Shale sharks swimming at the surface of the ocean in Western Australia off Ningaloo Reef.

Getty Images

The world’s largest fish moves slowly, almost as if it knows the ocean bends around it. A cluster of underwater stars, slicing through the azure waters, unbothered by what is happening around it (unless that “something” is a literal bite to eat). Due to their beatiful, distinctive spotted pattern and gentle nature, these animals draw researchers and tourists alike in droves to places like Ningaloo Reef off Western Australia, all hoping for a glimpse of a constellation gliding beneath the surface. But increasingly, the eyes watching them are not human. They are mechanical, hovering quietly overhead.

Drones have changed the way we study marine life, offering an on-par bird’s-eye view of the ocean without the noise or intrusion of boats or people. For scientists, that means better data on population size, movement patterns, and even body condition. But there has always been a lingering concern with this type of technology: if we are watching animals more closely than ever, are we also changing the very behaviours we are trying to understand? As drones become more common in wildlife research, scientists are being pushed to examine not just what they can learn, but how their tools might be influencing the animals themselves. That is what a new study led by researchers at Murdoch University hoped to answer when it came to the iconic whale sharks, as previous work has shown that some marine species, including dolphins and seabirds, can react to drones. But the problem is that most of those responses have been measured by observation alone, which can be subjective.

So how do you remove that bias? You listen to the animals directly.

Led by Dr. Samantha D. Reynolds from Murdoch University’s Harry Butler Institute, researchers tagged 13 whale sharks with motion-sensing devices that recorded fine-scale data such as swimming effort, tail beat frequency, and diving behaviour. The idea was that this technology would capture the subtle movements the shark was doing that might indicate stress or disturbance, even if nothing obvious was visible from above. While the sharks carried these tags, drones were also flown overhead at heights ranging from 33 to 197 feet (10 to 60 meters) high. The team also collected baseline data when no drone was present, allowing for a direct comparison. The results were, on the surface, reassuring as the whale sharks did not appear to change their behaviour when drones were flying above them. Their swimming patterns remained consistent and their movements showed no signs of agitation or avoidance. They basically sharks behaved as though nothing had changed.

“Although we couldn’t detect any effects on whale sharks, it is possible there might be physiological effects that weren’t measured in this particular study, or that drones could impact whale sharks during different behaviours such as feeding,” Reynolds said in a press release. But what does it really mean for an animal to be “undisturbed”? If we do not see a behavioural change, does that mean there is no impact at all? The researchers themselves are cautious, as stress can manifest in ways that are not immediately visible in movement alone. Hormonal changes, for example, would require a different set of tools to detect. There is also the question of context. Would the sharks respond differently if they were feeding, or interacting with other animals, or exposed to drones for longer periods?

And then there is the broader ecosystem to consider. Whale sharks may be relatively unbothered by drones, but they are not the only species sharing those waters. A tool that is minimally invasive for one species may be disruptive for another, as Reynolds reiterated in the press release that the findings “apply specifically to whale sharks. Other species in the same ecosystem, such as seabirds, turtles, dolphins, and whales are known to be more sensitive to drones and may respond very differently.”

While the study is reassuring for scientists working with whale sharks, it is ultimately a part of a larger conversation about how we study wildlife in an era of rapidly advancing technology. Drones offer an incredible opportunity to collect data in ways that were once impossible, and that is not being disputed! They can and often do reduce the need for close human interaction, have lower costs, and expand the scale of research. But at the same time, they introduce a new layer of responsibility. In Western Australia, regulations already reflect this added responsibility, acting as safeguards to ensure that curiosity does not come at the expense of the animals being studied. Commercial and recreational drone operators are required by law to maintain a distance of almost 200 feet (at least 60 meters) from whale sharks and “must not disturb wildlife.” The flights conducted in this study were carried out under a special permit and the findings from Murdoch University provide confidence that drones can be used responsibly to study whale sharks. That’s good news for scientific research and conservation efforts! But while observation has always been a cornerstone of science, it is not neutral. The act of watching can shape what is being watched, even in subtle ways. “While our results are reassuring for whale sharks, they don’t mean drones are risk‑free. We still recommend a precautionary approach — flying as high and as briefly as possible and only using drones when they genuinely add value,” Reynolds concluded.

For now, whale sharks seem to tolerate the quiet presence of drones above them. But that does not mean we can take that tolerance for granted. Each new tool we introduce into the environment becomes part of that environment, whether we intend it or not. The end goal through drones should be to simply see more of the ocean… it is to understand it, protect it, and, whenever possible, leave it exactly as we found it.