The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law

The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Daubert Special Issue
Volume 15, May 29, 2015, pages 37-51
full text version

Human(e) Science? Demarcation, Law, and ‘Scientific Whaling’
in Whaling in the Antarctic

Daniella McCahey* and Simon A. Cole**

* Doctoral student in History at the University of California, Irvine.  Email:

**Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine and Director of the Newkirk Center for Science & Society. Email:

This paper analyzes a recent case in which a court, like the Daubert Court, was asked to demarcate legitimate from illegitimate science. The court was the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and it was asked by the state of Australia to find the state of Japan in violation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling because of its licensing of a research program that engaged in killing whales ostensibly “for purposes of scientific research.” Australia premised a good portion of its argument on a four-part definition of “scientific research,” reminiscent of the four notorious “Daubert criteria,” and the claim that the Japanese research program, “JARPA II,” failed to comply with this definition. The paper suggests that the Court’s judgment, which forced Japan to temporarily cease whaling, illustrates the merits for courts of avoiding the temptation to engage in demarcation exercises.

(to view the full text version, click here)


Return to Home Page