Andrew is a post-doctoral researcher in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
One of the discussions that occurred while socializing at ScienceOnline’09 regarded my personal feelings towards dolphins. Not surprisingly, whenever non-marine people find out I’m a marine biologist, the conversation always turns to dolphins, after which the person is surprised (shocked, appalled) by my lack on fondness for the sea beasties. The excessive hearting of charismatic megafauna is a pet peeve of mine, with a particular focus on the ocean’s most fawned over denizens.
This article got me thinking about why I hold such apparent animosity towards marine mammals.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. I don’t hate marine mammals. I don’t get particularly excited over marine mammals, but then again, most people don’t get particularly excited over chytrids so it doesn’t bother me that different people love different things. What does bother me is the cult of dolphin worship that has sprung up around them. Ask most people if the bottlenose dolphin is endangered, and they’ll probably say yes. It isn’t. In fact, at this point it would probably make more sense to be eating tuna safe dolphin. And, while many marine mammals are threatened, endangered, and critically endangered, there is a widely held belief that marine mammals deserve more protection that other organisms.
But all of that is neither here nor there. The fact is, we protect what we love, and if dolphin worship is bringing people closer to the ocean, that’s great. But if we’re drawing people closer to the ocean, should we not be educating them about it as well? That’s why I always get whipped into a frenzy when people start asking me about marine mammals. It’s fine to start with marine mammals, it really is, but more often than not, the conversation never goes beyond them. It’s as if they were the only creatures in the sea.
So this article gets me worked up. Because the cult of the dolphin is so strong that people refuse to accept that sometimes nature isn’t really that pleasant. That it isn’t all like a Disney Movie. That we don’t always know what’s best and we can’t always intervene. Yes, some dolphins might die in a New Jersey river, but they aren’t dying from boat strikes or gillnets or pollution. They’ve wandered into a sub-optimal environment and are being selected against.
The quotes from the dolphin worshipers are revealing. “They’re like children… They’re frightened.” Dolphins are not like children. Dolphins are nothing like children and they’re not human beings and we have no idea what they’re thinking or feeling. These are sleek, deadly, organic machines engineered by millions of years of natural selection to dominate their environment. Instead of making emotional appeals, we need take the time to understand our world.
It is necessary to love the things we need to protect. But I think it is naïve and patronizing to think that people will only love something if we reduce it to a cartoonish caricature of itself. Emotional appeals take advantage of ignorance to force a point. It’s the reason why Americans get disgusted when other cultures eat dog or horse or guinea pig, while we see no problem eating beef. They preclude thoughtful introspection and investigation.
This is not a rant against people who study marine mammals, people who work with marine mammals, or even people who just plain love marine mammals. This is a rant against the end result of dogmatic dolphin worship. People like Joan Ocean* who takes thousands of dollars from innocent dolphin lovers to give them deep, spiritual, telepathic experiences with spinner dolphins in Hawaii, while basically harassing the dolphins and disrupting their natural behavior. A professor of mine and great marine mammal biologist once described these trips as “having 30 strangers surround you while you’re sleeping and whisper ‘I love you, you’re beautiful’ all night.”
This is about people who demand we save dolphins from that New Jersey river while NOAA is trying to tell them “that actually trying to move them can cause fatalities rather than improving their prospects for survival.”
This is really about resisting dogma, forcing people to confront information that challenges their beliefs, to question ideas and explore the possibility that we are wrong. And that while stopping at the water’s edge may provide a nice comfortable view, the deeper you dive, the more glorious the ocean becomes.
So when people ask me at a bar how I feel about dolphins, I try to bring them a little further into my world.
~Southern Fried Scientist
*for more on the wonder that is Joan Ocean, check out her experience forging a telepathic connection with a tribe of bigfoots.
Re: communicating with dolphins
I know it’s not nearly as interesting as the debate above but from what I have read about Lou Herman’s work in Hawaii we can at least communicate with dolphins in one directions. He and his staff taught a number of captive dolphins to respond to hand signals representing fairly complex communication. eg determine if an object was or was not in their pool, retrieve object A, take object B to object C etc.
Humans and dolphins were not talking back and forth but I think that qualifies as real communication, don’t you?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Sounds like training to me.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Training? As in the sense that when I ask my daughter before she goes to bed “do you have your blankie?” I’ve trained her to say yes or no? I think that’s more than just training. As I understand it the dolphins can recognize syntax, like the difference between “Take A to B” and “Take B to A.”
But maybe you are using a more restrictive definition of communication than I am. Do you consider what Koko the gorilla does communicating?
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
[...] peer-reviewed research is listed below. Or check out the lads of Southern Fried Scientist on dolphin worship and the evils of dolphin-safe [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
southern stfu and malcom u r right in every way while i have never mated with a dolphin or even been around one if the dolphin show signs of sexual interest than it’s sort of a DUH!!!!!! she is interested in you so shut up southern and you go malcom thank you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
[...] don’t need cutlery or tools to go a-huntingDolphins are stupid smart and don’t need our protection (they’re always beaching [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Wow. Just wow.
After reading Malcom’s experiences with his female dolphin lover, I’m somewhat confused as to who may have been taking advantage of who.
His *girlfriend* apparently would try to drown him if he wouldn’t let her use him for pleasure…
Dolphins = evil sonsofbitches.
If your interested I found More dolphin vs unicorn pictures here
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
[...] Possibly because it feeds into my “everything you have been told is lie” skepticism, but also because secretly I think we all know dolphins are total jerks (if you want some seriously fucked up lols – follow the comments on this post, find commentor “Malcolm”). [...]
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Lilly haters always try to diminish all of his contributions to science and medicine by saying things like that he thought he could communicate with dolphins with LSD, or that he was cruel to the dolphins in the beginning.
They fail to tip their hats to the Father of all dolphin research and the man whose work inspired the creation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
As of this writing, a group of scientists are calling for dolphins to be considered “non-human persons” requiring elevated rights. They have also moved them up in the intelligence level to second to human (I disagree) .
At any rate it’s nice to see that Lilly’s work is being validated all these years later and it’s nice to see science pissing on the trite and jealous.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Lilly’s actual and legitimate contributions to medicine and physics predate and are not related to his work with dolphins. Being a good scientist in one field does not make you a good scientist in all fields, just ask Linus Pauling.
Lilly’s work with dolphins, while well funded, yielded few results, and the results he did report have so far been un-reproducible. He is perhaps the father of botched dolphin research. While his psychonautic adventures may have yielded some truly bizarre videos (and you can find those on youtube) to say that the current generation of Marine Mammalogists is validating his work is a very great stretch.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Linus Pauling was vindicated by the National Institute Of Health and the Mayo Clinic in 2007, I believe. Ironically enough the person in charge of the study was the one who led the charge against Pauling’s claims about Vita C and cancer years ago.
Results of the findings that when given IV, ascorbic produces hydrogen peroxide and the rate of tumor destruction was something like ninety-five percent.
Regarding Lilly’s pioneering work with dolphins, you don’t to be able to even credit him with starting it all. And how exactly did he botch his work? He wasn’t able to establish two-way communication with dolphins?
What about all of the data he put together regarding the dolphin body, brain, and behavior?
I think you are throwing the dolphin out with the seawater a bit here.
typo fixed as per request
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Interestingly, I was referring to Pauling’s much less credible claim the high doses of Vitamin C in a regular diet boosts the immune system. A claim that was obviously extrapolated from his cancer work but was never actually tested by Pauling. Despite a half century of “common knowledge” there is no correlation between taking more than an FDA recommended daily allowance of vitamin C and enhanced immunity.
Lilly didn’t start it all. He started at a time when science was becoming a public commodity, so his work got attention, but there are studies of marine mammals from before the Challenger Expedition, from the Voyage of the Beagle, from Scammon’s work in the Sea of Cortez, from the unfortunate curse of Stellar (why is it almost all marine organisms named Stellar’s something-or-other went extinct shortly after discovery?). If his great dolphin contribution was that he observed dolphin behavior and measured physiology, I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that that gets him on the pedestal of scientific greatness beyond the pioneers who created those fields.
What would have gotten him there was if his work with dolphin communication (which was a novel and very progressive idea at the time) had actually panned out. But, of all the results he published, none have been reproducible. That’s what makes them botched. Negative results are fine, but if you say we did X, the results were Y, but no one can replicate the results under the given conditions, then either the experimental design is bad, your method of detection is flawed, or your data has been falsified. And believe you me, people have been trying to reproduce those results for the last 40 years.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
As an aside, I find it interesting that a major discovery regarding Vitamin C and it’s affects on cancer cells has fr the most part been ignored. I do remember the folks at NIH complaining about lack of funding. One of many promising cancer treatment discoveries that I’ve read about and watched fall by the wayside.
Regarding the immune system, I am not aware of any serious studies any significant amount of C to discount Pauling’s claims. This was the same problem with the cancer studies, although there it was discovered that a steady state was needed via IV.
Lilly didn’t start animal research, but he did foster a new area of investigation and popularized the notion that cetaceans are another intelligent and sentient species on the planet.
I believe that one of the reasons that no one has replicated his results is because of the terrible way he initially used when working with the dolphins. Much to his credit he realized his treatment as cruel and spent much of the remainder of his life making up for it, in my opinion.
Any attempt at duplicating his results using the same methods in today’s world would most certainly result in charges of animal cruelty. But in fairness to Lilly, back in the day animals did not have nearly as much respect and rights as they now.
As dolphin research is logistically and financially a disaster it isn’t fair to say that people have been trying to get the same results for forty years? Under what conditions?
We also have no way of knowing how far the Navy has gone in this area as they went classified in the 1970s.
Essentially the jury is still out. You might enjoy this article:
link to timesonline.co.uk
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
13
For the record, at no point anywhere in this comment thread has either myself or WhySharksMatter made ANY comment regarding the content of Malcolm’s novel. All the comments are plainly visible for anyone to read for themselves.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Malcolm, I can’t help but notice that your “novel” (which I actually considered buying for the humor value before I saw the exorbitant price tag) is listed as FICTION.
The bigoted bullying that you accused us of was basically us saying that there is no way that your story about having intercourse with a dolphin was factually correct.
You said that not only was it true, but you had written a book about it (as if telling the same ridiculous story in longer form means that it is suddenly true).
Now, apparently you aren’t even pretending that the story is true anymore. You’re marketing the book as FICTION.
Please knock the persecution complex crap off.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
13
Malcolm, the comparison made was that by arguing that you are capable of assuming consent from something not capable of giving it is the same argument used to justify rape. It has nothing to do with the physical reality and everything to do with the assumption of consent. I don’t believe you can communicate with dolphins. Nothing you have presented here has been in any way convincing.
At no point was anyone talking about your book. You’ll find that neither of us even responded to you after you posted the link, we responded to the issues you raised right here.
You are incredibly arrogant. We didn’t seek you out, you came to us. Your comments weren’t well received and you flipped out. You are the one who began the ad hominem attacks, the insults. You are the one who escalated every step of the way. All you have to do is re-read the thread. It’s all there. We never censor content, and when we do remove comments (except in the very rare case where personal information is being revealed against someone’s wished) we leave an explicit statement as to why the comment has been removed. Any “bullying” you think you’ve experienced has been the product of your own creation.
It’s clear that you have no desire to engage in any sort of discussion. We are not here to cater to your vanity. I am deeply sorry but I am going to remove the links to your book – we are not here to provide free advertising for you. The original angelfire link is substantive content and will remain. Anyone truly interested can google your book’s title and find it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
14
Neither comment was in response to your book.Nice try though. The second one wasn’t even by me or David. Are you suggesting we should censor commentors?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
13
None of your comments have been censored. We removed the free advertising to your book you were attempting to spam this thread with, with a full notice as to the rationale and instructions on how to find it if anyone really wanted to. You are a fool if you think that is censorship. Please point to any substantive posts that have been censored in any way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
15
Christie… once again, the book he’s marketing is listed as FICTION. He’s not even pretending anymore.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
12
You’re right one one point, beating you down couldn’t possibly matter less to us. No one here cares about beating you down. Dave’s concern is that while you assert that your work is truth, you, yourself, Malcolm Brenner, are calling it fiction. If it’s truth, then why is it not called truth?
You come here spouting lies, verbally abusing myself, my colleagues, and my commentors. It’s clear that you have absolutely no respect for my peers, myself, or the truth. Your blatant disregard and willingness to manipulate the truth here, in this thread alone, would lead any rational person to question whether anything presented in a work you describe as fiction could possibly be trusted.
You have not ever been censored on this blog, and to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie.
You may, however, find yourself permanently banned from posting here, in which case we will close this thread to future comments, provide a link to your own blog (not commercial website), and block you permanently from posting anywhere on Southern Fried Science.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
13
Tony mentioned non-human persons. I attended the “Intelligence of Dolphins: Ethical and Policy Implications” Sunday 21 Feb at the AAAS meeting. Speakers were Lori Marino (Emory) Diana Reiss (Hunter), and Thomas I. White (Loyola Marymount, Redondo Bch.)
Marino presented neuroanatomy of dolphins as similar but different from humans. Reiss presented behavioral evidence of self-awareness and planning as well as (Dare I say the usual?) evidence of ability to both play and communicate using a keyboard to express themselves.
Nobody in the audience contradicted their findings, though other Marine biologists may have decided to stay away or stay mum for their own reasons. Generally the audience was very sympathetic.
Then, they showed video of a cute dolphin then a dolphin drive in Japan that turned the water red. Everybody had bile in their throats at that point. Later, two people expressed to me their discomfort/irritation with the presenters’ decision to make us view it.
Thomas White then presented his theory that dolphins are sentient non-human persons.
The presentation ended and several people asked understandable questions of the discussant, Jerry R. Schubel (Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach) about his feelings on whether dolphins can ethically be captive.
The last questioner, Raymond Spier (Science and Engineering Ethics at Springer) said to White that our ethical framework held no place for non-human persons.
That much is public. Our later conversation involved me bringing up aliens and Speir needling me over eating or being eaten.
Further thought on the matter will involve figuring out whether the definition of human is entirely metrics-based as suggested by Stephanie Bird, who moderated and kindly corrected me, or if traditional philosophy can rescue the dolphin, making it fully human.
As is usual with science, further study is recommended. I appreciate your allowing me to consult on this most difficult and challenging case.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
[...] the popular ’60s TV dolphin. In the movie, Flipper is credited with generating the lust for dolphin worship that is today a multi-billion dollar industry based primarily upon marine mammal captivity. As Ric [...]
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
[...] abilities and unique personalities. We loved Akeakamai, Phoenix, Hiapo and Ellele, but we’re not dolphin worshipers! We are incredibly grateful for our experiences with these dolphins, but don’t believe that [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
[...] Fried Science and Deep Sea News to comment on a few dolphin-related posts, and has shown he holds some rather tenuous scientific views about the minds and communication styles of cetaceans. But his experiences with his dolphin lover [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People should ask what field of marine biology you are in before heading straight down the path of “you work with dolphin’s right?” There is more to marine biology than just working with dolphins. Marine biology has so many different fields and just a hand full of that work with dolphins. There are so many cool things in the ocean than just dolphins.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
That is crazy. Why would anyone have any animosity towards such a cute creature like a dolphin… how sad.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2