09/26/2024
Critical Rebuttal of "Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs"
Introduction
The study by Johnson and Wynne (2024) compares the efficacy and welfare implications of electronic shock collars (e-collars) versus non-aversive, food-reward-based training methods in an inhibiting dog chasing behavior. However, this study raises strong ethical and scientific concerns. The intentional infliction of pain and distress on dogs through the use of e-collars is fundamentally unethical and unjustifiable, especially when humane, effective alternatives are well-established. Moreover, the study is marred by methodological flaws and biases that undermine its validity and contribute nothing constructive to advancing ethical dog training practices.
The following outline highlights the major concerns of the study:
Ethical Objections
Intentional Harm to Dogs: Subjecting sentient beings to pain and fear for the purposes of research is ethically indefensible. The welfare of dogs must be the paramount consideration in any study involving them. Inflicting harm when effective, humane training methods exist violates the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence that underpin responsible animal research. It boggles the mind how this study got approval from an ethics board.
Violation of Animal Welfare Standards: Ethical research mandates strict adherence to animal welfare standards, including minimizing pain and distress. The study's methodology involving e-collar shocks directly contradicts these standards. The absence of comprehensive welfare assessments and long-term follow-up further exacerbates concerns about the dogs' well-being. Participants (if we can even call the dogs that under these circumstances) were subjected to up to 20 shocks given at varying strengths, with 2 dogs receiving more.
Methodological Flaws and Biases
Inadequate Sample Size and Selection Bias: The study's sample comprised only 17 dogs who completed the protocol (6 in the e-collar group, 5 and 6 in the two positive reinforcement groups). Such a small sample size is statistically insufficient for drawing reliable conclusions and limits the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, recruiting dogs whose guardians were open to e-collar training introduces significant selection bias (allegedly, all participants were recruited from the dog trainer's social media posts). These guardians likely had specific beliefs or training styles influencing their dogs' behavior.
Absence of a True Control Group: The lack of a control group receiving no intervention is a critical methodological oversight. With a baseline for comparison, it is possible to attribute changes in behavior solely to the training methods employed. Natural behavioral variation and external factors remain unaccounted for, undermining the study's internal validity.
Inconsistent and Biased Training Protocols
Unequal Training Sessions: The e-collar group received an additional training session compared to the positive reinforcement groups. This discrepancy gives the e-collar group more exposure and practice, potentially influencing their performance and confounding the results.
Variable Lure Speeds: The positive reinforcement groups were exposed to different lure speeds, with one group experiencing gradual increases and the other facing high-speed lures from the outset. These inconsistencies prevent meaningful comparisons between groups and may disadvantage the positive reinforcement methods.
Subjective Adjustment of E-Collar Intensity: The e-collar intensity levels were adjusted based on the trainers' subjective judgment rather than a standardized protocol. This lack of objectivity introduces variability and potential bias, compromising the study's reliability and reproducibility.
Insufficient Duration for Ethical Training Practices
The study's five-day duration needs to be revised to assess the effectiveness of positive reinforcement training, which relies on gradual shaping and consistent reinforcement over time. The truncated timeframe unfairly favors the rapid but ethically questionable results of aversive methods while misrepresenting the true potential of humane training techniques.
Limited and Inadequate Welfare Assessments
Superficial Behavioral Observations: The study focuses on overt behaviors like running and vocalizations but neglects subtle indicators of stress and anxiety, such as changes in body posture, facial expressions, and other nuanced behaviors that are critical for comprehensively assessing animal welfare.
Inadequate Physiological Measures: F***l cortisol sampling was inconsistent, with samples collected from only 9 of the 17 dogs. This small and non-representative sample limits the validity of any conclusions about stress levels and overall welfare.
Biases and Conflicts of Interest
Trainer Bias Favoring Aversive Methods: Both trainers involved in the study have extensive experience with e-collar training and operate certification programs that emphasize aversive methods. Their vested interest in promoting e-collar use introduces a significant bias, potentially influencing both the implementation of the training protocols and the interpretation of the results. The lack of impartiality undermines the credibility of the study.
Lack of Transparency in Funding and Equipment Provision: The Wexner Family Charitable Fund funded the study, yet there is no disclosure of any potential affiliations or interests that may affect the research outcomes. Additionally, the e-collars used were manufactured by Garmin International, Inc., but the study does not clarify whether the manufacturer purchased the equipment independently or provided. These omissions raise concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest that could bias the analysis.
Scientific and Ethical Irrelevance: The study's approach is scientifically and ethically indefensible. By choosing to inflict pain on dogs through aversive methods, the researchers disregard established, humane alternatives that are both effective and promote animal welfare. The minimal and short-term data collected do not justify the ethical costs. The study fails to contribute meaningful insights to the canine behavior and training field, as its design is fundamentally flawed and its ethical considerations are grossly neglected.
Conclusion
This study by Johnson and Wynne is a glaring example of unethical research that causes unnecessary harm to animals without providing valuable scientific knowledge. The intentional use of e-collars to inflict pain on dogs is unjustifiable, especially when effective, humane training methods are readily available and widely endorsed by experts in animal behavior and welfare. The methodological flaws, biases, and lack of transparency further discredit the study.
Dog guardians and professionals deserve evidence-based practices that are both effective and humane, fostering a compassionate approach to training that benefits both dogs and their humans.
In the words of the exceptional Dr. Susan Friedman of Behavior Works:
"Effectiveness is not enough when it comes to choosing and applying behavior-change interventions with animals. Borrowing from the field of applied behavior analysis with human learners, an expanded hierarchy of procedures is proposed that adds a second criterion to effectiveness – relative intrusiveness. Without this ethical standard, interventions are likely to be selected on the basis of convenience, familiarity, speed, or blind authority, and may inadvertently produce the detrimental side effects of punishment and learned helplessness..."
