As Japan's commissioner to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), I disagree that the IWC's review process of scientific whaling is “a waste of time” (A. Brierley and P. Clapham Nature 529, 283; 2016).

The process comprises an independent expert-panel review and a wider review by the IWC Scientific Committee. Research proponents have no say in the expert panel's conclusions. Japan has given due regard to the IWC's criticisms after peer review of its NEWREP-A proposal, which gave the scientific rationale for lethal sampling (see go.nature.com/wqpxyb; go.nature.com/vxjaz6).

Brierley and Clapham say that Japan failed to alter its research plans “in any meaningful way” following recommendations by the IWC Scientific Committee that it should explore widely used non-lethal alternatives. In fact, those methods were included in the research plans for evaluation in light of the research objectives. As the International Court of Justice recognized in 2014, certain data cannot be obtained by non-lethal methods (see go.nature.com/fboxrt). Japan's new research programme includes both lethal and non-lethal research methods.

The authors' allegation that Japan's whaling is “ostensibly” for research is no basis for proper scientific debate. Japan has made clear that it is always willing to answer questions on its research programme (see go.nature.com/dut2kx), and looks forward to constructive scientific discussion at the committee's June meeting.