What Do You Want From Science?

[Salukifan]

If scientists genuinely wanted access to Whippet data, I'd do what I could to facilitate it.

However, they would need to come prepared to sell their research, to park any sense of intellectual superiority and to genuinely engage with folk who've been in the breed for decades and to listen to them.

In the meantime, they could drool a little over this. 155,000+ pedigrees going back many generations. All compiled and volunteered by breed fanciers all over the world for the mutual benefit of all.

Now to the original queston - what would I like from science?

1. More DNA tests for inheritable conditions.

2. More behavioural research that helps dog owners select and raise good family pets.

3. A really good follow up to "Fatal Dog Attacks" that goes into what makes a dog dangerous to its community. Scientists could bury BSL if they chose to.

4. More research on the impact of diet on canine health.

5. More study into the causes of HD and ED.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[WoofnHoof]

Why not go straight to the source? Most researchers working through unis have a uni email/contact details if it's so concerning just go and ask him to clarify his position.

The heckling that goes on in these threads would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

One might ask why more scientists don't follow this advice and approach breed clubs direct. Frankly they'd probably get better data on it than asking for volunteers in places like here. Maybe they could leave the lab and see their test subjects up close and personal rather than relying on owners to interpret their dog's behaviour via surveys.

There is deep suspicion amongst pedigree dog people about the agendas running behind a lot of scientific research. "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" has a lot to answer for.

It seems to me that better communication on both sides would assist but frankly neither group has a particularly brilliant record at that.

The sooner scientists grasp that they need to "sell" their research agendas to get the data they want and the sooner pedigree dog folk realise that not every scientist is aiming to make pedigree dogs extinct the better. Scientists no doubt think that they're bettering the world for dogs (and plenty are) but they need to convince others of that outside the ethics boards at their unis. If you want pedigree dog data scientitsts then YOU need to clarify your positions to the owners of that data.

That won't happen on this forum.

The "timid sighthounds" research STILL pisses me off. It pisses me off mostly because in my experience (admittedly not a statistical valid sample) it is simply not true. Temperament varies significantly among the sighthound breeds - some are downright protective if pressed. It also pisses me off because any knowledgeable sighthound person will tell you that socialisation is crucial for their breed. Corvus made some big conclusions on some very limited data and when pressed was a lot less candid about its limitations that she has been in this thread. Maybe she didn't think of the harm those conclusions could lead to for the breeds involved but breed fanciers sure as hell did. I was one of them. If the data was skewed by being drawn from one breed of sighthound and mostly from dogs NOT born and raised in family homes then that would have been useful to interpreting its outcome. If those factors were unknown they maybe it could have been mentioned as a possible interpretation. Published and picked up by the media its poor publicity for breeds that have a lot to offer as family pets - outcome pretty disastrous for the breeds involved. And all in the name of "science".

So it comes down partly to "it ain't what you say it's the way that you say it". And that applies to both sides.

I agree that reaching the right people can be difficult, but I think that's why people do come here, it's far less legwork to find a large amount of breed fanciers in the one place (Dogz) than it is to find the contact details of every single breed club. I know it was an extremely laborious task to try and gather together a list of equestrian clubs I did a while back and I found that most of the contact info that I did find was out of date.

I don't know anything about the sighthound study so I can't really comment on that, I don't have anything to do with companion animal studies but having said that I would think that the huge amount of variables is absolutely a problem in designing a study and getting a statistically signficant number of participants. We can all poke holes in research that has been done by other people because of those variables and how difficult it is to get any meaningful data, but when it comes to doing the research it's just not easy to design and implement research that takes into account all those variables. Realistically companion animal research, while important to us, has very little priority in terms of funding and manpower, most students do their work with a very basic budget and obviously there are even less actual paid working researchers in the area, there is little enough funding available for animal welfare and most of it is allocated towards farm animal welfare because it's industry funded.

I don't know what the answer is but a good start I think would be a central point of contact for both researchers and breed clubs/representatives.

[Salukifan]

I agree that reaching the right people can be difficult, but I think that's why people do come here, it's far less legwork to find a large amount of breed fanciers in the one place (Dogz) than it is to find the contact details of every single breed club. I know it was an extremely laborious task to try and gather together a list of equestrian clubs I did a while back and I found that most of the contact info that I did find was out of date.

I don't know anything about the sighthound study so I can't really comment on that, I don't have anything to do with companion animal studies but having said that I would think that the huge amount of variables is absolutely a problem in designing a study and getting a statistically signficant number of participants. We can all poke holes in research that has been done by other people because of those variables and how difficult it is to get any meaningful data, but when it comes to doing the research it's just not easy to design and implement research that takes into account all those variables. Realistically companion animal research, while important to us, has very little priority in terms of funding and manpower, most students do their work with a very basic budget and obviously there are even less actual paid working researchers in the area, there is little enough funding available for animal welfare and most of it is allocated towards farm animal welfare because it's industry funded.

I don't know what the answer is but a good start I think would be a central point of contact for both researchers and breed clubs/representatives.

Lazy science isn't good science Woof and you know it. With a couple of exceptions, the most experienced folk in my breed are not here. Some would struggle to turn a computer on. Dodger's breeder doesn't even own one. You want to talk to the folk who've been in the breed 30+ years, go through the clubs. Or get out of the uni, go to a specialty and see the dogs for yourselves. Hand out flyers, press the flesh and talk to folk who've had many dogs of the breed over decades. One visit within Sydney at Easter could have shown Corvus that her conclusions about sighthounds were iffy. She'd have worn my dogs if she'd greeted them.. and a lot of other owners dogs also. None would deny that there are timid sighthounds, but my guess is most would dispute that its typical breed temperament.

So if you come here for leads, ask for the contact point, not the data. Frankly I'd have thought the ANKC was the obvious contact point for both. Flog your hypotheses good and hard and be prepared to demystify the language for people.

Science has done wonderful things for dogs. I'd like to see it continue - but both sides have to work together for that to occur.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[moosmum]

Impact of diet on canine health is a good one H.W

Also like the research into helping people select and raise good family pets.

Those 2 should be relevent to the majority of pet owners.

Another subect I am very curious about is breeding for intelligence (trainability/human focus and desire to please and interact etc,not simple ,I know) I have known some extrordinary dogs and heard of many more eg: Theo in Sydney many years ago.I think we might see some exciting results.

At the same time I have to wonder about the ethics of such reseach.Who would be entrusted with the raising and care of those dogs?

Edited August 26, 2012 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

Another subect I am very curious about is breeding for intelligence (trainability/human focus and desire to please and interact etc,not simple ,I know) I have known some extrordinary dogs and heard of many more eg: Theo in Sydney many years ago.I think we might see some exciting results.

At the same time I have to wonder about the ethics of such reseach.Who would be entrusted with the raising and care of those dogs?

Problem is that such dogs would NOT suit a lot of families. I think it would be heartbreaking to see such dogs confined to yards untrained and unexercised, Many would end up in the pound.

But there are some pretty specific working dog breeding programs around - encompassing quite a few breeds.

[casowner]

By far the most important thing to me is to study bloat and what can be done to minimise risks associated with it

[aussielover]

Lazy science isn't good science Woof and you know it. With a couple of exceptions, the most experienced folk in my breed are not here. Some would struggle to turn a computer on. Dodger's breeder doesn't even own one. You want to talk to the folk who've been in the breed 30+ years, go through the clubs. Or get out of the uni, go to a specialty and see the dogs for yourselves. Hand out flyers, press the flesh and talk to folk who've had many dogs of the breed over decades. One visit within Sydney at Easter could have shown Corvus that her conclusions about sighthounds were iffy. She'd have worn my dogs if she'd greeted them.. and a lot of other owners dogs also. None would deny that there are timid sighthounds, but my guess is most would dispute that its typical breed temperament.

So if you come here for leads, ask for the contact point, not the data. Frankly I'd have thought the ANKC was the obvious contact point for both. Flog your hypotheses good and hard and be prepared to demystify the language for people.

Science has done wonderful things for dogs. I'd like to see it continue - but both sides have to work together for that to occur.

I tend to agree with HW.

Surveys are inherently biased and not the ideal way to make conclusions especially about such subjective issues such as temperament.

I think that in conjunction with more tightly controlled trials etc surveys can be useful.

I admit I have no idea if other trials are being conducted in conjunction with the survey corvus was involved in.

I think having an expert (or a number of experts) in behaviour assess lots of different dogs in the flesh would be a much more useful indicator of things like temperament and health. Obviously this is a lot more work though.

[Salukifan]

By far the most important thing to me is to study bloat and what can be done to minimise risks associated with it

Agree with this. There are a few ideas around that it may be linked to shorter sternums. That's a rabbit worth chasing down a hole.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[corvus]

The "timid sighthounds" research STILL pisses me off. It pisses me off mostly because in my experience (admittedly not a statistical valid sample) it is simply not true. Temperament varies significantly among the sighthound breeds - some are downright protective if pressed. It also pisses me off because any knowledgeable sighthound person will tell you that socialisation is crucial for their breed. Corvus made some big conclusions on some very limited data and when pressed was a lot less candid about its limitations that she has been in this thread.

Corvus actually made no conclusions. Corvus saw an interesting trend in her data that hadn't even been properly analysed, but piqued her curiosity and so she asked 'the source' like breeders are always lamenting scientists never do. Corvus phrased her question very carefully and provided minimum information deliberately and as a result, for once actually got what she wanted out of the discussion, which was a few ideas she hadn't thought of. Corvus felt it was probably the single most successful discussion she has ever had on DOL, but it still pissed off a lot of breeders. See how hard it is to win?

The thing about science is that it's really hard to do everything at once. Breeds, dog origin, socialisation, training... on and on. You need MASSIVE numbers. Thousands of dogs. When I can get those sort of numbers I'll be asking those sort of questions.

Surveys are usually validated these days.

Edited August 26, 2012 by corvus

[Salukifan]

The "timid sighthounds" research STILL pisses me off. It pisses me off mostly because in my experience (admittedly not a statistical valid sample) it is simply not true. Temperament varies significantly among the sighthound breeds - some are downright protective if pressed. It also pisses me off because any knowledgeable sighthound person will tell you that socialisation is crucial for their breed. Corvus made some big conclusions on some very limited data and when pressed was a lot less candid about its limitations that she has been in this thread.

Corvus actually made no conclusions. Corvus saw an interesting trend in her data that hadn't even been properly analysed, but piqued her curiosity and so she asked 'the source' like breeders are always lamenting scientists never do. Corvus phrased her question very carefully and provided minimum information deliberately and as a result, for once actually got what she wanted out of the discussion, which was a few ideas she hadn't thought of. Corvus felt it was probably the single most successful discussion she has ever had on DOL, but it still pissed off a lot of breeders. See how hard it is to win?

You can start with me by stopping the third person talk Corvus. It's bloody annoying. Try "I".

Glad you got some ideas - pity about the price others payed for them.

"Providing minimal information" put my blood pressure through the roof and resulted in me taking an extended Doliday to stop me blowing a gasket. That you now admit you were deliberately manipulating people to benefit your research agenda hits me as callous in the extreme.

I am not, nor are other members here, your personal lab rats to be pushed in the direction that assists your study. Of course it pissed off a lot of breeders - its seems your provocation was deliberate - not what I call "how to win" in the longer term. You may have had no stake in the outcome but you were playing with people who genuinely gave a damn about it.

If you want to know something, ask. If you can't say something, say so. You may often be the smartest person in the room Corvus but perhaps its time to ditch the white coat and realise that when you're posting here you're dealing with real people who deserve some respect because some of them actually know a hell of a lot about subjects you're researching and most people are very open and honest with their views. You have a tendency to take the intellectual high ground to take the piss out of folk here (most can't spot it) and people wonder why some of us get upset with you.

If this is the kind of behaviour condoned by your department then all I can say is no bloody wonder people are wary. Hidden agendas are precisely what keeps people at their distance.

The offer of assistance still stands - but don't play with people to suit your purpose. It's cruel.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Weasels]

"Providing minimal information" put my blood pressure through the roof and resulted in me taking an extended Doliday to stop me blowing a gasket. That you now admit you were deliberately manipulating people to benefit your research agenda hits me as callous in the extreme.

That's the exact opposite of how I read it, that providing too much information would have been leading and manipulating people, so she deliberately left it open so people could provide their own POV without being 'lead'? IDK.

Sorry if I'm having a bad case of Sunday-brain, but what were the implications/fallout for sighthound breeders and fanciers? It's not a world I know so I'm not putting the pieces together I'm afraid

[WoofnHoof]

I agree that reaching the right people can be difficult, but I think that's why people do come here, it's far less legwork to find a large amount of breed fanciers in the one place (Dogz) than it is to find the contact details of every single breed club. I know it was an extremely laborious task to try and gather together a list of equestrian clubs I did a while back and I found that most of the contact info that I did find was out of date.

I don't know anything about the sighthound study so I can't really comment on that, I don't have anything to do with companion animal studies but having said that I would think that the huge amount of variables is absolutely a problem in designing a study and getting a statistically signficant number of participants. We can all poke holes in research that has been done by other people because of those variables and how difficult it is to get any meaningful data, but when it comes to doing the research it's just not easy to design and implement research that takes into account all those variables. Realistically companion animal research, while important to us, has very little priority in terms of funding and manpower, most students do their work with a very basic budget and obviously there are even less actual paid working researchers in the area, there is little enough funding available for animal welfare and most of it is allocated towards farm animal welfare because it's industry funded.

I don't know what the answer is but a good start I think would be a central point of contact for both researchers and breed clubs/representatives.

Lazy science isn't good science Woof and you know it. With a couple of exceptions, the most experienced folk in my breed are not here. Some would struggle to turn a computer on. Dodger's breeder doesn't even own one. You want to talk to the folk who've been in the breed 30+ years, go through the clubs. Or get out of the uni, go to a specialty and see the dogs for yourselves. Hand out flyers, press the flesh and talk to folk who've had many dogs of the breed over decades. One visit within Sydney at Easter could have shown Corvus that her conclusions about sighthounds were iffy. She'd have worn my dogs if she'd greeted them.. and a lot of other owners dogs also. None would deny that there are timid sighthounds, but my guess is most would dispute that its typical breed temperament.

So if you come here for leads, ask for the contact point, not the data. Frankly I'd have thought the ANKC was the obvious contact point for both. Flog your hypotheses good and hard and be prepared to demystify the language for people.

Science has done wonderful things for dogs. I'd like to see it continue - but both sides have to work together for that to occur.

Like I said I don't know anything about the whippet study, if the ANKC breed database is anything like the Equestrian Australia club listings getting anything current from there was like pulling teeth. I agree that communication is an area that needs to be improved but there is so much anti science sentiment around these days it's hard to get through, people shut you down and won't talk to you, it can be very hard to deal with especially when you yourself are studying because you are passionate about a subject and yet people treat you like dirt and act like you're trying to bring them down. It can be very disheartening.

[Aidan3]

1. Affordable jet-packs

2. I want to know why so many of us have had a dog pass away shortly after losing another dog? Looking for that answer may provide us with any number of important or useful insights. If it is indeed something statistically significant.

[Salukifan]

Sorry if I'm having a bad case of Sunday-brain, but what were the implications/fallout for sighthound breeders and fanciers? It's not a world I know so I'm not putting the pieces together I'm afraid

Corvus's suggestion, based on her survey was that sighthounds were "timid". When asked about what breeds were surveyed, the conclusion most got to was that it was greyhounds that were in the majority. You can count the number of non-racing greyhound litters born in this country every year on the fingers of one hand. So most of us were concerned that observations of retired racing greyhound owners (who were asked to assess their dogs with no definition of "timid") were inaccurately skewing the data an leading to an erroneous conclusion.

A lot of sensible pet buyers don't want "timid" dogs. I know I wouldn't. So the implication, if the 'science' says that sighthounds are timid is that folk won't consider owning one. It's a common perception based on ignorance and it's wrong.

Just like a lot of common misconceptions about breeds that could be explored and exploded with good science. And BSL is a subject begging for such focus.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Jed]

A few points

1/ Dr McGreevy's stated aim, and his website, as well as his association with Don Burke, are not in accord with the continuation of the breeding of purebred dogs. I note that some of the statements he made have now disappeared. I personally doubt that someone studding a crossbred dog of unknown parentage and no health tests, via the web could possibly have the best interests of purebred dogs at heart.

Breeders are not concerned about Dr McGreevy's interest in purebred dog health, but his previously stated agenda.

2/ Most of the research which has been successful has been largely funded by dog breeder contributions. MVD and SM in Cavaliers, and FN in cocker spaniels. In the latter breed, breeders over the world held shows, fetes, bring and buy stalls, collected donations and ran raffles to fund the research. And most breeders did submit swabs. With the SM research, in England - many many dogs are submitted for MRIs, and the bodies of many loved family dogs are submitted for further research.

CCCQ donates $1 per puppy registration to UQ I believe, to fund research.

No breeder has any objection to sensible study, which may provide a positive outcome, particularly with health issues. And breeders will carry the can, but they will not support someone they do not trust.

3/ Breeding for intelligence. I did try this - but found the results were very inconsistent - but as with everything - there were not enough dogs in the study to make any definite conclusions. I decided it didn't work. You can breed out narrow ear canals, but apparently can't breed in the smarts!!

4/ More research on bloat - and I would like some research to show why there was so little bloat 50 years ago, yet now it is a huge problem. What have we done? Vets blame dogs living to a greater age for the increase in cancer, but bloat affects younger dogs. There are more dogs, but 50 years ago, I never heard of a dog with bloat. So research into that, and into cancer. Are we deranging our dogs' genes with vaccines, so they are passing on a genetic predilection to these (and other problems), or are chemicals the problems - or something else?

5/ Like to see the research etc on vaccinosis verified or refuted.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Jed

[Weasels]

Sorry if I'm having a bad case of Sunday-brain, but what were the implications/fallout for sighthound breeders and fanciers? It's not a world I know so I'm not putting the pieces together I'm afraid

Corvus's suggestion, based on her survey was that sighthounds were "timid". When asked about what breeds were surveyed, the conclusion most got to was that it was greyhounds that were in the majority. You can count the number of non-racing greyhound litters born in this country every year on the fingers of one hand. So most of us were concerned that observations of retired racing greyhound owners (who were asked to assess their dogs with no definition of "timid") were inaccurately skewing the data an leading to an erroneous conclusion.

A lot of sensible pet buyers don't want "timid" dogs. I know I wouldn't. So the implication, if the 'science' says that sighthounds are timid is that folk won't consider owning one. It's a common perception based on ignorance and it's wrong.

Just like a lot of common misconceptions about breeds that could be explored and exploded with good science. And BSL is a subject begging for such focus.

'K, thanks :) Although part of me wonders whether potential owners who will believe a whole breed group all share one negative personality trait really deserve such beautiful dogs anyway

Edited August 26, 2012 by Weasels

[dancinbcs]

For those who want breed specific DNA tests developed, it is up to the breed clubs to be pro-active and arrange to have them developed. Someone needs to step up and find a genticist, raise vast amounts of money, apply for grants, collect DNA samples and provide the researchers with as much data as possible. The small group of us involved in the development of the DNA tests for Border Collies did all this and spent hundreds of hours over many years, liaising with the geneticist and providing him with as much info as we could find from other breeders. It requires total breed co-operation with all breed clubs and breeders on board to raise money and support those doing the organising.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

If you want to know something, ask. If you can't say something, say so.

To me - based on what's posted in this thread - it looks like Corvus did a study with what was available to her - and admitted it was an insufficient sample size to make confident conclusions - so she asked for more information on the trends her tiny sample size indicated - to see if that was true or not and some of the breeders had a masssive hissy fit because she asked.

I can't see anywhere that she said it was a solid and conclusive result. It would be fair for her to say it was true of a significant number of dogs in her sample - which required further research. Which seems to have been blocked.

And I really don't like how some of you lump all science and scientists into the same basket. If you really feel that way, then quit taking your dogs to the vet - because what they know is all based on scientific results, get rid of your computers (more science) and your electricity supply etc. . .

Edited August 27, 2012 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[SparkyTansy]

go back to a lifestyle from the middle ages. Then at least we won't have to read your narrow minded hate.

That's rather dramatic, don't you think?

It's a two way street when it comes to scientific studies and pure breeds. problems arise when studies are biased, when there isn't enough participation etc., or misunderstandings surrounding the results and how the conclusion came about.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Yes it's rather dramatic - that's why I removed it.

I just can't understand that some people can denigrate a whole field of knowledge and structured study - using the product of that field to do it. And I feel about as warm and fuzzy about it as those whose favourite breed they feel is being attacked (whether that belief is well founded or not).

Hopefully I won't be tempted to respond so dramatically again any time soon.

efs

Edited August 27, 2012 by Mrs Rusty Bucket