Zhang 1

Ruby Zhang

Allison Bocchino

Writing 2

09 December 2019

Studying Whales from Two Disciplines

For years, people have raised concerns over the treatment of whales around the world.

There is an ongoing debate on whether people should kill whales for any purpose at all. Some

people are entirely opposed to the killing of whales, while others argue for sustainable whaling.

Besides the slaughter of whales, many countries have also engaged in the whale watching

industry, where tourists can see the whales for a fee. To protect the whales, people create

organizations such as the International Whaling Commission, which help manage the issues with

whaling. Moreover, experts from different disciplines also conduct a series of studies about

whales. The problems with whales relate to many disciplines, including economics and biology.

Although researching the same topic, economics and biologists take different approaches when

studying whales. While economists study the potential growth of the economy on whale

watching by using data, doing calculations, and using everyday language, biologists focus on the

changes in ecology when large whales are hunted through doing experiments, using complex

words, and addressing the factors that were considered in the experiment.

When talking about whales, economists are more interested in studying whether whales

can generate extra earnings and employment and whether the market can be accessed globally.

As Cisneros-Montemayor and his colleagues have said in their article, “whale watching could
 Zhang 2

generate an additional 413 million USD (2009) in yearly revenue, supporting 5,700 jobs.”1 By

saying this, economists show that whale watching has the potential to affect the economy on a

large scale, which then leads to their main focus on this topic: “Can all coastal countries access

this market?”2 To study more about the global potential of whale watching,

Cisneros-Montemayor and his coworkers collected data from credible organizations and

estimated the yearly whale watchers in different regions. Their study estimates that there will be

145 thousand whale watchers in Africa, 46 thousand in America, 506 thousand in Asia, and 657

thousand in Europe.3 The researchers then discuss the results and the difficulties that some

countries may encounter when trying to access this market, such as ​“​ease of access and security

[to visit a country].”4 By analyzing these results, economists are able to achieve their goals of

determining whether all coastal countries can access the whale watching market and how can

they access the market.

On the other hand, biologists view the whaling industry in a different approach. Unlike

economists, biologists pay more attention to the effects on the ecology resulting from massive

whaling in previous years. A study conducted by Ruegg and her colleagues focused on the

question of whether the killing of large whales can lead to an increase in the population of

smaller, krill-eating whales. The researchers collected a sample of 52 whale meat from the

Japanese meat market and amplified the copies of their genomes. They conducted a considerable

amount of calculations to estimate whether the population of Antarctic minke whale has

significantly increased. Their study shows that the “long-term population size for the Antarctic

1
​ 273-1274,
A.M Cisneros-Montemayor et al., "The Global Potential," ​Marine Policy​ 34, no. 6 (2010):​ 1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.05.005​.
2
Cisneros-Montemayor, “The Global Potential,” 1274.
3
Cisneros-Montemayor, “The Global Potential,” 1276.
4
Cisneros-Montemayor, “The Global Potential,” 1275-1276.
 Zhang 3

minke whale is 671,000 individuals.”5 By comparing the estimation with the population of

Antarctic minke whale in previous years, biologists are able to conclude whether the killing of

large whales has affected the ecology. Therefore, when studying whales, biologists focused more

on the ecological effects due to whaling, while economists focused on the global potentials of the

whale watching industry.

Besides using different approaches when studying whales, the two disciplines also use

different methods when conducting their research. Economists collected data from various

organizations, inputted the data into different equations, estimated the number of whale

watchers, and analyzed the results by creating charts and graphs. For example, they created

scatterplots that represent the relationship between the total tourist arrivals and whale watchers.

They also created a bar chart that compares the average yearly tourist arrivals, species of marine

mammals, abundance of marine mammals, and potential whale watchers on different continents.6

The researchers used their charts as evidence to show that some countries may encounter

difficulties realizing the potential benefits from whale watching. Thus, economists conduct their

study mainly by using data from credible sources, calculating and creating charts, and analyzing

the results.

Different from economists, biologists use other methods when researching their topic.

The researchers collected a sample from the Japanese meat market and utilized the genomes

copied from the sample as the data for their research. They then used statistical calculations to

estimate the population of the Antarctic minke whale from their sample results. They also

created a graph of the distribution of Antarctic minke whales and compared them with their

5
Kristen C. Ruegg et al., “Are Antarctic Minke Whale,” ​Molecular Ecology​ 19, no. 2 (2010): 287,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04447.x​.
6
Cisneros-Montemayor, “The Global Potential,” 1275-1276.
 Zhang 4

estimation. Overall, economists conducted their research by using data from other sources and

doing calculations, while biologists collected samples from the market and estimated the

population of the Antarctic minke whales by using the data from their sample.

Other than using different methods, the two disciplines also include different contents in

their articles. In Cisneros-Montemayor’s article, the researcher introduced the topic and the

methods they used in the first place. Introducing the topic gives the readers the background

information, and it helps the researchers to move onto their research question. Then, they

presented a series of graphs and calculations. The charts and calculations show the audience their

results and build their credibility. Lastly, they discussed the results and summarized their

findings, which leads to their conclusion.7 By including these contents, economists showed their

researching process clearly and logically.

Similarly, biologists started their article by introducing the topic and their research

methods. By showing that they collected the samples from a Japanese meat market, the

researchers showed that their research is unbiased. They then discussed the results and made

their conclusions. However, when talking about the results, biologists introduced something that

economists didn’t include: a list of things that they took into consideration when doing the

research. For example, they added a section that says, “Accounting uncertainty in gametic

phase.”8 Including this content makes their research sound more accurate, and it helps them

persuade the audience that they are trustworthy. Thus, the two disciplines include mostly the

same contents, but biologists include a list of clarifications when discussing the results.

7
Cisneros-Montemayor, “The Global Potential,” 1273-1277.
8
Kristen C. Ruegg et al., “Are Antarctic Minke Whale,” 287.
 Zhang 5

Lastly, economists and biologists use different dictions when writing their articles.

Economists use words that are easy to understand while biologists use lots of terminologies that

are only used in the discipline. For example, biologists used the words “nuclear loci” and

“nucleotide” in their article.9 These words are rarely used, and few people can understand them

without studying more into the discipline. Using these terminologies shows that the target

audience for biologists’ article is people have previous knowledge about this discipline.

Furthermore, biologists also used first-person in their article. For instance, biologists said that

“To determine, if our sequences were evolving in a manner consistent with equilibrium and

neutrality, Tajima’s D (​Tajima 1989​) and Fu’s Fs (​Fu 1997​) tests were performed using DnaSP

(​Rozas et al. 2003​).”10 Since the researching process is hard to understand and the article

involves information that is not commonly known, biologists use first-person to make the piece

easy to follow. On the other hand, economists avoid using first-person. Instead, they use

third-person to sound more professional. Overall, biologists use terminology and first-person in

their article, whereas economists use commonly used words and third-person in their article.

By analyzing the two articles about whaling, people can understand the differences in

writing between the two disciplines. Economists are more interested in studying global potential

and employment. They use data from other sources and input them into the calculations to do

their research. The contents in the article include an introduction, the methods they use, graphs

and calculations, and a discussion about their findings. They use commonly used words and

third-person in their article. On the other hand, biologists pay more attention to the effects on

ecology. They collect samples and estimate the population based on the results from their data.

9
Kristen C. Ruegg et al., “Are Antarctic Minke Whale,” 285.
10
Kristen C. Ruegg et al., “Are Antarctic Minke Whale,” 285.
 Zhang 6

Besides the contents in the economists’ article, biologists also include a series of factors that they

took into consideration when doing the research. They use terminologies and first-person in their

article. These differences show that each discipline, though talking about the same topic,

communicates differently in writing.

 Zhang 7

Bibliography

Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M, U.R Sumaila, K. Kaschner, and D. Pauly. "The Global Potential for

Whale Watching." ​Marine Policy ​34, no. 6 (2010): 1273-278.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.05.005

Ruegg, Kristen C., Eric C. Anderson, C. Scott Baker, Murdoch Vant, Jennifer A. Jackson, and

Stephen R. Palumbi. "Are Antarctic Minke Whales Unusually Abundant Because of 20th

Century Whaling?" ​Molecular Ecology​ 19, no. 2 (2010): 281-91.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04447.x