Source: The International Harpoon, Nr. 2, June 25, 1996. IWC 48 Aberdeen
| «Weakness of character,» said Justin Cooke to the IWC’s Scientific
Committee, by way of excusing his sudden change of mind. His colleagues responded by
bursting out laughing. For some reason Cooke’s character only seems to let him down in Work ing Groups, regaining its strength as he enters the Scientific Committee proper. The driving force behind such sudden and repeated changes of mind should probably be sought elsewhere. Cooke has been one of the most vituperative critics of Norway’s science, and as a scientist with considerable expertise in the field of estimating whale populations, he has also been one of the most important. But his credibility has now been so severely dented that few can still believe his agenda is totally scientific. For over a year Cooke had been working closely with his colleagues in the Abundance Estimate Working Group (AEWG), appointed by the Scientific Committee last year to calculate estimates for minke whale stocks in the Northeast Atlantic. The group had reached unanimous agreement and submitted its report to the Scientific Committee. The report recommended that the Committee accept the estimates as adequate for use in the Revised Management Procedure. Cooke had filed no reservations during that year that might imply that he had any problems with the way the group had conducted its business or the results that had been achieved. Surprise, Surprise According to the Scientific Committee report, the other members of the AEWG not only expressed surprise, they expressed «complete surprise». When they asked for an explanation, Cooke noted the psychological fact that when a man is in a minority of one, that man tends to agree with his colleagues. He attributed his actions to an «apparent weakness of character», something which was not entered in the report, but which has been quoted to the Harpoon by a representative sample of his colleagues. Cooke’s colleagues in the AEWG were not only surprised, they were also greatly offended, and declined to accept his explanation for changing his mind at the last minute. The report records their anger thus: «Whilst strongly supporting the right of scientists to express and alter their views, the AEWG believed that the manner in which it was done in this case to be unacceptable and an impediment to the work of the Scientific Committee.» The Scientific Committee report further states that Cooke’s colleagues in the AEWG found his working paper to be an «injustice to the other members of the AEWG and ... misleading to readers that did not take part in the process.» Such condemnation of a colleague’s work is unprecedented in the history of Scientific Committee reports. Another Sudden Change «I regard this as a deliberate attempt to slow down the process of adopting the procedure,» chief Norwegian scientist Lars Walløe told the Harpoon at the time. The similarity between Cooke’s behaviour then and Cooke’s behaviour now is striking. Cooke had had plenty of time to evaluate his own proposal for the RMP. For two years he had thoroughly revised and developed his model and discussed it on a regular basis with his colleagues in the RMP working group. During the process he had never expressed any doubts concerning his complex work, nor suggested that any other model was more acceptable. Yet Cooke’s history shows signs of erratic behaviour from long before even Reykjavik. Back in 1983 a group of three British scientists, among them Cooke, circulated an anonymous critique slamming the work of Norwegian colleagues on the minke whale population in the Northeast Atlantic. They gave the Norwegians no opportunity to respond to the critique before circulating it, despite giving their earlier assurance that they would cooperate with the Norwegians. When the British researchers were discovered, they expressed remorse, but still the criticisms were levelled in another paper. The work of these researchers, it later transpired, was funded by Greenpeace. A More Credible Explanation Cooke told the High North Alliance last year that his work on both abundance estimates and on the RMP had been financed by Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. These two anti-whaling groups are now extremely unhappy with the latest estimate for minke whales in the Northeast Atlantic, as it threatens their preferred argument against Norwegian minke whaling: that scientists cannot agree on an estimate. How could Greenpeace and IFAW maintain the impression that scientists were in disagreement and that the quality of research was poor when a man they were funding had played such an important role in the process that led to agreement? Through his contribution to the work of the AEWG, Cooke has actually made a significant contribution to the scientific basis for Norwegian whaling management. This was surely not what Greenpeace and IFAW had in mind when they agreed to fund his work. Equally sure is that Cooke did not subsequently find fault in the work of the AEWG solely because of his weak character. Click here to see the Harpoon Cartoon: "Just Changing My Mind" |
Click here to return to the High North Alliance Home Page
Click here to return to the Save-the-Whale Contents Page Click here to return to the Hunts Contents Page Click here to return to the Management Contents Page