Punitive measures should be the last resort

Recently, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), issued a position statement and guidelines on the use of punishment for disciplining animals, in response to reality TV shows like "The Dog Whisperer".

Currently airing on the National Geographic Channel in the US, the dog whisperer, Cesar Millan - touted as the "Dr Phil for dogs" - goes around rehabilitating problematic dogs with his unique disciplinary techniques.

The AVSAB acknowledges that "punishment can be effective in specific cases, but it must be used carefully due to the difficulties of performing it properly compared to positive reinforcement and due to its potential adverse effects".

Punishment, it cautions, "should not be used as a first-line or early-use treatment for behavior problems. This is due to the potential adverse effects which include but are not limited to: inhibition of learning, increased fear-related and aggressive behaviors, and injury to animals and people interacting with animals".

At the moment, we are editing a podcast by Dr Uwe Gerecke about behavioral products for companion animals.

He says that behavioral problems in companion animals are acquired disorders, which occur as a reaction to inappropriate husbandry conditions, isolation or deprivation of social interaction.

But he also points out that what the owners perceive as behavioral problems are probably not problems at all, but simply a normal behavior for the species. Cats like to mark their territories and dogs like to chew on things.

"Owners's expectations have changed over the last 30 years, and consequently changing the lifestyles of especially pet dogs and cats," he explains. "Many companion animals today have little opportunity to express their normal repertoire of social reproductive and hunting behavior. As a result of this, many owners have no idea what the normal repertoire of the respective species really is."

Dr Gerecke's take on the use of drugs is pretty similar to that of the AVSAB's.

Only resort to these measures after an accurate diagnosis on the underlying behavioural problem, and if the owners, with the help of the vets, have a good idea about the safety of drugs chosen.

Note: Dr Uwe Gerecke also did a podcast on Nutraceuticals in the Animal Health Industry for Animal Pharm.

Animal emotions run high

I have a good relationship with my neighbour, we take in one another's parcels and exchange Christmas cards. So I was surprised to detect a coolness setting in, especially as we had discussed our jobs and work routines recently.

Finally, fearing for my parcels and Christmas list, I asked her what was wrong. "I don't agree with vivisection," came the answer. "I think it's wrong but you're biased towards it." I was taken aback. I didn't think we had discussed my attitudes to animal experimentation, I don't think I've ever discussed them, so how did this suddenly happen?

I probed a little further. It emerged my neighbour had thought that a publication called Animal Pharm must write about and support animal experimentation. I explained that Animal Pharm covers progress in animal health, how to make sick animals better, not how to use them to make humans better. My neighbour seemed mollified, and when I mentioned Animal Pharm's coverage of the 3Rs, reducing, refining and replacing animals in research, she was happier with me, although still opposed to using animals for medical research.

So how does the scientific community present current thinking on the use of animals in medical research? Extreme measures by animal rights activists have lost the support of many members of the public, so is now the time for human and veterinary medical scientists to show their side of the argument?

Geneticist Steve Jones, in his book Double Helix, suggests that opponents of the use of animals in medical research use "an essentially stupid argument: that if you disapprove of something, it cannot be true" (Double Helix, p89). He compares messages that suggest that animal experimentation is useless with the pronouncements of creationists, and, depressingly, says that "rubbish endlessly repeated can convert itself in the public mind into uncertainty, and then to truth." (Double Helix, p89).

After speaking to my neighbour, a sensible, well-educated woman, I felt that scientists had a long way to go before their arguments, based on facts not emotions, were listened to.

But one question remained with me: how do animal lovers feel about using animals in studies to find new veterinary drugs? Diabetes and cancer are just two diseases pets can suffer, and today, they can be treated successfully. This success is the result of careful study, research and experimentation using animals. You may not want animals to suffer to help cure your fellow human beings, but you might just have a different attitude when animal experimentation cures your beloved dog or cat.

Everyone likes a dark horse

Today we published a story on our website about Pfizer Animal Health's plan to fund research into new treatments for laminitis in horses in partnership with the Barbaro Memorial Fund.

The fund was set up by The National Thoroughbred Racing Association after the death of Barbaro, the winner of the Kentucky Derby 2006. Two weeks after winning the derby, he shattered his leg during a race at the 2006 Preakness Stakes. Barbaro developed laminitis in his left rear leg, and later in both front legs. He was put down in January 2007.

If you get to see the Barbaro Memorial Fund video on YouTube, you'll read all these gushing tributes from fans who were so touched by his death.

What endeared Barbaro to the US public was the fact that during the 2006 Derby, nobody expected him to beat 20 other horses in the race. His odds of winning were 6:1. But he charged ahead during the last turn and won by six and a half lengths. It was the largest margin of victory at the Derby since 1946. It was said that the jockey didn't even whip him as he finished his final furlong.

Everyone likes a dark horse. We all like the underdogs (pardon the metaphor) that, against all expectations, defy the odds and triumph. In Barbaro, we see ourselves and what we know we could be. No wonder his death broke so many hearts.

Hypoallergenic pets?

In a BIO video that we featured recently on http://www.animalpharmnews.com/, Dr Barbara Glenn, the Director of BIO's Animal Biotechnology Department, talks about the possibility of one day creating "hypoallergenic animals" for pet.

Before we say "Frankenstein", let's think about it. Before the advent of GM technology, we bred companion animals and food-producing animals to get pedigree stocks. OK, the techniques weren't GM, but my point is we tried to control the way these animals turn out so they suit our needs and lifestyle. We wanted thoroughbred horses, cats, dogs - we didn't want mongrels. We wanted the best meat, the best dairy produce, the best eggs, the best leather. We still want the same things, but in a bigger quantity because there are more of us today, and if we can get away with it, "bespoke", so they fit into our lives. Tall order.

If they can come up with cats that don't shed hair or smell as much, I might consider having one again in the flat. Bizarre? Try having a cat in Central London.

By the way, check out this website. Pet to order, only $7,900 a pop.