Suction cup tags were placed on a Bryde's whale in China for a total of 6 hours on two separate occasions to determine dive and feeding behaviour in response to anthropogenic pressures such as whale-approaching vehicles (AWA). An observational and experimental approach revealed tha t in the presence of human activity, the subspecies responded with longer dives and feedings. Gi ven the increasing anthropogenic impacts on coastal habitats, this study aimed to establish a be havioural health baseline to aid in the implementation of conservation policies and species man agement, as current challenges may be caused by a lack of fundamental information on occurre nce and behaviour. Following consideration of the study's ethical components, I will argue that this research was co nducted ethically, both methodologically and practically, and that the potential stress and low ri sk of damage to auditory nerves and peripheral hearing/communication in whales from approac hing vessels were considered. The less likely cause of suffering is outweighed by the potential gr eater benefits produced by the research, according to the utilitarianism framework. However, th e authors appear to have conducted the research to the best of their ability, with minimal impac t on the subject, as most can likely agree that animal suffering is a key consideration in our mor al obligation in any scientific investigation. Multiple organisations were involved, and the work was done through a government agency (So uth China Sea Fisheries Research Institute), and the study technique improved on previous resea rch that used more permanent tagging devices. Suction cups cause no harm to the individual be cause they do not penetrate the whale's skin. Furthermore, the subjects' long surveillance interv als favour the device's deployment, which was carried out via an 8 m carbon-fibre pole to help minimise any stress on the individual. The boat engine approached the subject at a low speed (2 knots), with the engine turned off upon approximation to minimise any disturbance. The interference post-tagging was my only reservation about this study. Because the team had t o stay within a certain distance of the device, the subject was trailed around for a few hours wit h a 300 m distance and a slight but constant vessel noise. Despite the fact that the boat was onl y travelling at 5 knots, it appeared to change its behaviour, and it can be concluded that AWAs h ave an effect on the species' feeding- and dive performance. Nonetheless, I do not regard this as an ethical flaw, but rather as a dependent variable. The device then self-destructs after 3-4 hour s, allowing the team to retrieve it with no harm to the subject. I don't believe there was any data manipulation. Some limitations described in the article, combi ned with some obvious gaps in the results presented, have given the impression of research that prioritises ethical safety over extensive data collection. To summarise, I believe that the researc hers had the potential to violate ethical standards and procedures, but instead