L. Wall0e: A simulation study of a sequential t-test developed by Armitage.
Scandj statist 1987, 14: 347-352.
E. Slcovlund and L. Wall0e: A non-parametric sequential two sample test developed by
stochastic simulation. Jstatist comput simu/1988, 29: 87-104.
E. Skovlund: Correction of a two sample sequential t-test developed by Hajnal. Comput stat
data analys 1988, 145-155.
E. Slcovlund:A simulation study ofthree sequential two-sample tests with triangular
continuation regions. J stat plan inference 1988, 19: 383-394 and 1989, 22: 403-404.
E. Skovlund and L. Wall0e: Estimation oftreatment difference following a sequential
clinical trial.am stat ass 1989, 84: 823-828.
G.U. Fenstad andE. Skovlund: A two sample sequential rank test by Sen investigated by
stochastic simulation. Jstatist comput simul1990, 36: 129-137.
E. Skovlund: Truncation of a sequential two-sample Wilcoxon test. Biometricaljournall991,
33: 271-279.
E. Slcovlundand L. Wall0e: Sequential or fixed sample trial design? A case study by
stochastic simulation. J clinical epidemiol1991, 44: 265-272.
Environmental sciences
I.P. Muniz and L. Wal10e:The influence ofwater quality and catchment characteristics on
the survival of.fishpopulations. pp 327-340 in B.J. Mason (ed.): The surface waters
acidification programme. Cambridge University Press 1990.
S. Andresen, L. Wall0e and K. Rosendal: The precautionary principle: Knowledge counts but
power decides? Chapter 3 (pp 39-54) in R. Cooney and B. Dickson (eds.): Biodiversity and
the precautionmy principle. Earthscan, London, 2005.
Wbales and whaling
R.M. Anderson, R.J.H. Beverton and L. Wall0e: A note on the north atlantic minke whales
and IWC policy. Rep int whal commn 1989, 39: 227-228.
L. Wal10e:The geographical distribution of the Norwegian minke whale catch in the period
1950 to 1983. Rep int whal commn 1991, 41: 151-152.
L. Wall0e: Whale numbers in dispute. Nature, 362:389, 1993.
4L. Wall0e and A.S. Blix: Swimming speeds ofminke whales feeding off the coast ofnorthern
Norway and Spitsbergen. Rep intwhal commn 1995,45: 194.
B.O. 0en: Description and analysis of the use of cold harpoons in the Norwegian minke
whale hunt in the 1981, 1982 and 1983 hunting seasons. Acta vet scand, 1995, 36: 103-110.
B.O. 0en: ANorwegian penthrite grenade for minke whales: Hunting trials with prototypes
and results from the hunt in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Acta vet scand 1995, 36: 111-121.
B.O. 0en: High velocity projectiles for killing whales. Hunting trials using 20 mm high
velocity projectiles for minke whalesin 1982. Acta vet scand 1995,36: 153-156.
B.O. 0en: A new penthrite grenade compared ta the traditional black powder grenade:
Effectiveness in the Alaskan eskimoes' hunt for bowhead whales. Arctic 1995, 48: 177-185.
S.K. Knudsen, B.O. 0en and L. Wall0e: Minke whale hunt and animal welfare. Animal
weljare 2007, 16(3):405-406.
K..Konishi, T. Tamura, R. Zenitani, T.Banda, H. Kata and L. Wall0e: Decline in energy
storage in the Antarctic minke whale (Balenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean.
Polar Biol 31:1509-1520, 2008.
K.A. Glover, T.Haug, N.I. 0ien, L. Wal10e, M.C. Lindblom, B.B. Seliussen, and H.J. Skaug:
The Norwegian minke whale DNA register: a data base monitoring commercial harvest and
trade ofwhale products. Fish and Fisheries 2011, 13(3):313-332.
Forthcoming papers
K..Konishi, T. Hakamada, H. Kiwada, T. Kitakado and L. Wall0e: Decrease in stomach
contents in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean. -
in review
T. IUtakado, T. Schweder, N. Kanda, L. Pastene and L. Wall0e: Dynamic population
segregation by genetics and morphometrics in Antarctic minke whales. -in manuscript.
Conference summary
F.T.Last, G.E. Likens, B. Ulrich andL. Wall0e: Acidprecipitation- progress and problems.
pp 10-12 in D. Drabl0s and A. Tollan (eds.): Ecological impactofacid precipitation.
SNSF-project, Oslo - As, 1980.
Text-booi{S
A. Heyland and L. Wallae: ElementŒrstatistikk (ElementGiyStalistics). 3rd edition, 250
pages, Tapir forlag, Trondheim, 1981.
D. Fallesdal og L. Wallae: Argumentasjonsteori, sprak og vitenskapsfilosofi. 7th edition,
300 pages, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 2000, 1. edition 1977; translated as: Rationale
5Argumentation- Ein Grundkurs inArgumentations- und Wissenschaftstheorie. 371pp,
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1986, and asPolitikens introduktion til modernefilosofi og
videnskabsteori. 296pp, Politikens forlag, I<.0benhavn,1992, and asArgumenta~onsteori,
sprak och vetenskapsfilosofi.428pp, Thales, Stockholm, 1993.
T. Haug and L. Wal10e(eds.): Sjepattedyr- om hval og sel i norskefarvann.
(Marine mammals- on whales and seals in Norwegian waters). 240 pages,
Universitetsforlaget,Oslo, 1998.
Symposium proceedings
A.S. Blix, L. Wall0e and Y.Ulltang (eds.):Whales, seals,fish and man. Developments in
marine biology 4. 720pp, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995.
G.B. S0fting, G.Benneh, K. Hindar, L. Wal10eand A. Wijkman: The Brundtland
commission's report -10 years. 237pp, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, 1998.
Others
U. Nordgarden, L.P. Folkow, L. Wal10eand A.S. Blix: On the direction and velocity ofblood
flow in the extradural intravertebral vein ofharp sea(Phocagroenlandica) during
simulated diving. Actaphysiol scand2000, 168:271-276.
A.S. Blix, L.Wall0e, E.B. Messelt and L.P. Folkow: Selective brain cooling and its vascular
basis in diving sealsJ exp biol2010, 213:2610-2616.
A.S. Blix, L. Wall0e and L.P. Folkow: Regulation of brain temperature in winter-acclimatized
reindeer under beat stress. Exp Biol2011, 214:3850-3856.
L. Wall0e, O. Backman, H. Dovland, B. Herrlander, A. Johnels, P. Kauppi, H. Rodhe, H.M.
Seip and C.O. Tamm: Acid rain -an environmentalproblem across national boundaries.
Worlcingdocument for the Third meeting of the World Commission on Environrnent and
Development, United Nations, Geneve, 1985, 1-17.
The state of the North-east Atlantic minke whale stockReport of the group of scientists
appointed by the Norwegian government to review the basis for Norway's harvesting of
minlŒwhales (chairman: Lars Wall0e), 0koforslc, As, 1987, 1-100.
L. Wallae: Framework for a marine mammal research programme. Norwegian
Fisheries Research Council, Trondheim, 1988, 1-45.
E.O. 0en og L.Wal10e: Norslcvagehvalfangst 1993 - Fangstutevelse og
inspeksjon.Fiskeridepartementet, Oslo, 1993, pp 1-5, ogsa pa engelsk: Norwegian minke
whaling 1993- Whaling activities and inspection routines.Fislceridepartementet, Oslo,
1993, pp 1-5.
E.O. 0en og L.Wall0e: Norskvagehvalfangst 1994 - FangstutGVelse og
inspeksjon.Fiskeridepartementet, Oslo, 1994, pp 1-5, ogsa pa engelsk: N01wegian minke
6whaling 1994 - Whaling activities and inspection routines. Fiskeridepartementet, Oslo,
1994, pp 1-5.
B.O. 0en and L. Wallee: Hunting methods for minlŒwhales in Norway. Results of scientific
and traditional whaling in 1994. IWC/47/WK 9.
L. Wallee: An analysis of recent Japanese whale killing data with special emphasis on the use
of the electric lance as a secondary killing method. IWC/48/WK 2. pp 1-16
B.O. 0en and L. Wallee: Hunting methods for minke whales in Norway. Results of the
traditional whaling in 1995. IWC/48/WK 3.
L. Wallee: Translation to Bnglish with annotations of the description ofwhales given in Hans
Stram: Physisk og oeconomisk beskrivelse over fogderiet Sandmar beliggende i Bergens stift
iNorge. Soree, 1762. Barly descriptions of whales, J cetacean res manage 1999, 1(1):
vii-viii.
L. Wallee: Translation to Bnglish with annotations of the description ofwhales given in
Konungs skuggsja (The King's mirror). Norway, about 1250. Barly descriptions ofwhales, J
cetacean res manage 1999, 1(2): iii-i& 2(1): iii-iv.
Lars Wallee: Har norsk hvalfangst enfremtid? (Is there ajuturefor Norwegian whaling?) pp
132-144 i P2-akademiet, Bind XXXI, Transit, Oslo, 2004.
Lars Wallae: The early development ofNorwegian Antarctic whaling, pp 10-30 in H.
Hatanaka: Learningfrom the Antarctic whaling, The lnstitute of Cetacean Research, Tokyo,
2005.
Lars Wallee: The meaning of excellence and the need for excellence in research, pp 63-68 in
Henryk Ratajczak (ed): Science and Society, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrodawskiego,
Wroclaw, 2010.
Lars Wallee: The BRC should be protected from the threat of applied science. Research
Europe, 5 August 2010, p 7.
7
Statement of Mr. Lars Walløe (expert called by Japan)