ShoresDog Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 There is a long story in the SF Weekly today, about the project that our member Solo River works on, the Canine Genetics Project. While I'm not "crazy" about the story's title, it is certainly interesting! Psycho Dogs It's a nice story, but one would have liked to read more about how the Solo story played out and how he's doing now. The work is very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anda Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Thanks for posting the link, Jan! It is nice to read about Melanie's accomplishments and hear again Solo's moving story! He is a great example of what love, care, intelligence, science, research and medication can do to save a wonderful dog trapped in a cobweb of phobias! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Oop Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 The article was very interesting. Melanie, you've done great work with Solo and should feel proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smileyzookie Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Wow, a really moving story. I ended up crying. Melanie, I admire you so much for working with Solo and dedicating the time and effort. What a wonderful change it must have been for him to realize someone did care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Excellent article! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Watch Debatable Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Interesting read. Solo is going to be stopped for (p)autographs on his walks in SF from now on -- be prepared for this, Melanie From the article: "I think the biggest implication of genetics and behavior is that breeders are going to end up being implicated," [Jean Donaldson] says. She mentions a chocolate Labrador with compulsive disorder, whom she's treating, that was bred from field trial champions. He compulsively fetches and guards household objects, and chewed at his tail until the owners were forced to amputate the tip. "It's a classic case of genetics kicking in, so predictably! Unbelievably predictably!" Donaldson says. "It's very frustrating to throw every med in the book at this dog, when somebody built him to be this way. Should we really be building dogs to have compulsive disorders?" I worry that John Q. Petowner's dog with a compulsive disorder might well be John Q. Stockman's keen, tireless worker. If the goal is to make every dog idiot-proof, God help working breeds. IMHO, this is further proof that working-bred dogs must be placed in working homes --- or in the most responsible, experienced pet homes. Otherwise state legislatures will be formulating answers to Donaldson's question, and the "solutions" they come up with will be very bad for working dogs. Responsible breeders could check their dogs' DNA, and refuse to breed those who have the genes associated with behavior problems. By removing vulnerable dogs from the gene pool, they might eventually be able to create happier, more stable breeds. That's what the SPCA's Donaldson is hoping for. "Dog breeders could probably put me out of the fear and aggression business in 20 generations," she says. Here's where human psychiatry and dog psychiatry finally diverge. Nobody with any moral sense would suggest that human mental illness should be eliminated by restricting who can reproduce. In dogs, it's a possibility that's fast approaching. Dogs, welcome to the Brave New World. In a rush to produce sociable, easygoing dogs that snore on the rug during thunderstorms, the complex tangle of genetics responsible for great working attributes could be damaged, and not just in the border collie breed. I don't want to rehash the genetics discussions that have played out on Sheepdog-L over the years, other than to repeat the first rule of intelligent tinkering: "Don't throw away any of the pieces." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Interesting read. Solo is going to be stopped for (p)autographs on his walks in SF from now on -- be prepared for this, Melanie Sheesh, Solo hopes not! I worry that John Q. Petowner's dog with a compulsive disorder might well be John Q. Stockman's keen, tireless worker. If the goal is to make every dog idiot-proof, God help working breeds. I want to make clear, this is not our goal. Our goal is to understand the genetics behind pathological anxiety based behaviors, period. If it were about dumbing down Border Collies, I would not have anything to do with the project. I hope you understand that. I also want to make clear that in my experience (which is admittedly not vast, but I think that I am not alone in my observations) the range of behaviors found in normal, working-bred Border Collies does not routinely include pathological behaviors like true obsessive-compulsive disorder. A good working-bred Border Collie placed in an inappropriate home may "act out" due to lack of stimulation or bad training/management but the kinds of behavioral problems we are interested in aren't the kind you can "give" a normal dog by treating him wrong. There's also a difference between the normal intensity and, yes, obsessiveness of a good Border Collie, and the kind of pathology that makes a dog chew on his own body parts so badly that they need to be amputated. We are interested in pathological behaviors that the dogs themselves, and their genetics, bring to the table. But, you may protest, how can you tell the difference between behaviors caused by nature and those caused by nurture? A priori, we may not be able to (although the striking similarity of some of these behavioral problems to various psychiatric disorders in humans that ARE known to have genetic bases is encouraging) but the thing is that if we misidentify a "nurture" behavior for one that is genetic, we're not going to end up with a false positive -- in other words, we aren't going to identify a gene for something that isn't genetic. It's hard enough to find genes for things that ARE genetic. So worst case scenario, the fuzziness makes our job harder but the odds that it means we'll end up identifying a gene erroneously, that breeders will start selecting around it, and end up losing working ability in the process is basically nil. IMHO, this is further proof that working-bred dogs must be placed in working homes --- or in the most responsible, experienced pet homes. Otherwise state legislatures will be formulating answers to Donaldson's question, and the "solutions" they come up with will be very bad for working dogs. I respect Jean Donaldson immensely but I don't take a single case study as proof of anything, nor do I believe that state legislatures will have much of a desire to regulate the breeding of working dogs. I'm pretty sure we're safe from anything like that unless there's a spate of Border Collie attacks in the news. In a rush to produce sociable, easygoing dogs that snore on the rug during thunderstorms, the complex tangle of genetics responsible for great working attributes could be damaged, and not just in the border collie breed. I don't want to rehash the genetics discussions that have played out on Sheepdog-L over the years, other than to repeat the first rule of intelligent tinkering: "Don't throw away any of the pieces." The way I look at it is, if a breed community is interested in using whatever findings we end up with to come up with some sort of genetic tests of temperament, that is their prerogative. In my opinion the Border Collie community will not be much interested in this because for the most part we don't have major behavioral problems to fix in our breed. I'd also like to make clear that genetic tests, per se, are not the only advantage (or "advantage" depending on your POV) that would come from understanding the genetic bases of behavioral problems. The thing is, right now, the biological bases of behavior, in humans and dogs, are largely a black box. We know that certain medications do certain things, for example, or that certain lesions do certain things, but we don't really know why, exactly for most of them. Identifying a gene for a pathological behavior will lead us to MECHANISMS that explain those behaviors -- in other words, once we've located a gene, we can then do research into that gene's specific function. That means we can come up with better therapies for dogs that need them, and owners who want them, better, more SPECIFIC therapies that target more exactly what it is that needs fixing. Better therapies means more dogs staying in homes and enjoying higher quality of life. And understanding exact genetic mechanisms means breeders are LESS likely to make dumb breeding decisions and "throw away pieces" as it were. In my own research I've concentrated on noise phobia, but that isn't because I think it's a killer epidemic in Border Collies. The reason I am interested in noise phobia is because it is so very similar to specific phobias in humans (fear of heights, the dark, spiders, etc.) and because it is a relatively clear behavioral phenotype. It is difficult to evaluate behavioral phenotypes -- they aren't like some diseases that are characterized by specific biological criteria that can be assayed easily. Most of the behavioral problems that are most vexing (aggression, etc.) are very complex, as are many of our biggest canine disease bugaboos (epilepsy, hip dysplasia). That makes them harder to evaluate and turn into data points that can be explored. By comparison, noise phobia is simple: it tends to manifest in certain, stereotyped behaviors. It is not difficult for owners to describe, and they all tend to describe it the same way. It is specific to certain situations. And it doesn't carry the stigma that more serious problems do, so owners are willing to talk about it. Most people know that it isn't something they "gave" their dogs through mismanagement or bad training. It's something that demonstrates a high enough incidence along with enough variation within the Border Collie population to be interesting as a research question. The "downside" is that since it isn't a killer, it's harder to get people "on the bandwagon" so to speak to crusade for a cure, which makes it harder to recruit participants. This last fact makes me think it's highly, highly unlikely that there will ever be demand for a "noise phobia gene test" from Border Collie breeders, so I don't think we need to worry about that. If individual dogs are noise phobic enough to compromise their utility as working dogs, they are probably already being selected against anyway. There ARE those dogs at the extreme end of the distribution, who suffer serious debilitation and quality of life issues because of noise phobia, and personally I'd like to be able to help these dogs. Some dogs' quality of life suffers so badly due to noise phobia that they are euthanized. To me it would be wonderful if we could help design better treatments for these dogs, who often have no other behavioral problems of any kind. Anyway, I did anticipate this reaction after seeing the article in print and appreciate the opportunity to respond. It didn't turn out exactly like I thought it would, but I think it turned out pretty well (even though I too wish there'd been more about how well Solo turned out because that part of the story is left sort of hanging, but the article was long enough as it was). I'd love to know what you guys think. With input from people in the breed we have a real opportunity to tailor our research to serve the interests of the Border Collie community and I personally am all for that. After all, I'll still be in Border Collies when I'm not a postdoc here anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Watch Debatable Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Blah. My bad -- too little sleep, too few gray cells. I never, ever meant to imply that the project's goal was to dumb down dogs for the general public: I think this is an important study. I meant to say that comments like Donaldson's ["I think the biggest implication of genetics and behavior is that breeders are going to end up being implicated[...] Should we really be building dogs to have compulsive disorders?"] are fuel for the kind of "speuter 'em all" fervor we're seeing in California now with the Levine bill, which affects every breed. I though the article was good, and the Solo parts rocked. More tomorrow, if I can find some caffeine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Melanie, I have a more pervasive concern. The latest trend I've seen among owners of rotten dogs (as opposed to pathological dogs) is to use genetics as an excuse for anything that they don't want to be bothered with fixing. I've heard of genetics blamed for everything from leg humping to jumping up. The next logical step is to blame breeders. People already do this to some extent, and I worry that a layman's reading of this kind of research is going to give rise to even more nonsense. I support the intent of the project you're working on, but I worry about the unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie_Girl Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I am very interrested in the genetic study of anything. I just find it interresting. Especially since in my family, the "Drennen" gene seems to be a mega gene, i.e., even after all the generations, we all still have certain charateristics of behavior! (not all well recieved! LOL) However, one question I have about the noise phobia. I have been told that after many(?) studies, they have found a pup at at least two different ages, can be become fearful of new things if exposed during this period. So, if a dog has this thunder phobia gene, but is NOT exposed to thunder during this "fearful" stage, it will or will not be thunder phobic? And if the dog does NOT have the TPG, and IS exposed to thunder during this "fearful" stage, will it or will it not develope thunder phobia? Just curious because I know that at least a few of my trainers dogs must be thunder phobic, and apparently so are some of her sheep! This assumption comes from the fact that a training session was cancelled, not because of the rain, but the thunder. She made the comment, it makes the sheep skiddish, and the dogs "crazy". And hers are ALL working bred from good working lines. The foster girls and Jackson have NO reaction to thunder or other noises. Jackson will react to some noises if is something is scary to him other than just the noise it makes. Skip usually barks at thunder, not like he is scared, like he thinks it is a "something" that needs to be scared away! But that is how he reacts to most things of that sort. But he is scared to death of riding in the truck. NONE of the other dogs are. So, I would like to know more about the discovery of this gene, and what else it controls. If it wasn't in S.F., I would volunteer to be a "gopher" just to have a chance to be in on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack & Co. Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Lucky Solo! I really enjoyed that article! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoresDog Posted March 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Thanks for your explanation, Melanie. If you can find a gene for a particular behavior, it could really open up some interesting further directions. I have no idea of Daisy's pedigree, but she wants to run away from anything loud and sudden, like cars backfiring, firecrackers, fireworks, and thunder. Or even a very loud something-fell-on-the-floor noise! Good questions, Linda. I laughed when I read about your "Drennen mega-gene" because in our family, it's believed that there's an inherited suite of behaviors called "the mean Gresham tongue!" Of course, it bypassed me...most of the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I have a more pervasive concern. The latest trend I've seen among owners of rotten dogs (as opposed to pathological dogs) is to use genetics as an excuse for anything that they don't want to be bothered with fixing. I've heard of genetics blamed for everything from leg humping to jumping up. The next logical step is to blame breeders. People already do this to some extent, and I worry that a layman's reading of this kind of research is going to give rise to even more nonsense. I support the intent of the project you're working on, but I worry about the unintended consequences. I know the phenomenon you're worried about, but my belief is that knowing more about what genetics actually governs (and therefore, more about what it does not) will help dispel this nonsense. There are always going to be dog owners who are unwilling to take responsibility for things that ARE their fault, including garden-variety bad behavior in normal dogs resulting from lack of training. There always have been those owners. They will always be looking for excuses. I cannot accept that the actions and opinions of these people is a good reason NOT to know more about genetics and behavior. More information will help dogs and their owners, and a real understanding of the subject (rather than simply the fuzzy idea that genetics must be involved, somehow, but we are not sure how) will make it LESS acceptable to make frivolous excuses of this kind. Heck, dogs come genetically programmed to do ALL sorts of things that humans don't like, because they are animals, like roam, or guard and eat carrion, or roll in ungulate poop. We mostly successfully manage and train them so that they act more civilized and so that we can all live together happily. Mostly. If an owner can't cope with the normal genetically-influenced behavioral package that a normal dog comes with, he or she probably shouldn't have a dog (and yea, verily, there are so many people out there and so many dogs that would be better off if they did not have dogs). If that owner wants to use genetics as an excuse for his or her dog's unfortunate and intolerable but normal behaviors, as far as I'm concerned that isn't my fault. If it weren't that excuse, it would be another. I think reasonable people can make the important distinctions. There's no reason to see black helicopters here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I see no black helicopters. Just think that the current fad of giving genetics the blame for every problem would sieze upon this kind of research as validation. It would be incorrect, but when you're starting with such an incorrect premise, what's one more little screw-up. I am not saying this work shouldn't be done. Rather that at every opportunity we need to make it clear that when Rover eats the neighbor's garbage, it's not the breeder's fault. Except to the extent that the breeder sold the dog to a nit wit who would believe such foolishness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosanne Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Good article - nice to get some info out to the masses. . . but it's also hard to tell what the overall tone was meant to be. If they said it was about psycho humans they'd get in trouble. Ah, well, a step in the right direction. My mom has a severe thunder-phobic dog who was prescribed a medication by a Univ of Penn behaviorist. . probably the very same Karen Overall (though I can't remember). I'm so glad we live only an hour from Philadelphia - easy to get PennHip scores, behavioral consults, etc! Does anybody know which working dog sire they talked about? or is it strictly classified information? (pm's ok if somebody is willing to share) I forwarded the study info to my mom months ago, but I don't know if she ever sent her dog's DNA in or not. Her dog, with medication, was able to stop transfering thunder-fear over to other sounds, and also able to modify her immediate need to RUN into a need to sit (and shake with glazed eyes and much panting) quietly with her mom. She was sired by imported working dog and I was curious if there were other relatives with the same problem - I know at least 2 littermates also have storm issues, at relatively young ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancy in AZ Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I just wanted to personally thank those individuals on this forum, and Melanie in paticular, who gave me guidance and encouragement dealing with Boo's stranger aggression issues. As a direct result, as well as recommended reading: Patricia McConnell, Jean Donaldson and Dr. Karen Overall, lengthy discussions with Karen London Phd. (cert app animal behaviorist) and seeking professional help from a veterinary behaviorist I'm seeing hope for my boy. Boo has been on anti-anxiety meds since Nov. Last Friday I dropped him off to spend the afternoon with the vet/behaviorist. We wanted to see how willing to accept others he would be if I weren't around for him to feel dependent on. She had him at the office briefly and then took him home with her. When she called me with a progress report a few hours later, the first words out of her mouth were "I want to steal your dog"! She said within 15 minutes he was seeking cuddles from her, and during our conversation was in their backyard playing with her husband! When I arrived at the clinic to pick him up the vet tech was raving about what a sweet boy he is. This experiment has pretty much borne out my suspicion that his aggression is at least in part a result of being possessive of me (Karen London pegged this at the outset). We still have a long way to go, but this has been a major milestone since he wandered into my life, quite by accident last May. Last Saturday I took him to a stock dog trainer to see how he'd take to "working" sheep for the first time. We had a blast. I had made the arrangements even before the vet/behaviorist made the suggestion of giving him a job such as agility or stock work to focus on. Melanie your journey with Solo is inspirational. It's a shame the article couldn't include the rest of your story together. Ever considered committing it to paper in published form? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Hi Bill -- totally understood. I think there may be more call for genetic tests (and I want to make clear here that I think a simple genetic test for most if not all behavioral problems is just not going to happen -- it is highly unlikely that a single gene is responsible for complex behavioral pathologies) in other breeds, in which pathologies are more deeply ingrained. In some breeds, I do believe it is the fault of the breeders for passing pathological dogs on to unsuspecting and responsible owners. Some breeders have gone so far as to mistake pathology as breed-specific behavioral "quirks" (I'm not going to name any names but you all probably have some candidate breeds in mind). I think Border Collies are safer from this especially because they ARE a functional breed, rather than a breed that is being perpetuated to fulfill some sort of "just so" story about what the breed used to do but doesn't anymore. I don't know if that makes any sense. Rosanne -- all information submitted to the study is STRICTLY confidential, and I would never reveal the names of any owners or dogs participating in this study, unless they wanted me to. But the truth is that the article could be referring to any of a number of dogs -- it isn't as though noise phobia is rare in Border Collies. And in the majority of dogs that we are looking at, in that family and in others, and in Border Collies in general, noise phobia is not severely debilitating (i.e., life threatening) even though it may be a problem that owners perceive. I don't want anyone to start witch hunts here. There's no need. Thanks for the nice words guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painted_ponies Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 In some breeds, I do believe it is the fault of the breeders for passing pathological dogs on to unsuspecting and responsible owners. Some breeders have gone so far as to mistake pathology as breed-specific behavioral "quirks" (I'm not going to name any names but you all probably have some candidate breeds in mind). I absolutely agree. I used to own and show chow chows. My very favorite dog had severe aggression and fear problems. I knew him from the time his little pads touched the ground for the first time, he was carefully raised, trained and socialized, and was a happy-go-lucky baby who seemed like a "real dog" (IOW not a maniacal chowchow) in every respect. At eight months of age, with no provocation, he attacked a dog with whom he'd lived all his life and darn near killed him. He was aggressive ever after - I eventually managed to instill some bite inhibition in him where humans were concerned, but could never trust him unrestrained near another animal except for a couple of bitches I owned - and I didn't dare leave him unsupervised even with them. Turns out his sire actually did kill a dog with whom he lived under the same circumstances at the exact same age, and was also a maniac the rest of his life. I tracked down most of his littermates, and they all, beginning at the same age, exhibited the same aggression problems with other animals and fear/aggression towards humans. Of course, since they were chows no one thought the fact that his whole litter turned into a bunch of orange crocodiles at puberty was remarkable in the least. Anyway, all this to say that I've never ascribed to the "it's all in how you raise 'em" theory of dog temperament. I think your project is fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.