[SirTeddykins]

Hi all,

To begin, although I have been aware of various threads re: food, I have refrained from making comment as I am adverse to any debate which degenerates into personal argument.

However, a lot of people have asked my opinion re: this topic and I am very flattered because I understand that my opinion has been sought as a result of my profession. Thank you very much for considering me.

Consequently, I have reviewed various threads on the topic and as a ‘scientist’ who is foremost a person, I am very saddened by the discord which has arisen due to a difference of opinion.

To clarify my background, I have a bachelor’s degree in psychology, a master degree in research and I’m currently attaining a master degree in neuroscience in order to pursue a doctorate in clinical psychology and then a doctorate in neuropsychology.

Some may argue that psychology is not a ‘hard’ or ‘objective’ science and so dismiss all of the theory and results which come from the discipline. In some ways, that’s true because psychology does not reduce emotion, feelings and behavior to ‘objective’ measures. However, in my opinion, that is the beauty of the discipline. Even so, neuroscience is almost completely ‘objective’ and so I feel I have the benefit of a dual perspective.

Therefore, what I’d like to say is, it is my opinion that anyone who attempts to minimize someone else’s feelings, emotions and experiences to ‘science’ is in the wrong. Science should always be used as a guide for past, present and future predictions which include the tangible and subjective. Additionally, the NUMBER ONE rule in science is that any theory should be falsifiable. This means, we think we know that the sun will rise every morning (as it has for the last bazillion years) but what if one day it doesn’t? We think we know that if we slap our neighbor for parking on our driveway, she'll slap us back. But, what if she doesn't? So, science makes theories about the majority of instances but can never predict and confirm individual exceptions to predicted outcomes which means what:

Over all, most science says Royal Canin is a good food but Teddy hated it. So, should I force the food down his neck in the name of science? No, I chose Acana because he eats it and he loves it and it keeps his poop nice. There is no science beyond observation which has made my decision for me. I’m sure Teddy FEELS nice that his poop isn’t hard, and the food tastes good and he isn’t being force-fed for a reason I couldn’t explain to him. Therefore, I FEEL good because my subjective decision was backed up by the vet’s objective opinion which led him to tell me that Teddy being happy and pooping effortlessly are signs of good health.

Another example of science is one which suggests that Teddy’s anxiety is curable via meds. Yet, the vet refuses to give him meds because it will change his PERSONALITY which is individual to him and not measurable by anything other than observation. The vet is a scientist. I agree with him, as a scientist, who studies the effects of medicine on behavior, emotions and feelings.

So, both of the above are examples of how science supports something, in the main, but does not take Teddy’s individuality into account and so has been rejected.

Finally, an individual comes to me for assistance re: Alzheimer’s dementia (AD). They ask me what meds they should be on to alleviate symptoms of AD in their parent. I tell them that Rivastigmine is an anticholinesterase medication which means that it blocks the action of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) which is an enzyme which breaks down acetylcholine. Reduced levels of acetylcholine have been implicated in the symptoms of AD. So, whilst the disease cannot be stopped, symptoms can be reduced for a time. The individual says, “Even so, this medicine causes extreme gastrointestinal upset which I find disturbing and the person in my care is embarrassed by this, too.”

Now, the positive effects of this medication on enzymatic activity have been objectively measured using various brain scanning techniques and neural network models. So, am I a good scientist only if I dismiss this individuals concern regarding embarrassment and physical discomfort which are two things which cannot be measured? I am proud to say that I do not think that to be the case. In this instance, I would ask the individual to weigh up the known pros and cons of the medication and offer suitable alternatives which are in line with their INDIVIDUAL needs and perception on what they consider to be a desirable treatment outcome.

So, my point is, there are limitations to science especially as it pertains to living creatures. Measurable science is not better or right as compared to someone else’s experiences, observations and feelings. The point of view that ‘objective’ science trumps subjectivity is flawed when it is applied to living creatures. As far as cell biology, botany or physics, one can take the stance of a ‘right or wrong’ to a point but even Einstein’s physic THEORIES are still challenged today.

In truth, there is interplay between subjectivity (feelings and emotions and experiences) and objectivity (measurable outcomes, math, etc) in all facets of living experience and to try to reduce our experiences to one or the other to land on the side that is ‘right’ is fallacy. Anyone seeking to be ‘right’ in this way is already wrong.

So, I hope that clears things up as far as what my ‘stance’ is on this subject. Maybe some of you will be surprised and maybe some of you won't be and maybe most of you didn't care to begin with.. But, whatever the case, I hope that we can all learn to agree differently or at least agree to disagree harmoniously on this and other subjects which pertain to our furry friends.

Sincerely,

Your resident poop scientist x