Part of almost every scientific paper is the 'discussion'. Here, the scientists discuss what the implications of their findings are. This portion of the paper i

Part of almost every scientific paper is the 'discussion'. Here, the scientists discuss what the implications of their findings are. This portion of the paper is always up for further debate (hence the title 'discussion'). So, given some operational definition of 'persons', a statement like, "The scientific research ... suggests that dolphins are non-human persons..." may not be entirely out of order in a scientific paper. If dolphins are persons, it's not a big jump to say that they qualify as individuals worthy of moral consideration. Now, whether their operational definition of person is good or not is a question up for debate. Science has debated the meaning and use of many terms and ideas throughout history. Questions about the relation of the planets and stars used to be primarily theological (harmony of the spheres and so on). Some of our most famous scientists worked to develop good tests and supporting mathematics which slowly created the science of astronomy. That process has been repeated for many, many things over history. Personhood may be another one of those debates, one which we have the opportunity to witness in these sorts of studies. So, provided the philosophical statements were properly positioned in the paper, I don't think they were entirely misplaced. Sloppy journalism is another issue entirely, though, and a common malady of good science.