Search

Most breeds have seen an increase in the amount of health testing done in the last decade. Many factors are involved in this increase. Scientific research has advanced, availability of testing has increased, breeders have become more educated, and puppy buyers have become more sophisticated. This is a good trend, right? For the most part, the answer is yes. The information gained from health testing can enable breeders to make wiser breeding decisions, and (hopefully) as a result breed healthier dogs.

Unfortunately, health testing can also be misused. There is a disturbing trend among some breeders to use health testing as a weapon in their crusade to become the "breeding police." They decide what health testing is appropriate (and what results are "acceptable" for breeding.) Anyone that does not share their views is then castigated. The breeding police refuse to make allowances for differing priorities in individual breeding programs. This attitude does not foster a spirit of sharing and cooperation, which is important in the quest to reduce the overall incidence of genetic diseases in our breeds. For example, a breeder may occasionally choose to use dogs whose thyroid results are equivocal, or even dogs that "fail." After being vilified multiple times by the breeder police, they may choose to continue the same practice and just not authorize OFA to disclose any results except normal (or quit using OFA at all.)

Is the breed in question better off? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "no." The ideal situation would be for every breeder to test every dog (including "pets") and to disclose all results. People could use this information intelligently to make better breeding decisions, and breeders would have a much better idea about the true status of the disease in the breed. I don't believe this will happen in most breeds as long as we have people that stand ready to use any less than favorable results to bludgeon breeders and trash individual dogs and breeding programs.

So what is the solution to this particular problem? As breeders we need to stand up against the people who appoint themselves as the breeder police. We must understand that one of the keys to lowering the incidence of genetic diseases is information, and the responsible use of that information! As long as people are afraid of the breeder police, they will be reluctant to share data, and in many cases justifiably so. Peer pressure can be an effective tool, but we need to make sure that our actions are encouraging people to test and share results, not scaring them into silence. We must remove the stigma that accompanies producing a dog with a problem!

A disturbing corollary to the breeder police attitude is the breeder who will castigate other breeders for using dogs that don't "pass" a particular health test, yet continue to breed dogs themselves that have not even been tested for that same condition! I am of the opinion that it is better to breed with knowledge of the health issues in one's dogs, than it is to blindly breed untested dogs. For instance if a breed were riddled with hip dysplasia, it might be a wise course of action to continue to breed affected dogs while striving for overall improvement (removing all affected dogs from the gene pool in one fell swoop could have devastating consequences.) A breeder might decide to breed a mildly affected dog, if their breeding partner was rated good or better. Some people seem to prefer the "head in the sand" method, by which it is perfectly acceptable to breed affected dogs, as long as one doesn't know they are affected.

Another misuse of health testing that has become more common recently is the use of results as a marketing tool. There are some commercial breeders on the internet that have become cognizant of the fact that consumers are becoming more educated. Puppy buyers are asking about health clearances on parents. This is another good thing, but we need to go further in our education efforts. For example, CERF will issue a number on a dog of any age. In many breeds, eye diseases are not juvenile-onset in nature. A breeder might CERF their bitch as a puppy and breed her young (say at a year), do the same with a male and then be able to advertise puppies from "PRA clear" parents. It is good marketing, but what is the true value? In many breeds, there is no value. If the average onset of a breed's most common eye problem(s) is 3-6 years, the puppy CERF does nothing but give buyers a false sense of security. In this case, one must carefully weigh the health testing advertised along with the totality of the breeding program. Is the testing (and breeding) done at a meaningful age, considering the age of onset of the most common problems? Is follow-up testing done?

The final point I would like to discuss is the misuse of direct DNA testing results. One of the greatest boons for a breed is when a direct DNA test is developed for a disorder. Even this information can be misused! The value of a direct DNA test is that it allows the greatest possible inclusion of dogs in the gene pool, but unfortunately it is often used to exclude dogs from the gene pool. The direct DNA test allows one to determine the dog's genotype (not just phenotype) as clear, carrier or affected. One can then use the results and never produce another affected dog (in the absence of a mutation or testing mistake.) It is not necessary to exclude any category of dogs. One can still breed carriers and even affecteds as long as the breeding partner is clear, and affected puppies will not be born. (There might be other reasons why one might not want to breed an affected, for example a bitch that is a clinical bleeder.) A great tragedy can occur if people instead use the test results to exclude all carriers and affected dogs from breeding. This can severely diminish the gene pool, which can have serious, unplanned consequences.

Health testing is a wonderful tool when used properly. Like many of the advances in our modern world, it is also subject to abuse/misuse. As breeders, let's all strive to avail ourselves of the valuable information provided by health testing, without misusing it!

Copyright 01/15/2004, Kiesha Crawmer. Comments and feedback to crawmerk@aol.com welcome!