Zoos and aquariums have been around for generations. Children and families have always looked to such facilities as a source of entertainment, education, and opportunity. Nearly everyone can recount an instance in their life in which they have visited one of these facilities for the purpose of entertainment, education, or opportunity and most visitors gather a positive experience from their venture. As society has developed, so has its understanding of both the advantageous and disadvantageous effects that can arise from the keeping of animals in captivity. A debate has since ensued regarding the ethics and morality of keeping animals, especially mammals, in zoos and aquariums. Keeping animals in captivity results in a variety of conditions, some beneficial and others consequential, that not only affect an individual organism’s wellbeing, but even more so, animal conservation as a whole and in turn has led to the understanding that the purpose and operation of zoos and aquariums needs to be reevaluated.

One case that has recently spurred the question of ethics into a full-fledged debate is the story of Tilikum: an orca whale who lived at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida. The turning point in his story occurred on February 24th, 2010 when “Dawn Brancheau, one of SeaWorld’s most respected and experienced trainers… was grabbed by her arm and pulled into the pool where he brutally rammed and drowned her” (Lott). Following this tragic incident, people from a myriad of groups began to hypothesize that the reason for this random killing was due to a psychiatric break Tilikum experienced caused by the conditions that he experienced living at SeaWorld. 

Since Brancheau’s death, a countless number of investigations and questions have arisen evaluating the conditions in which the animals at SeaWorld and such establishments encounter. In the years following the accident, major criticism concerning tank size and treatment has ensued. In the wild, marine mammals spend the majority of their life submerged below the ocean’s surface. Being that the standard tank is minute in its depth compared to that experienced in the wild, animals take in copious amounts of sunlight radiation and are subjected to sunburns. SeaWorld has been found to hide this from their visitors with the use of black oxide painted on to their whales’ skin. Beyond that, animals are stripped of the opportunity to travel as much as they would in the wild. “SeaWorld confines whales and dolphins—who often swim up to 100 miles a day in the wild—to tanks that, to them, are the size of a bathtub,” (10 Things). These are just a couple of the prominent issues associated with exhibit sizing and care of animals in zoos and aquariums that can contribute to zoochosis, or psychotic breaks, in the animals being held captive. 

The concept of insanity in captive animals caused by unnatural living situations is seen throughout a multitude of species. “Many animals cope with unstimulating or small environments through stereotypic behavior, which, in zoological parlance, is a repetitive behavior that serves no obvious purpose…” (Smith). These behaviors include pacing and circling, bar-biting, neck-twisting, head-bobbing, swaying, weaving, rocking, overgrooming, self-mutilation, vomiting, and more. There are an incalculable number of cases depicting organisms living in captivity demonstrating such behavior. Anyone can witness the effects of captivity on animals just by simply observing their little habits and actions. 

Beyond the issue of zoos and aquariums leading to the damage of their inhabitants’ mentality, said facilities put these animals at the expense of humans and expose them to the risks associated with human error and system malfunctions. In the last nine years, there have been two separate instances in which seemingly miniscule mistakes led to mass casualty at one establishment: The Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, Illinois. In July of 2008, a “heater unit malfunctioned, spiking water temperatures by about 10 degrees,” (Williams-Harris). Most facilities have back up plans for emergency situations such as this, but they don’t always properly play out. “When the water temperature began to rise, the air cooler didn't kick in and chill it down. There was a backup system in place, but it didn't kick in, and we're looking at how the system failure happened." (Williams-Harris). Sixteen stingrays died following the unexpected temperature raising. In a similar fashion, oxygen levels in the same tank at the same zoo dropped too low “resulting in the deaths of all 54 rays in the exhibit.” (Williams-Harris). Unfortunately, stories like these come from zoos and aquariums from all around the world about a variety of species. The fact of the matter is, these tragedies would not even be a possibility if animals were not kept in environments other than the one’s they encounter in the natural world. 

While it is undeniable that zoos and aquariums bring about many issues and concerns, it is essential that the benefits that zoos and aquariums can produce are fairly considered. Education is the most prevalent positive result of such facilities. Most, if not all, zoos and aquariums include the goal of educating visitors in their mission statement. Until recent events that have led to the questioning of the integrity underlying zoos and aquariums, the role that zoos and aquariums play on one’s education has been widely believed and accepted. As the debate has continued to develop, scientists and those in support of zoos and aquariums have worked hard to try to prove how effective these facilities are in educating those that visit them. One case study proving zoos and aquariums successful was completed by Eric Jensen from the University of Warwick, UK. He evaluated “children’s knowledge of biodiversity and conservation issues both before and after a visit to London Zoo. Jensen analyzed data from 2,839 schoolchildren, some of whom had attended a presentation from the zoo’s education officers during their zoo visit, while others relied only on teachers for guidance during their visit. ‘The main task used to evaluate learning asked the children to draw their favorite wildlife habitat with all the plants and animals that live there… These drawings and children’s self-description of the drawings were then analyzed for accuracy in terms of the animals’ physiology, inclusion of ecologically relevant detail successfully placing animals in the right type of habitat and conceptual sophistication in understanding of the animals’ physiology and habitats.’ Jensen observed significant positive change in 41% of the visits supported by the zoo’s education officers and 34% of the visits only guided by teachers” (Gross). Jensen’s study confirms that there is quantitative data supporting the theory that zoos and aquariums have a positive correlation to both individual and societal understanding and awareness of animals. Not only do zoos and aquariums teach outsiders about individual species and environments, but they “can also play a crucial role in educating the wider public about global issues, such as climate change” (Gross). Without places such as zoos and aquariums to teach about biodiversity, there would be a lack of societal perception of issues such as global warming that need to be addressed quickly and efficiently.  

Another benefit of zoos and aquarium to society and conservation is that they serve as a place of research and rehabilitation. In his article presenting the concept that zoos and aquariums can offer more than just entertainment, Gross states, “As the ongoing man-made extinction will only get worse, this role is bound to get more important and all wildlife attractions may have to adapt to it to demonstrate their ethical credibility” (Gross). Many of these establishments have done so by conducting research at their facilities that can contribute to how the human population responds and reacts to both individual species and animal conservation in general. “Such research, aiming to find ways of mitigating the effects of climate change on wildlife in its native habitat by studying small numbers of individuals in captivity, in a model habitat, could reduce animal suffering overall and thus offset the ethical qualms about keeping some of them in captivity” (Gross). Zoos and aquariums also serve as safe havens for individuals of a species that would be deemed unfit to live and thrive in their wild habitat. Whether it be due a medical condition, temporary environmental threat, or some other factor, zoos and aquariums can take in a certain number of organisms and assist them in the hopes of eventually reintroducing them to the wild. When the worst case happens and a species is heading for extinction in the wild, zoos and aquariums may serve as an ark to ensure their survival. Tigers, for example, are severely threatened in their native habitat, but due to their popularity in zoos and their unproblematic reproduction in captivity, their survival as a species is secured” (Gross). In this case and many others, human intervention is vital to ensure the survival of an individual species. 

It is evident that there is not a clear answer to the questioning of ethics that serve as a basis of facilities such as zoos and aquariums. While the list of consequences that such facilities can have on an individual organism or species is interminable, so is the list of benefits that zoos and aquariums present to society. The truth is, zoos and aquariums will never completely disappear. In their article discussing the haziness of the debate, Minteer and Collins write that “unavoidable animal welfare impacts produced as a result of high-priority and well-designed conservation research and conservation activities involving captive animals will in many cases have to be tolerated to understand the consequences of rapid environmental change for vulnerable wildlife populations in the field. It will allow recovery and promote the good of vulnerable species in the wild more effectively under increasingly demanding biological conditions” (Minteer and Collins). Instead of questioning the morality of zoos and aquariums, society as a whole should recognize that the answer is not seen in the elimination of these facilities, but rather the reconsideration of standards that should be held to. Zoos and aquariums should not serve solely as sources of entertainment for the humans that visit them, but they should work to aid and conserve the species that inhabit them and educate their visitors. By doing so, society can annihilate the stigma that “zoos are, first and foremost, for people—not animals” (Smith) and in turn use their power for a greater good. 
