FrankenFido

From Slate:

Have you heard the latest news? We've decoded the DNA of dogs. Here's how the media-approved version of the story goes: We're showing our love for "man's best friend" by discovering and treating the genetic causes of his ailments. In return, we'll learn to treat the same ailments in ourselves.

It's a heartwarming story, but it's a fraud. The reason we targeted the dog genome for decoding is that it's useful for genetic research. The reason it's useful for genetic research is that dogs are neatly divided into breeds, each of which is plagued by specific diseases. And the reason dogs are divided into diseased breeds is that we made them that way. Dogs are the world's longest self-serving, ecologically reckless genetic experiment, perpetrated by the world's first genetically engineering species: us.

Dogs were just a loose category of wolves until around 15,000 years ago, when our ancestors tamed and began to manage them. We fed them, bred them, and spread them from continent to continent. While other wolf descendants died out, dogs grew into a new species. We invented the dog.

We didn't pick just any wolves for this project. We picked the ones that could help us and get along with us. Dogs are dumber than monkeys and other mammals in many ways, but they excel at one thing: interpreting human behavior. Three years ago, scientists tested this talent in wolves, adult dogs, puppies raised in households, and puppies raised in kennels. The wolves couldn't read humans well, but the puppies could—even the puppies raised in kennels. Through selection, we've hardwired human compatibility into dogs. We've made a species in our image.

But that wasn't enough. We had specific needs. We bred hunting dogs, herding dogs, sled dogs, and guard dogs. (We also tried a few unauthorized uses.) We turned reproductive separation and inbreeding into a science, multiplying and dividing the species into more than 400 breeds. The American Kennel Club sorts them into the Sporting Group, Working Group, Herding Group, Hound Group (whose ancestors were "used for hunting"), Terrier Group (whose ancestors "were bred to hunt and kill vermin"), and Toy Group. "The diminutive size and winsome expressions of Toy dogs illustrate the main function of this Group: to embody sheer delight," says the club's Web site. Every dog has his duty.

Each need, each breed, called for special traits. We bred collies for vigilance, Rottweilers for aggression, retrievers for obedience. In a span of decades, we bred ferocity into Dobermans and then, with equal deliberateness, bred it out. We treated dogs like guns. We designed and bought them for protection, then complained when they hurt us. When cities banned pit bulls, we bought Rottweilers. It was as easy as replacing an illegal assault weapon with a legal one.

Not all our designs were utilitarian. We made some breeds just for fun. Some, like the Pharaoh Hound, were thought to be ancient because they looked like dogs drawn on Egyptian tombs. But last year, when we checked their DNA, we found no evidence they were older than modern breeds. Apparently, breeders crafted them by mating dogs that looked like the drawings. Life imitated art.

In the course of engineering dogs to look, feel, and act as we wanted, we ruined millions of them. We gave them legs so short they couldn't run, noses so flat they couldn't breathe, tempers so hostile they couldn't function in society. Even our best intentions backfired. Nature invented sexual reproduction to diversify gene pools and dilute bad variants. By forcing dogs into incest (which we ban among humans, in part for biological reasons), we defied nature. We concentrated each bad gene in a breed, magnifying its damage: epilepsy for springer spaniels, diabetes for Samoyeds, bone cancer for Rottweilers. That's why the dog genome is so nifty: We can find disease genes just by comparing one breed's DNA to another's.

Well, too bad for the dogs. But three cheers for us and our experiment. "The dog genome is a wonderful playground for geneticists," exults the New York Times. "A treasure trove," says the San Francisco Chronicle. "A convenient laboratory," agrees Reuters.

Man's best friend, indeed.


William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

[LilacDragon]

Each need, each breed, called for special traits. We bred collies for vigilance, Rottweilers for aggression, retrievers for obedience. In a span of decades, we bred ferocity into Dobermans and then, with equal deliberateness, bred it out. We treated dogs like guns. We designed and bought them for protection, then complained when they hurt us. When cities banned pit bulls, we bought Rottweilers. It was as easy as replacing an illegal assault weapon with a legal one.

AAARRRGGG!!!

Rottweilers were never supposed to be bred for aggression! Both the European and American Standard call for aloofness but neither mentions a word about aggression except to say that an aggressive dog should be disqualified from the ring! Af all the dozens of rottweilers I have met - I have never met an aggressive one. Heck, I know of one that slept through his house being burgalurized!

It is those who breed them to replace the pit bulls in banned cities that have bred for aggression. Poor breeding and poor managing can make dogs of any breed aggressive.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

No problem... an opinion is always welcome. After all, that was an opinion piece I posted in the first place. I thought there were several valid points in the article.

[LilacDragon]

While the article may have some valid points, I think it is a bit off base.

Bone cancer isn't a genetic illness, per say. Since rottweilers are the breed that I am more familiar with - I will use them as an example.

Rottweilers are prone to hip dysplasia, elbow displasia, sub aortic stenosis, thyroid issues and another issue that I can't remember at this moment. All of these can be tested for and an ETHICAL breeder tests for these and
doesn't put dogs that have them from their breeding pool.

The original purpose of the rottweiler was as a herding dog. To drive and protect the flocks. They are supposed to be slow to except strangers but NOT aggressive. Every single ethical breeder that I know (and I do know several) show them in conformation to be sure that they meet the standard as set forth by AKC (which is set by the American Rottweiler Club) and they also show their dogs in at least one other venue - be it obedience, agility, herding, tracking, flyball, etc. This is to ensure that not only are they breeding dogs that are built to the standard but they are able to do the work that was intended. Many of these dogs are also Therapy dogs! Hardly aggressive.

Many people think that dogs that are trained in Shutzhund - a type of "protection" training - are aggressive. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to succeed in this sport, one must be able to turn the dog on and off, so to speak. Biting is NOT allowed unless a command is given and must let go when given a command. Any dog trained in this must have a very solid temperment. A dog that bites at anything that moves is not what one wants for any type of protection work.

The reason that so many breeds have problems is because we live in an "I want it now" type of environment. They like the look of a certain breed and they go out and get one without doing any research. There are many, many people who are more then willing to supply puppies to these people with as little expense to themselves as possible. They often times skimp on basic veterinary care and certainly don't make any effort to make sure that any type of genetic testing is done. (I know a woman that has a dachshund that was born deaf with no eyes! This dog was bought and sold at auction not once but twice to be used as a breeding dog in puppy mills.)

As for pit bulls - yes, they were originally bred to fight. Other dogs. And when this type of dog was first bred, owners and breeders went about things considerably differently then they do now. Then the dogs were a part of the family when they weren't in the pit. Medical attention was given to the dogs after the fights and dogs that were people aggressive were quickly destroyed. If you look at the AKC standard for the American Pit Bull Terrier - you will find that while it says that the dogs may show dog aggression, any animal that shows aggression toward people should be dismissed from the ring.

In the last 20 years or so, pit bull fighting has become something horrendous and is certainly not what the original breeders of these "bully" breeds had in mind by a long shot. Fights are often the main event with drug deals going on on the sidelines and the dogs used are trained in ways that are beyond inhumane. I have heard stories of 8 week old puppies put in bags, tied up in trees and beaten with sticks to make them aggressive! Or young puppies used to bait older dogs.

I would love nothing more then to be able to ensure that not another rottweiler has to endure the pain of bad hips or drop dead in the yard from a bad heart. But the problem isn't ETHICAL breeders - it is people who breed their dogs to make money without taking into account the life of the puppy they are selling or the people who are buying it.

[BabyRider]

What I do like about this article is how it exposes human's selfishness. We bred dogs to suit our needs and our wants, and what happened? We got dog breeds with severe limitations. Do we care that some breeds are prone to nasal and breathing difficulty? Do we care that some breeds are prone to chronic neck and back difficulty? Do we care that some breeds are prone to joint pain? Nope. All we care about is that the breed suit the need or the way we want it to look. That's what we get for trying to play god, in my opinion. Screw the consequences, it's the immediate gratification we're after.
Thanks for the article, Snooze!

[BabyRider]

And I thought that LilacDragon's post deserved it's own reply from me, which is:



If I were allowed more than 4 smileys, you'd have got more. That's good stuff, there, Lilac.

[LilacDragon]

Originally Posted by BabyRider

What I do like about this article is how it exposes human's selfishness. We bred dogs to suit our needs and our wants, and what happened? We got dog breeds with severe limitations. Do we care that some breeds are prone to nasal and breathing difficulty? Do we care that some breeds are prone to chronic neck and back difficulty? Do we care that some breeds are prone to joint pain? Nope. All we care about is that the breed suit the need or the way we want it to look. That's what we get for trying to play god, in my opinion. Screw the consequences, it's the immediate gratification we're after.
Thanks for the article, Snooze!

Most breeds can be dated back to a time when dogs were a great help in going about man's day to day life. Herding dogs - for example - helped take care of the flocks of sheep that earned a family their money. A good dog made it possible to have larger flocks and to move them safely from place to place. You can bet that only the best of these dogs were bred (even if going for a certain look) so that the following generations were able to do the job. A herding dog crippled by, say, hip dysplasia, did a farmer no good at all and was not used in the gene pool for long. Especially if pups from that dog were crippled at an early age.

The problem is that, as we lose our original uses for these dogs, some people breed more toward winning in the show ring and some characteristics of the breed are more finely bred. For example - the German Shepherd. If you look at the German Shepherd from 20 years ago, they stood up like a "normal" dog but when "stacked" for the show ring - the back legs are set back in such a way that the back slopes down toward the ground making the dog look longer. Some breeders have bred them lately so that they look like that all the time. Because of the angulation, there are problems with hips and spines.

Not everyone who breeds is all about the look. YES, the look is important. But so is the "workability" of the dog. It is one reason that one should do the research before they buy a puppy. Finding an ethical breeder is certainly not as easy as one would think and just because a dog has a championship and registration papers does not mean that the breeder was ethical.

[LilacDragon]

Originally Posted by BabyRider

And I thought that LilacDragon's post deserved it's own reply from me, which is:



If I were allowed more than 4 smileys, you'd have got more. That's good stuff, there, Lilac.

Well, Thank You!

[valerie]

Man, wish I'd seen this yesterday!! Dang work! BR, I didn't quote you
only because then I couldn't put in any emoticons myself!!

I was going to say put "German Shepherd Dog" in instead of Rottie in LD's
post but she covered that, too.

So here's another four applause's for you, Lilac!!

[LilacDragon]

Thank you, Valerie. I really don't know near as much about shepherds as I do rotties, but I do know that I don't like the way they look now and I can't imagine that by breeding them to look longer and lower, more problems haven't been created.