Theme Layout

Rightsidebar

Boxed or Wide or Framed

Theme Translation

Display Featured Slider

Yes

Featured Slider Styles

Display Grid Slider

No

Grid Slider Styles

Display Trending Posts

No

Display Author Bio

Display Instagram Footer

Dark or Light Style

Search This Blog
Do you Believe in Dog? (2018). Powered by Blogger.

Copyright Do You Believe in Dog (2018)

The content on Do You Believe in Dog? is copyrighted. If you are interested in using any content produced on Do You Believe in Dog? please email a request.

Strap line

It started when two canine scientists decide to become pen pals in an era of digital media...

Translate

Navigation Menu

All rights reserved
Do you believe in dog? 2016

Showing posts with label cortisol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cortisol. Show all posts

4 April 2013

Ask scientific questions about dogs

Ask scientific questions about dogs

Source

Hi Mia!

Glad to hear your meta-analysis pool is filled with data, or better said, 5,000+ salivary cortisol samples, translating to roughly 1.3 gallons of canine saliva. Never did I think I would see a sentence written about that much saliva, from dogs or any other species. 

It's amazing what we can learn just from studying dog spit. Somebody, somewhere had to think to themselves, "Hey! Why don't we examine hormone levels in spit?" And then, they had to create a system for doing so (and now, this field of research has gone so far as to have Spit Camp, where people learn how to collect saliva samples). This all kind of leads into what I've recently been thinking about... 

 Science = Questioning
One of the challenges of science is to question what we already think to be true, to challenge what is possible.

Neuroscientist Beau Lotto recently reminded me of this when I was watching his 2012 TED talk. He begins:
TED Talk Science is for everyone

“Perception is grander than our experience. The brain takes meaningless information and makes meaning out of it. Which means, we never see what’s there, we never see information, we only ever see what was useful to see in the past.

Perception underpins everything, our hopes, our dreams. If perception is grounded in our history it means we are only ever responding to what we’ve done before. But that creates a tremendous problem. Because how can we ever see differently?

All new perceptions begin the same way. They begin with a question.”

New perceptions begin with a question.

Questioning is especially relevant in The Age of Dog where so many of us wake up to a dog’s nose pressed into our face, and we spend countless hours telling tales about the dogs in our lives. And outside of our own experiences, we are bombarded by advertisements telling us, “This is who dogs are” followed by, “And this is what they want, so buy THIS product.”

As applied researchers, we ask scientific questions about our perceptions of dogs and the stories we tell about them. To name a few possible questions: Are we able to visually recognize a dog’s dominant breed? What is the welfare of working dogs? What are the mechanics behind dogs drinking water? What does the “guilty look” mean for dogs? Do dogs have paw preferences and if so, what might that mean? Do all dogs share the same rates of behavioral development?

By asking questions, we are trying to unearth dog perspectives and dog storylines.


Video about ScienceOnline Teen 2013
ScienceOnline Teen!
Which is why I am incredibly excited to participate in ScienceOnline Teen on April 13th (connection coming soon).

Beau Lotto reminds us that young people, in particular, are pretty awesome at asking questions, and significant questions at that.

ScienceOnline Teen is an “unconference conference”, where teens and people involved in science and scientific inquiry coming together “to build connections between students & teachers and the online scientific community and discuss how new media is changing the world of science.”

My hope is to remind teens that we can ask scientific questions not just about atoms and cancer cells but also about the species we interact with on a daily basis.

My short presentation at ScienceOnline Teen is Dogs: Science in Your Living Room. Sure, everyone blogs, tweets and posts pictures of cute dogs, but can our interest in dogs be part of an actual learning experience? The session discusses how a well-known and often beloved companion species, the domestic dog, can help everyone learn about science and scientific principles.

Your post last week on meta-analysis of salivary cortisol research is a prime example of the interplay between learning about dogs and learning about experimental design and data collection.

I’m also participating in the Women in Science Panel by Maia Winstock with Hilda Bastian, Krystal D’Costa, Cynthia Duggan, Delaram Kahrobaei, Gabrielle Rabinowitz, and Jayne Raper (Bios found here). Based on my early titrating challenges and fear of fire (and the Bunsen burner), it's cool to see how much can changed.

Do you have a scientific question about dogs?
Which leads to my last thought: people of any age can ask scientific questions. So, people out there in Internet Land. What scientific questions about dogs do you have?

Bye for now!

Julie 

More reading
Cobb, M. 2013. Thinking laterality: steps, jumps and wonder-whorls. DYBID
Cobb, M. 2013. The heat(map) is on... The colours of canine welfare. DYBID
Cobb, M. 2013. Throw another dog in the (data) pool. DYBID
Hecht, J. 2012. . Dog Spies
Hecht, J. 2012. What kinds of dogs are troubled by fireworks & what to do about it. DYBID
McConnell, P. 2009. Podcast report; Breed ban info; MARS Wisdom Panel. The Other End of the Leash

© 2013 Julie Hecht
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
3 Comments

You Might Also Like

Spit Camp

28 March 2013

Throw another dog in the (data) pool

Throw another dog in the (data) pool

Hello Julie,

 My, oh my! What an exciting time it was last week, witnessing Dog Spies' migration to the Scientific American Blog Network. 

Such a great day for dogs, for science and for YOU! 


 Yah! for this recognition of your fabulous writing achievements, communicating the field of canine science to a broader audience. WELL DONE!

As for your question about writing and how I do it, I have to admit I'm 'between systems' currently. By this, I mean that I sometimes map out ideas and plan my writing on paper before hitting the laptop; other times I just let rip straight onto the keyboard. 
I don't know if I'll ever migrate to a completely paperless system, but I feel that I'm moving in that direction. I still take most of my notes in meetings on paper, which is ridiculous as my handwriting is barely legible, even to me!
Thanks also for the link to that piece by Clive Wynne about academic writing - I really enjoyed reading it.

META-ANALYSIS

 You said it. I'm neck-deep in meta-analysis goodness right now and I'd love to tell you more about it. 

The meta-analysis data set I'm currently involved in compiling is about canine salivary cortisol (that just means cortisol found in dog spit). Cortisol is a hormone (more detail here) regularly used in research concerning animal stress and welfare. I've been interested in canine salivary cortisol  for a while now. 

That's partly because I collected a lot of it (dog spit, that is) from dogs living in home environments and working dog kennels as part of my PhD research; and partly because its really interesting! But my data alone is just one piece of a bigger puzzle. While it's really valuable information (of course it's valuable, it's part of my PhD!), it only offers insight into around 75 dogs from one population of purpose-bred dogs in one geographic area during one two-year period. How do the results of these dogs in my study compare to 'normal' dogs?

Well, you see - that's the thing. What is the normal range for salivary cortisol in dogs?
We don't really know. 

 What is it?
Meta-analysis is a way of evaluating and interpreting the results from research about a particular topic. It adds together the data from different studies, then looks at the compiled data pool to see what patterns and relationships might emerge in the larger body of available information created by the many research projects.
Throw another dog in the (data) pool! (source)

Why use it?
The patterns and groups we might look at within a meta-analysis of salivary cortisol (often used as an indicator of stress/welfare in dog research) are things like: 
  • Effects of different environments (do all the results from dogs housed in 'unfamiliar kennel environments' or 'familiar home environments' clump together at different or similar points within the range of values as a whole?); 
  • Effects of breed/age (is the range for labradors the same as that for german shepherds? Are all the young dogs in the same place as the old dogs?); 
  • Methodological aspects (such as what collection media was used: cotton swabs / synthetic rope / swabs with a saliva stimulant, etc. - does this effect where the cortisol results lie within the whole range?) 
All this information (and much more!) can be investigated and the information will help to provide further context for the existing studies, while also informing the design and interpretation of future studies.
Nancy Dreschel
Can you really do that?
Yep, you really can! Meta-analysis is a method used frequently in human health research and there are plenty of resources to refer to (check out 'further reading' section below). Of course, there are a few fancy statistical things you need to take into account and be aware of, to avoid tricksy sources of bias and subjectivity. 

Fortunately, my collaborator extraordinaire, Dr Nancy Dreschel, from The Pennsylvania State University, has set us up to work closely with an extensively experienced biostatistician, so we should be safe from any meta-analytic traps for young players.  

 Nancy and I decided to undertake this project together after meeting at last year's Canine Science Forum. It really is the best conference ever.

 You meet the greatest people there, no?!  

As I'm sure you already know, Nancy has done some very important research in the area of canine salivary cortisol, which I'll definitely write about in another post, another time (because cortisol in dog spit is SO worthy of being its own topic for discussion). She was recently chosen to receive the 2012 Excellence in Academic Advising Award from Penn State, and I'm so pleased to be working with her on this project. 
This dog could probably provide 5L of spit without trying (source)
So far we've had great support from our fellow researchers, who have shared the raw data from over 30 studies with us. This has allowed us to enter data that represents over 5,000 separate cortisol sample results. As Nancy pointed out to me in a recent conversation, that represents around 5L (or 1.3 US gallons) of canine saliva. Juicy! 

Want to see one?
Well lucky for you - here are three meta-analysis papers I prepared* earlier:
*These are not my research. By 'prepared', I meant 'hyperlinked'.

So there you have it. I'm excited about dogs and I'm excited about throwing their data into the compiled data pool. I imagine it will look something like this when we're finished compiling:
Data "pooled". Snorrrt. Get it? Pooled? Ha!

When I posted on Facebook about being excited about dogs and pools, you might have expected I'd talk about gene pools. Which is funny, because I wasn't intending to. Except that this week a study opened to collect data and the researchers involved in it ARE interested in gene pools, amongst other things - specifically the breeding, health, training and performance success of working farm dogs in Australia. 
The Farm Dog Project has launched (source)
Researchers at the University of Sydney, including Dr Joanathan Early, are seeking information via an online survey from working farm dog handlers about their dogs. Jono explained to me that "the information from this initial online survey will be used to focus the next stages of the Farm Dog Project's research into the specific areas that farmers identify as central to realizing the potential in farm dogs." 

If you have a working farm dog in Australia, you can take part in the online survey.

This will aid the Farm Dog Project's later endeavours, helping to focus and design objective behavioural measurements for traits that are highly valuable and/or difficult to train (remember when we talked about 'drive'?), so efforts can then be turned to identifying the gene behaviour associations which can assist future breeding programs. Dr Early expects that "this information can then be used over the longer term of the Farm Dog Project's scope to develop Estimated Breeding Values (EBV's) or Genetic breeding Values (geBV's) so that working farm dogs can benefit from the same access to science and breeding technology as the livestock they herd". Interestingly, some Guide Dog organisations have been using EBV's to genetically improve their dogs for guiding people with a visual impariment for close to a decade now.

This exciting body of research offers huge potential to the future of Australia's working farm dogs and has been supported by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC); Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and the Working Kelpie Council.
I think I should stop now, this has turned into a long post, but it's tough with all this exciting canine science going around me! What's going on around you? Is it exciting too?


 I truly hope so!

 Mia

Further reading:

 Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P.A., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J. & Moher D. & (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10) e1-e34. DOI:

Dorey N.R., Udell M.A.R. & Wynne C.D.L. (2009). Breed differences in dogs sensitivity to human points: A meta-analysis, Behavioural Processes, 81 (3) 409-415. DOI:

Fratkin J.L., Sinn D.L., Patall E.A. & Gosling S.D. (2013). Personality consistency in dogs: a meta-analysis., PloS one, PMID:

Nimer J. & Lundahl B. (2007). Animal-Assisted Therapy: A Meta-Analysis, Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 20 (3) 225-238. DOI:

© 2013 Mia Cobb
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
0 Comments

You Might Also Like

University of Sydney

21 August 2012

It's all about objective multiples...

It's all about objective multiples...

sciseekclaimtoken-5036b68d5c7f8
First thoughts...
Hey Julie!

I hope you had a great weekend. Can I tell you more about assessing welfare? Hell to the yeah I can! 

(By the way, who gave you that photo of me working at 3:17am?!) 

I could probably blog every day until the next Canine Science Forum about measuring animal welfare - but there are so many other things I want to discuss with you, that simply won’t do.

In thinking how to respond to your question, I popped out to my bookcase (technically, it’s more of a book wall) and grabbed the first few books I thought of when I think of ‘understanding and assessing canine welfare’. There were 23 of them. Hmmm. And that’s before I even considered pulling up relevant scientific journal papers. So...

Interpreting and measuring animal welfare isn’t easy. There’s no litmus test for animal welfare, no smartphone app' that you can use to scan an animal and get a quick result as to whether its welfare is good, neutral or poor (but how cool would that be!).
It’s not easy, but it’s by no means impossible. 

Saliva collecting is easy with slobbery dogs
As scientists, we love an objective measure (one that requires minimal judgement by the person making the assessment, which reduces the chance of human bias and/or error) so we really love something that gives us numbers to analyse. This is where measurements of physical functions, like heart rate, weight, stress hormones and immune system function are great. No matter what mood I’m in, how much coffee I’ve drunk or what time of the night I’m reviewing my PhD data, I can’t alter the fact a salivary cortisol measure came in at 0.29µg/dL. Because that’s what the value is. It just is.

This dog obviously has 'good drive' (source)
Behavioural information is awesome because we can generally collect it without interfering with the animals, reducing any experimenter effect. It’s important that its measurement is still done objectively and this is where an ethological background (oh hey, like mine!) can be really handy. There are many industry-based terms which may mean different things to different people, or in different contexts. For example, in the working dog industry, terms like ‘drive’, ‘willingness’, ‘suspicion’ and ‘instinct’ are behavioural traits commonly referred to, but what is good drive? Has this boxer got ‘good drive’? How do we measure it? Is a livestock herding dog’s drive the same as a guide dog, police dog or racing greyhound’s drive? 

When we measure behaviour objectively using an ethogram, and look at frequencies (how often within a timeframe) or durations (length of time) of certain actions (like barking, sitting, walking, interaction with another dog, person or toy) we remove the human interpretation (and potential error in interpretation) from the data collection stage, which is SUPER important. So rather than rate the subjective term drive, a scientist would tend to measure objective behaviours or actions, like command-response time, running speed or directional tracking of eye movements.

(source)
Environment is also important as it gives context to the physiological and behavioural data. For example, if a dog’s cortisol reading in my PhD work was unusually high (usually associated with stress) and the video recording showed that dog barking incessantly in its kennel yard for an extended period of time, I might interpret that as a dog with a significant stress response to being kennelled. However, if I know that at that particular time of behavioural sampling and prior to the saliva collection there was a thunderstorm taking place, it might change how I interpret the data in front of me. It’s critical not to overlook even the simplest of environmental factors (like temperature) that have been shown to affect both animal behaviour and physiology.

This is truly just the tip of the ‘assessing animal welfare’ iceberg and there's always more to learn. I haven’t touched on the hot topics of ‘quality of life’, ‘affective states’, individual vs. population welfare, the interplay of public attitudes/perceptions and ethics with animals welfare or why there is currently an emphasis about avoiding bad welfare rather than promoting the good – lucky we have time on our side for all of that! 

 Hopefully this has helped give you an idea of why multiple (physiological and behavioural) measures are so important in assessing canine welfare – the more information you have to help with the interpretation of an animal’s experience, the better – until that smartphone app' comes along anyway!

So how was your weekend, anyway?

Mia

 Dreschel, N.A. & Granger, D.A. (2009). Methods of collection for salivary cortisol measurement in dogs, Hormones and Behavior, 55 (1) 168. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.09.010

Martin, P. & Bateson, P. (2007) Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. (3rd Ed.) Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521535632

© Mia Cobb 2012
Continue Reading »
DoYouBelieveInDog
0 Comments

You Might Also Like

working dogs
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
[name=Do You Believe in Dog?] [img=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih0oTdT87wf4V9ic3qh3r4nwYEQ2IsqFtweaU5RXbfIGujIMEg7n7jBmLq88mM9ZWZZ74jemUA2tK0UDNV-mLf4Mx7UzOEv6FISOcaffwhjDIU-9DgKhUj1VILdKBCInozoneqSXX6_kPP/s100/DYBID3+SPARCS2013.jpg] [description=Do You Believe in Dog? is a popular canine science platform presented by Mia Cobb and Julie Hecht. We think it's important that everyone be able to access and understand the latest canine research.] (facebook=https://www.facebook.com/DoYouBelieveInDog/) (twitter=https://www.twitter.com/doubelieveindog/) (instagram=https://www.instagram.com/mlcobb77/) (instagram=https://www.instagram.com/dogspies/)

Follow @SunriseSunsetBlog