The Misuse of Health Testing
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 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 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 view 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 disease is information, and the responsible use of that
information! As long as people are afraid of the breeder police, they will be
reluctant 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 the 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 is riddled with hip
dysplasia, it might be a wise course of action to continue to breed affected
dogs while striving for overall improvement, as 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 breeder 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 the 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 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 produced 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 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 and misuse. As
breeders, let's all strive to avail ourselves of the valuable information
provided by health testing without misusing it.
|
|
