Next Issue

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yes, it is an issue with some but if you are hinting I might not be able to be impartial then you'd be the one looking silly.

Well, no, I wasn't hinting it. Not everything is about you, as it happens. But now that you mention it, you did attempt to sabotage my project before you even knew what I was planning to do. Folks are encouraged to make their own decisions on what looks silly or impartial when it comes to it. Just hope it's an impartial and informed decision.

And I think that's the first time you've ever intentionally agreed with me and you still have to be nasty about it.

I didn't attempt to sabotage your project, this is a discussion board, and I gave an opinion. You credit me with too much power Plenty of people on here have discussed your supervisor at length, I didn't say anything new, and they'll continue to discuss him, if you don't like it then start a blog and edit the comments. I had proof to back up my argument so it's not like I was spreading lies, truth is a lot of breeders don't like some of the researchers because of their stance on registered breeders.

When the winkie eyes come out you can read between the lines, I just thought it funny that you contradicted what you were saying the other day

Back on topic, I do have genuine concerns about the current push to have tighter restrictions placed on breeders based on either no research or flawed research. It isn't easy to get interest in dog projects therefore the pool of researchers available is small to start with. See McGreevy and Nicolas, 1999, they advocate solving welfare problems in dogs by crossbreeding and opening up closed stud books. Not something that purebred breeders really want to do.

[deerhound owner]

Very true. I can't speak for other courses but I know that for the Animal and Veterinary Bioscience course at USYD they have too many students for honours projects so only let students who get above a certain mark do them.

Is that the rotation honours or the science one that goes for a year? I'm still trying to get my head around how vet science courses work. I am not sure how anyone can do an honours project in 8 weeks. I did mini projects in undergrad that went longer than that.

We had an above credit average cut-off, but in reality the supervisors were the limited resource. Most supervisors opted for the distinction average or above students. Some were known for not even considering supervising you unless you were at the top of the cohort.

I meant the ones that go for a year, the Bioscience ones go for a year as well and you have one or two days a week to work on them. That's just my experience from USYD though.

Yes you need to be aware of peoples biases but they can also work in your favour because that makes people interested and exited about doing the research. Say you wanted to do a study to determine if purebreds are healthier than crossbreds hypothetically of course. You can get purebred advocates on side cause they want to prove purebreds are better and you can get corssbreed advocates on side cause they want to prove crossbreeds are better. The results can then speak for themselves.

I'll take Reverend Jo's example but i'll call it outcrossing because I think that is what was meant.

Say one scientist wants to do outcrossing to improve health but others think it won't help at all. The only way to test this is to try it in a small controlled population. If breeders turned around and said..ok lets give it a go in a small controlled way to see if it does improve anything then the scientists are right there keen to do the research. If breeders stick there fingers in their ears and say LALALA i'm not listening to anything you say you don't know anything. Then it will get to the point where they do something drastic like bring in legislation and they will listen to the scientists when the do it because they are sounding the most reasonable and are the "experts".

Edited November 26, 2010 by deerhound owner

[Are You Serious Jo]

Breeders say outcrossing, but the non-layman term is opening a closed studbook or population. To be honest there are fanatical pure breeders who would be just as dangerous as those who advocate cross breeding without evidence for its benefits. The problem lies with stakeholders who have a financial or personal interest in an area, doubly when it is a researcher. If you have a researcher who all along supports cross breeding and stands a cross breed dog at stud doing research, is that a conflict of interest?

Say for example I opened up a theme park based on the amazing cognitive abilities of apes, and I made a living out of those claims, would you trust me to come up with research that contradicted what I was pushing otherwise?

I've been in academia long enough to see what happens in reality and there are plenty of researchers who let their personal biases or industry/funding pressure sway their findings. That is the reason I am so aware of it, and in this case I'd be wary of either side having too much vested interest in the findings. Throw a scientist who isn't great at research into the mix and you have a disaster. I've lost so many of my research heros in the ape world after being involved, it makes me wanna cry

[Greytmate]

We were quoted around $100K - $150K from UQ for a masters thesis that would be able to 'prove' what we already thought. They went through the whole thing with us.

Luckily for us there was already some research we found from America that came close enough for us to use.

[Are You Serious Jo]

That is why some projects will never get done, there just isn't the money available to pay for the research. Good research is very time consuming and people need to pay their rent so they can't take on large unpaid projects at the expense of their paying jobs. The researcher also has to have a professional affiliation, so you can't just get anyone to do it either. You can get smaller projects done for less, we won two $18,000 grants for two dog projects that were a year in duration each.

But as I said, I'm happy to consult and narrow down the focus and explore viability of ideas.

[dancinbcs]

Money and commitment are the big issues. The Border Collie breeders in Australia had two DNA tests developed for our breed with huge co-operation from breeders and a commitment from the state breed clubs that lasted 20+ years. We provided 600 DNA samples as well as an enormous pedigree database to get them started on the DNA part of the research.

We raised large sums of money and our NSW sub-committee managed to obtain a grant for $93000 over 3 years, that paid a PHD student to work full time on the project. A condition of the grant was that the combined breed clubs had to raise $15000 a year to go with it, besides the 10s of thousands we had already poured into the research. The research was also partly funded by the Batten's Disease Assoc, the human equivalent of CL and we drummed up a donation from Dogs NSW to help get it all started. I believe Dogs Vic also made a donation at some point as well. Getting a grant is not an easy task and it really has to be for something that will have a flow on effect to humans, for anyone to be interested. Our grant proposal took us several months of meetings that went half the night, to compile.

Our wonderful PHD student was successful in finding the gene for CL in his third year, so it was money and effort well spent. Our second DNA test was developed using all the data and samples from the first one and extra funding from dedicated UK breeders.

[MalteseLuna]

Sometimes research studies could be influenced by how easily the PhD researcher thinks they can get participants. Someone might have a fantastic idea for awesome PhD research that would really benefit the field, but they know that they will have a very difficult time getting participants.

For example, researching a certain issue might really require a longitudinal study, where the person can meet with participants several times over several years. It might be more difficult to recruit participants for this type of research then for research that involves one questionnaire and no further contact.

I'm just typing as I'm thinking, and I'm not in the dog research field so maybe this is already done... maybe universities need to be aware that there are people who are willing to be involved in certain types of research? I know that sounds very broad and vague, but hopefully you know what I mean. Eg, groups involved in dog breeding or showing etc might let universities know that they have members willing to be involved in long-term research.

We can get them the participants if its a worthwhile study. But there seems to be a lot of time and a lot of energy and resources being spent on 'mickey mouse " studies that aren't going to make any difference to anyone or any dog. It just seem to me that with so many issues begging for real studies and research which would make a difference its about time we worked together.

I think you will find that there are researchers and students interested in the same topics - however if there is not grant or money the research cannot be completed. Research in Australia will not get funded by the ARC etc unless it has broad scientific significance - this can be an issue when researching something specific to a species (dogs) and situation (purebred dogs). I know this is affecting my research as whilst people on the ground want to my "research question" answered the ARC would see it as irrelevant. Of course I'm only learning about this whole process being a 1st year PhD student... but that's how it seems to me.

I think I'm really lucky to be working on dogs - and conservation - two things which deeply interest me and after working on crickets I'm overjoyed Steve in a few years if you haven't found someone (or if you have found a lab who needs a post-doc) maybe I could investigate some of the genetic questions!

The trouble with honours students is they are not all created equal, some are great, some should be working at McDonalds instead. Plus you also have a very limited time frame for data collection, so you can only do a brief project. The study that I wanted to do on probabilities of genetic disorders occurring between health tested and non-health tested dogs was going to be done on my own time, and I'd like to do that once I get back on track.

That's exactly what I wanted to do - or am hoping to look at way in the future Once I finish my PhD.

Money and commitment are the big issues. The Border Collie breeders in Australia had two DNA tests developed for our breed with huge co-operation from breeders and a commitment from the state breed clubs that lasted 20+ years. We provided 600 DNA samples as well as an enormous pedigree database to get them started on the DNA part of the research.

We raised large sums of money and our NSW sub-committee managed to obtain a grant for $93000 over 3 years, that paid a PHD student to work full time on the project. A condition of the grant was that the combined breed clubs had to raise $15000 a year to go with it, besides the 10s of thousands we had already poured into the research. The research was also partly funded by the Batten's Disease Assoc, the human equivalent of CL and we drummed up a donation from Dogs NSW to help get it all started. I believe Dogs Vic also made a donation at some point as well. Getting a grant is not an easy task and it really has to be for something that will have a flow on effect to humans, for anyone to be interested. Our grant proposal took us several months of meetings that went half the night, to compile.

Our wonderful PHD student was successful in finding the gene for CL in his third year, so it was money and effort well spent. Our second DNA test was developed using all the data and samples from the first one and extra funding from dedicated UK breeders.

Good science - great PhD student - positive outcome of research! I'm sure that the lab would be interested in other genetics questions concerning dogs (or diseases) if funded - again funding is the main limitation to canine research (if it has no implications for humans etc). Dancinbcs describes a real-world example of how science and purebred breeders and clubs can work together to get the needed research done!

:D

Edited November 26, 2010 by MalteseLuna

[Steve]

Yes as a currently unemployed canine research scientist I can tell you that without funding research doesn't happen and unfortunatley getting funding to do with dogs is not easy. To get funding on exactly what you want, you need to put a proposal in to the uni's and state how much you are willing to contribute, if you want to be sure the project is done you need to commit the whole lot like the guide dog people do.

For a ball park:

A PhD you are looking at $22 000 for salary plus say $5-10 000 project costs a year for 3 years

A postdoc researcher you are looking at $75-80 000 salary a year plus project costs and can be for 1 to 3 years ish.

For a staff of a university (lecturer, assoc prof etc. to do it, you may not have to pay a salary (not 100% sure here) but you would need to cover all project costs AND make sure they have time to do it AND make sure it's something they are interested in.

indusrty supported projects can get more of a look in with the big funders (ARC, NHMRC) which usually require the "industry" to commit half and then they match it. it's one way to keep costs down but you are then subject to the will of the grant reviews and there are no guarentees.

The other option is master or honours projects conducted in the vet faculty. They usually don't come with a scholarship/salery but would need running costs of say $5-10 000 for one year. A bit of money for the researcher ($5-10 000) is always appreciated as well. You would also have to find an academic to support it as the student would need an in house supervisor.

Steve, could you give some examples of research you would like to see undertaken. I personally don't think my PhD was out of touch or will not make a difference but maybe that's just me

Geez I didnt want to make anyone think I was under valuing what they do and I hope no one thought I was thinking of anyone or anything in particular but in all honesty now Ive seen your figures there are definitely some which just dont seem to justify the time and work - and money thats needed to get to the other end. The study results may be interesting but not really stuff thats going to make any difference for us ordinary dog owners or breeders. I guess also it would depend on what in particular you were studying but Ive got things Id love to see looked at by credible researchers relating to health, husbandry, immunity, environmental impacts etc. Quite often when we do spot results we sort of go - so what? or Why did we need a study for that - it was common knowledge etc.

Maybe if when the studies are being undertaken if we had a Dah dah this is what Im doing and why and this is how you will be able to use the results would help too.

I think this has been very much neglected in the canine area and obviously its much to do with money but no one really seems to be able to bring the two of us together so the chances of spotting a study which has any real significance for what we are trying to achieve is rare.

Anyway Im not trying to make you guys feel un appreciated but I think it would be good if we could generate some funds and get some stuff going we could really use. Id just like to see us talking more I guess. Thats a good place to start.

There are just so many things I can think of which could make a real difference to how we do things and the real welfare of the dogs that we desperately need looked at.

[Aidan3]

Just a thought, I quite often hear people say "I wish they would study that" and often, someone already has - but you have to know what to look for. No-one is an expert in every field, so a bit of cross-pollination doesn't go astray.

[vetrg]

Another way of getting projects underway is to tack them onto an existing (funded) research program. Often if the issue has a human equivalent ie the dog can be used as a model for testing human therapeutics then you can get the medics interested and they have MUCH more funding available.

[Steve]

Id also like to add I have no other vested interest in any research or outcome other than trying to determine what is truly best for the dogs we breed and own.

I would like to think that any researcher would feel the same. I don't see why ego should come into the mix. I also think if we were to communicate a bit more that sometimes flaws in methodology and objectivity could be spotted sooner rather than later. I do think that the LIDA program is a fantastic idea but as most of you know because Im a purebred breeder I think it has a huge fault which renders it virtually useless for the very people and dogs it supposedly aims to help. I think if we had better communication between the researchers and the stake holders that this could have been dealt with in the beginning rather than hopefully later and funds wouldn't be an issue.

[Steve]

Just a thought, I quite often hear people say "I wish they would study that" and often, someone already has - but you have to know what to look for. No-one is an expert in every field, so a bit of cross-pollination doesn't go astray.

Yes I agree - another reason for us to work together more.

[Are You Serious Jo]

DNA studies to find genes responsible for disease are really useful, resistant to bias, but unfortunately expensive due to the to apparatus involved. One way of sorting through the already published studies is do a comprehensive literature review on relevant topics. Minimal cost, but time consuming.

[deerhound owner]

Yes as a currently unemployed canine research scientist I can tell you that without funding research doesn't happen and unfortunatley getting funding to do with dogs is not easy. To get funding on exactly what you want, you need to put a proposal in to the uni's and state how much you are willing to contribute, if you want to be sure the project is done you need to commit the whole lot like the guide dog people do.

For a ball park:

A PhD you are looking at $22 000 for salary plus say $5-10 000 project costs a year for 3 years

A postdoc researcher you are looking at $75-80 000 salary a year plus project costs and can be for 1 to 3 years ish.

For a staff of a university (lecturer, assoc prof etc. to do it, you may not have to pay a salary (not 100% sure here) but you would need to cover all project costs AND make sure they have time to do it AND make sure it's something they are interested in.

indusrty supported projects can get more of a look in with the big funders (ARC, NHMRC) which usually require the "industry" to commit half and then they match it. it's one way to keep costs down but you are then subject to the will of the grant reviews and there are no guarentees.

The other option is master or honours projects conducted in the vet faculty. They usually don't come with a scholarship/salery but would need running costs of say $5-10 000 for one year. A bit of money for the researcher ($5-10 000) is always appreciated as well. You would also have to find an academic to support it as the student would need an in house supervisor.

Steve, could you give some examples of research you would like to see undertaken. I personally don't think my PhD was out of touch or will not make a difference but maybe that's just me

Geez I didnt want to make anyone think I was under valuing what they do and I hope no one thought I was thinking of anyone or anything in particular but in all honesty now Ive seen your figures there are definitely some which just dont seem to justify the time and work - and money thats needed to get to the other end. The study results may be interesting but not really stuff thats going to make any difference for us ordinary dog owners or breeders. I guess also it would depend on what in particular you were studying but Ive got things Id love to see looked at by credible researchers relating to health, husbandry, immunity, environmental impacts etc. Quite often when we do spot results we sort of go - so what? or Why did we need a study for that - it was common knowledge etc.

Maybe if when the studies are being undertaken if we had a Dah dah this is what Im doing and why and this is how you will be able to use the results would help too.

I think this has been very much neglected in the canine area and obviously its much to do with money but no one really seems to be able to bring the two of us together so the chances of spotting a study which has any real significance for what we are trying to achieve is rare.

Anyway Im not trying to make you guys feel un appreciated but I think it would be good if we could generate some funds and get some stuff going we could really use. Id just like to see us talking more I guess. Thats a good place to start.

There are just so many things I can think of which could make a real difference to how we do things and the real welfare of the dogs that we desperately need looked at.

HeHe I was only joking Steve, not feeling unappreciated at all. I know what you mean about results where you go... well duh who doesn't know that? The problem with scientists is they need evidence about everything and you can't publish anything based on assumed knowledge. And anecdotal evidence blasphamy!!

Say you wanted to do a study to show that cutting down trees was reducing habitat for possums and they are dropping in numbers. Assuming no previous studies. First you need to show that possums live in trees (study one takes about a year). Then you need to show that the possums are actually dropping in numbers (longitudinal study prob take 2-3 years) finally you need to show that it is actually the cutting down the trees that is causing the problem and not something like air pollution etc etc (at least another year) so now it's 4 years later and all you have shown is that cutting down trees is bad for possums...DUH! the important thing is you could now go to the goverment or the forestry and say "oy stop cutting the trees down it's bad" and you would have evidence to back it up.

I totally agree that talking is a massive first step. If you give some examples of what sort of questions you're interested in I'll have a look and see if there's anything out there already that might help.

[corvus]

It's a tedious process, but that's why scientists hold a lot of sway. It is a little bit frustrating because people tend to think that dog researchers must know nothing if they are reporting on things that are obvious, but that's not the case at all. Talk to a few and you generally find they are full of information on all things doggy. They have built their livelihood on it, after all. But everything is little steps because it takes a long time. As frustrating as it can be to watch those baby, baby steps, unfortunately you can't build science on flakey foundations. We tried that and we're still trying to fix it 50 years later. I like to think we learnt our lesson.

From a budget perspective, it does depend on what you want to do. Genetic work is expensive, but other things like behaviour can be much cheaper. My project has no running money. I'm on a university scholarship and we designed my project on a shoestring budget because we knew we'd have no running money. I still need funding, mostly for travel costs and ongoing expenses like batteries and printing and rewards, but it's not much in the scheme of things and I can scrape it together from a few sources. We are currently building an automatic dog-training apparatus for under $200. That's the basis of my entire project, really.

[Steve]

It's a tedious process, but that's why scientists hold a lot of sway. It is a little bit frustrating because people tend to think that dog researchers must know nothing if they are reporting on things that are obvious, but that's not the case at all. Talk to a few and you generally find they are full of information on all things doggy. They have built their livelihood on it, after all. But everything is little steps because it takes a long time. As frustrating as it can be to watch those baby, baby steps, unfortunately you can't build science on flakey foundations. We tried that and we're still trying to fix it 50 years later. I like to think we learnt our lesson.

From a budget perspective, it does depend on what you want to do. Genetic work is expensive, but other things like behaviour can be much cheaper. My project has no running money. I'm on a university scholarship and we designed my project on a shoestring budget because we knew we'd have no running money. I still need funding, mostly for travel costs and ongoing expenses like batteries and printing and rewards, but it's not much in the scheme of things and I can scrape it together from a few sources. We are currently building an automatic dog-training apparatus for under $200. That's the basis of my entire project, really.

So do you mind me asking why no one is interested in using the Dog owners Choice Awards to give you guys a bit of a pat on the back and a plug so more people get to see what you are doing - maybe generate a bit of interest for some sponsorship etc? www.mdbaawards.net.au

[MalteseLuna]

HeHe I was only joking Steve, not feeling unappreciated at all. I know what you mean about results where you go... well duh who doesn't know that? The problem with scientists is they need evidence about everything and you can't publish anything based on assumed knowledge. And anecdotal evidence :D blasphamy!!

Say you wanted to do a study to show that cutting down trees was reducing habitat for possums and they are dropping in numbers. Assuming no previous studies. First you need to show that possums live in trees (study one takes about a year). Then you need to show that the possums are actually dropping in numbers (longitudinal study prob take 2-3 years) finally you need to show that it is actually the cutting down the trees that is causing the problem and not something like air pollution etc etc (at least another year) so now it's 4 years later and all you have shown is that cutting down trees is bad for possums...DUH! the important thing is you could now go to the government or the forestry and say "oy stop cutting the trees down it's bad" and you would have evidence to back it up.

I totally agree that talking is a massive first step. If you give some examples of what sort of questions you're interested in I'll have a look and see if there's anything out there already that might help.

Pft the government often ignores scientific research - i.e. research has shown that aerial baiting of dingoes is an ineffective population control method because it (1) breaks apart park structure leading to increased breeding of sub-alpha pack members, increased movements of individual pack members (as the move around looking for new packs/territory), poor hunting techniques by young pack members (i.e. more predation on sheep etc) and (2) leads to increased hybridization. A large body of evidence has shown that dingoes actually drive away invasive mesopredators (foxes) therefore protecting small-medium critical weight marsupials. Additionally the QLD government recently declared them a threatened animal... However the QLD government has just announced they wish to put $1.2 million into aerial baiting of dingoes (mainly to get votes) thereby ignoring scientific literature and experts which say aerial baiting won't help the problem (and may actually increase the problem) and start baiting a recently declared "threatened animal" BRAVO! Would be much more valuable to put that money into scientific research to find valid control methods or ways of protecting sheep which do not lead to further decline of the dingo (./end mini rant).

Depends upon the agenda of the government whether they will accept the advice of experts and scientific research.

What we really need is a government which gives more grants to scientific research - of all kinds i.e. not just human related. You can see this is a massive issue as the CSIRO just had to downsize their ecology (I think) department... yet isn't conservation/ecology/biodiversity one of the main reasons the CSIRO was formed? Unfortunately there is more money in scientific research into climate change or sustainable fuel... people practically throw money at those fields.

Concerning genetic research - yes it can be very expensive - but then it's very valuable if the research is designed properly etc. Look at the research into CL and TNS in border collies etc, a resounding success. This is how research should work - people on the ground go to experts and say we have this "xxxx" question, would you like to research it? We may be able to provide some funds + samples. Then researcher can apply for ARC-linkage grants with industry support to boost the funds and get the research done!

[deerhound owner]

It's a tedious process, but that's why scientists hold a lot of sway. It is a little bit frustrating because people tend to think that dog researchers must know nothing if they are reporting on things that are obvious, but that's not the case at all. Talk to a few and you generally find they are full of information on all things doggy. They have built their livelihood on it, after all. But everything is little steps because it takes a long time. As frustrating as it can be to watch those baby, baby steps, unfortunately you can't build science on flakey foundations. We tried that and we're still trying to fix it 50 years later. I like to think we learnt our lesson.

From a budget perspective, it does depend on what you want to do. Genetic work is expensive, but other things like behaviour can be much cheaper. My project has no running money. I'm on a university scholarship and we designed my project on a shoestring budget because we knew we'd have no running money. I still need funding, mostly for travel costs and ongoing expenses like batteries and printing and rewards, but it's not much in the scheme of things and I can scrape it together from a few sources. We are currently building an automatic dog-training apparatus for under $200. That's the basis of my entire project, really.

So do you mind me asking why no one is interested in using the Dog owners Choice Awards to give you guys a bit of a pat on the back and a plug so more people get to see what you are doing - maybe generate a bit of interest for some sponsorship etc? www.mdbaawards.net.au

Thats a good idea. I wasn't aware there was a science/research related category. Prehaps you could send a little blurb about it to all the vet faculty deans. I'm sure they would be happy to pass it on to their dog researchers.

Edited November 26, 2010 by deerhound owner

[corvus]

So do you mind me asking why no one is interested in using the Dog owners Choice Awards to give you guys a bit of a pat on the back and a plug so more people get to see what you are doing - maybe generate a bit of interest for some sponsorship etc? www.mdbaawards.net.au

You told me about this several months ago. To be honest, I didn't know what to make of it and still don't. I wasn't really sure what kind of people you were wanting to give recognition to and what it would mean to get it. I guess I'm not convinced it would be a good thing to be singled out in this context.

[Steve]

It's a tedious process, but that's why scientists hold a lot of sway. It is a little bit frustrating because people tend to think that dog researchers must know nothing if they are reporting on things that are obvious, but that's not the case at all. Talk to a few and you generally find they are full of information on all things doggy. They have built their livelihood on it, after all. But everything is little steps because it takes a long time. As frustrating as it can be to watch those baby, baby steps, unfortunately you can't build science on flakey foundations. We tried that and we're still trying to fix it 50 years later. I like to think we learnt our lesson.

From a budget perspective, it does depend on what you want to do. Genetic work is expensive, but other things like behaviour can be much cheaper. My project has no running money. I'm on a university scholarship and we designed my project on a shoestring budget because we knew we'd have no running money. I still need funding, mostly for travel costs and ongoing expenses like batteries and printing and rewards, but it's not much in the scheme of things and I can scrape it together from a few sources. We are currently building an automatic dog-training apparatus for under $200. That's the basis of my entire project, really.

So do you mind me asking why no one is interested in using the Dog owners Choice Awards to give you guys a bit of a pat on the back and a plug so more people get to see what you are doing - maybe generate a bit of interest for some sponsorship etc? www.mdbaawards.net.au

Thats a good idea. I wasn't aware there was a science/research related category. Prehaps you could send a little blurb about it to all the vet faculty deans. I'm sure they would be happy to pass it on to their dog researchers.

I did.