Animal rights activists attempt to usher in the Dark Ages by attacking peer-reviewed scientific study.
In a lengthy article that would make the Flat Earth Society proud, PETA’s mouthpiece over at The Dodo decided to attack a scientific study that concluded the killer whales in SeaWorld’s care have a lifespan as long as killer whales in the wild.
Central to the animal rights zealots’ dogma is a claim that whales in SeaWorld’s care don’t live as long as whales in the wild. When science proves this claim to be demonstrably false, they kick into attack mode.
When something, even as concrete as scientific fact, directly contradicts the dogmatic belief system of zealots, science itself must be attacked. Truth is always a threat looming around the corner.
A study published in the American Society of Mammalogists’ Journal of Mammalogy concluded that the claims peddled by PETA, and other animal activists, are false. Killer whales at SeaWorld do, in fact, live as long as whales in the wild.
This study is valid science, plain and simple.
But The Dodo’s world-view can’t handle these facts. This is why they keep noted anti-captivity figure Naomi Rose on speed-dial – to tell them what they want to hear.
When she’s not offering unsolicited advise on handling publicity tours for anti-SeaWorld propaganda, Dr. Rose is frequently contributing to The Dodo. And in this most recent case, she comes out swinging against the scientific community.
“Those are completely fictitious numbers,” Rose said of this validated and peer reviewed scientific study. “They have no basis in reality.”
“No basis in reality”?
What makes this study reliable and scientific is the fact that it went through a peer-review process. The Journal of Mammalogy makes that very clear.
From the Journal’s ‘Instruction to Authors‘:
The Journal of Mammalogy is an international, peer-reviewed publication of the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). We publish manuscripts presenting original research and scholarship on mammals, including topics in mammalian evolution, ecology, behavior, systematics, management, and conservation…
All submissions are subject to review. Initial review is done by our Journal Editor and by one of the Associate Editors, who evaluate whether the manuscript is of sufficient quality and general interest for outside review. Manuscripts that pass this initial evaluation will be sent to one or more outside reviewers. The assigned Associate Editor then evaluates the reviews and the manuscript and makes a recommendation to the Editor, who makes the final decision regarding suitability for publication
The key to any published study’s scientific validity and credibility is the peer-review process. Scientific journals require it and it is part of the scientific method.
The peer-review process subjects research studies to independent review and scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers). Upon review, the study is either rejected or approved for publication.
We’re sorry that Dr. Rose and The Dodo can’t handle the science that proves their claims wrong. We’re sorry they choose to attack the scientific community and its methods. But this rejection of science is par for the course for these activists.
We hope their next Flat Earth Society meeting goes well.