Search

Today, like most other days, I scanned my electronic mailbox looking for kernels of knowledge, hope or inspiration. Finding none, I was forced to actually enter a stage of introspection, truly a dangerous state. I found myself growing curiouser and curiouser. The question of the day is "Has anyone been able to come up with a figure showing the incidence of BCM (FVA) or SAS in our breed?" I’m not sure such a number is obtainable, given the relatively small samples on which research has been done as compared to the total Boxer population. The standard deviation would make any such number rather meaningless. The only reason to bring such a matter up is to question if our priorities as regards significant research dollars are truly focused on where they should be focused. Is heart disease the most significant scourge facing our breed, or is it just the most highly visible? Is it set apart because it is so emotionally devastating to lose a dog in the prime of life? I wouldn’t think this would be the case. If you have ever taken a dearly loved one who has lived as part of your family for nine or ten years into the vet to end its life because of the scourge of spondylosis or because of the onset of lymphoma or other carcinomas, there is little more devastating than that.

If we are to focus on heart problems, SAS seems to hold the most promise for effective treatment and hopefully elimination. Modern technology has given us tools to diagnose the condition and science has told us that to produce the disease, probably one or both of the parents must have the disease. Pretty straightforward. In the case of BCM (FVA) no such clear path exists. We make use of a forty-something year old technology whose avowed purpose is to eliminate only the worst of affected animals from our breeding pool. I’d feel a lot more comfortable with this if science has not also said that two affected animals bred together can produce unaffected offspring.

But getting back to the original question of the incidence of heart disease, how do we determine what progress we are making? Certainly not an easy question to answer but the answer is certainly not one of intuition but of scientific fact, and we’re pretty short on facts. Maybe, just maybe, the question is becoming more and more academic. The problem of continuing research doesn’t seem to be a matter of the amount of research dollars. After all, there is a pretty sizeable sum lying idle in the ABCF bank account. No, dollars don’t seem the problem, researchers seem to be the problem. There is a real shortage of scientists interested in conducting research on the problems of Boxers. Perhaps the answer is for ABCF to set up a program to aggressively publicize the availability of research grants to all veterinary colleges throughout the country as well as other research facilities. Expand the research "Wish List" to include as many of our breed-specific problems as possible. Additionally, and I suspect this may already be happening, investigate research being done in other breeds where knowledge can be shared to our mutual benefit, particularly in the areas of cancer research.

Perhaps the time has arrived to step back and reevaluate where we are going and where we should be going. It is time to be less reactive and more innovative. We badly need the input of our brightest and best to be sure that in no way shape or form, the term "Boxer Health" becomes an oxymoron.