Crtique-Review of Chapters Five, Six and Seven
Chapter Five, “Later Onset Deafness”, pages 70-82: I.e. non-hereditary ‘other deafness’ caused by five classes of chemicals named.., presbycusis (old-age), noise trauma, anesthesia-associated deafness, conduction deafness.
Noise Trauma , page 81, first paragraph, after describing deafness similar to presbycusis (old-age) deafness, but caused by noise trauma physical abuse of dogs in shelters, by hunters, etc the text attributed dog behavior such as suicide and bites to their resulting deafness rather than understandable self-defense reaction against abuse by the humans. Illogically, deafness of the same sort was seemingly harmless to deaf dogs’ if inflicted by old age, but “dangerous” if inflicted more quickly by humans in rescues and shelters or while hunting, etc. The author did not query if the undesirable behavior of rescued and shelter and hunting dogs might have been an “Artifact” – caused by selective abuse of the increasingly deaf dogs by their people and custodians – likely if the dogs were stigmatized as stubborn or stupid because the dogs were becoming deaf! (Reference: Chapter eight, and Dr J. Serpell of PennU who did a far better job of straining out correlations from cause and effect when publishing research!)
The text in the chapter by systematic omission of comparable warnings that dogs rendered deaf by other mechanism automatically become self-destructive and dangerous , implied that only dogs deafened by noise trauma must be regarded as uncontrollably dangerous if startled and mentally incompetent or suicidal in avoiding or dealing with dangers such as oncoming vehicles and abusive humans. Further, in contrast to the many references to research reports detailing causes of deafness by varied risks, the text did not reference even a single research report supporting the text’s allegations that noise-deafness typically made dogs dangerous to themselves and humans. Apparently arbitrary unsupported allegations by the author about the behavior of noise trauma deafened dogs compared to the behavior of dogs deaf from the other causes severely degraded the credibility of the text comments about deaf dog behavior.
Chapter Six, “Brainstem Auditory Evoked Response (BAER)”, pages 83-107: As an introduction to the critique of the chapter, the reviewers call attention to the studied integrity of the authors indicated by the conditional “... However, behavioral testing is problematic when used for anything more than determining the presence or absence of auditory function. ...”, i.e. presence or absence of deafness: p 83, line 18 etc.
For those of a certain age, and gender preference, the BAER chapter is a roll in the hay with the memories of “Heathkiet” oscilloscopes and television set, winding your own coils and resistors, “smoke-tests” and delight when the electronic monster lit up and did something resembling what was advertised on the package. When the Apple II children’s computers hit the commercial market, and high school science fair kits arrived on the shelves, veterinary hospital-university grad students could see the dawning of a new era where Veterinarians could strike it rich if they could invent a treatment or a new kind of diagnosis equipment and market the corresponding disease skillfully. A hypothetical marketplace of testing US domestic dogs for deafness at roughly $200 per dog (not including profits from putting to sleep (killing) the dogs diagnosed as deaf, and cremating, or otherwise disposing of the corpses), with a gross market eventually exceeding 70 million adult dogs by 2011 potentially offered elysian fields worth perhaps $14 billion dollars, minus of course one-time facility and equipment costs and modest recurring costs for staff techies and advertising. And of course the market would go on for ever and ever as more puppies were born, adopted and died each year. The participation of Breed Clubs and the acceptance or tolerance by the AKC could be anticipated if the marketing were done skillfully, perhaps along the lines of the “ring around the collar” advertising for detergents, and the radon scare which had the participation of the US government.
Page 83 set up the scenario splendidly, with a review of the medical hazards, following the preliminary review in other chapters of the book of the allegedly grave physical and legal risks to each human family that from ignorance, misguided kindness or stupidity harbored a deaf dog, however tiny or gigantic the dog might be and despite its apparent day to day gentleness as a dog-companion member of the family. Then the fallibility of all alternatives to the BAER test program was reviewed with impressive swiftness and a remarkable lack of scientific data supporting the advertised claims of nearly perfect reliability of BAER tests (which were seemingly said on a prominent academic associated Web Site about deaf dogs, to be astonishingly simple and nearly painless, easily done within perhaps 15 minutes with the dog on the table or the cat in the bag, with the modern computer technology, platinum electrodes, etc compared to the no-cost “behavioral” tests.)
The BAER testing was said to conceal or suppress the signals of the "modalities" mentioned in various places by the author. Known suppression of signals of the modalities probably delayed or prevented scientific investigations of them.
Extending onto page 84, the owner of the book might be astonished to learn that the original BAER testing was rife with challenges and error sources, to say almost nothing of the trauma experienced by the practitioners facing unexpected technical difficulties and unforeseen or noise-ridden BAER-data displays. For the researchers of the old days and their entrepreneurial backers a modern reviewer of the history portrayed in Chapter Six can imagine the excitement of at last getting useful appearing BAER displays repeatedly, and processing thousands of test animals through the apparatus. In retrospect, the book’s apparently honest description of the more painful and frightening (for the dogs) experimental programs for the deaf dogs as compared to the quick easy processing of hearing dogs might reveal an almost callous disdain or contempt for the dogs who had the human-stigma of deafness-disability-defects. Even in 2011 marketing (such as the Red Book of Dalmatians) of some breeds and rescue shelters’ dogs advocated more or less why get or keep a dangerous broken deaf dog when a good one can be purchased for the same price or perhaps even less.
By the middle of page 84 the author seemingly averted their attention from the “test-specimen” companion animals, and focused almost closely on the exotic technical details of the notch filters, probes, connections, needle insertion techniques and other bits and pieces of the test apparatus with its immense array of potential malfunctions and shortfall in repeatedly getting the wanted displays – for potentially inherited deafness puppies indeed a matter of life and death (possibly with maximum profit for the test facility on the side of death.) Page 87 revealed that dogs and cats who resisted the procedures risked severe treatment to subdue them and prevent them from interfering with the meeting test quotas. Testing of an aggregate of over 10,000 dogs seems likely to have been exciting and noisy – even deafening - for the staff, and profitable for the organizations. A reviewer of the book who recalled participating in the halcyon days of the race to the lunar landing and development of the great Saturn V rockets suggested that the life in the early BAER research development and test laboratories and the management reviews although on a smaller scale was likely every bit as exciting and challenging for the human participants. Of course injuries, failures, successes and deaths were virtually certain in the early days of such complex potentially dangerous programs.
Pages 87 through 107 described BAER development challenges and misadventures that had their larger scale counterparts in the US lunar landing program. A reviewer can admire the forthright frankness of the section “What to do when it doesn’t work”, page 97 and Figure 6.4 which might have been with the reviewer’s sympathy entitled “where should I insert the wires this time?” With the usual ‘learning-curve’ reduction of uncertainty in the details of the BAER equipment and procedures, as reported on page 93, at least one program by 2007 included over 11,000 dogs. By 2011 on the Internet BAER tests at dog Breed shows were allegedly offered at prices as low as $15 each (excluding we assume any costs to put to sleep and cremate or otherwise dispose of those dogs who flunked their BAER tests.)
For owners of deaf dogs, blind dogs and blind-deaf dogs we urge people commenting on the author’s opinions about the dogs' behavior and what should be done with BAER-deaf dogs to consider the probable legal and financial restrictions on slander and libel.
For some associated with the community of deaf-dog owners, there was astonishment to learn on page 106 that BAER testing had been more valuable in human use than in detecting animal deafness, based on references dated 1975, 1988, 1997 and 1999.
Plainly (in our opinion), the persons who developed modern BAER testing for dogs and cats participated in advancing the scientific medical understanding of deafness in domestic dogs and cats. Its misuse should in no way detract from the respect owed those people by modern owners of deaf companions animals. Inappropriate, unwarranted fears of deaf domestic dogs by the author in our opinion might be a matter for sympathy.
Chapter Seven “Other Tests of Auditory Function”, pages 108-116
Technical alternatives available at least to veterinary hospitals were described and discussed in the chapter. None of them appeared to be readily affordable or useable by ordinary owners of dogs in exploring the hearing abilities of their dogs. For comparison, the text priced without a specific equipment list and training costs, a BAER test set-up [Strain, 2011, page 115] at $25,000 US (presumably in 2011 dollars) The chapter was primarily focused on the inner-ear-cochlea sensory biology and functions, despite repeated admonitions by the author that dogs use many diverse modalities, apparently highly redundant and effective compensation. The text separately noted that many owners used ad-hoc widely accepted behavioral protocols for affordably exploring the hearing abilities of their dogs. The text did not discuss research data showing the comparative efficacy of the most widely used ad hoc behavioral affordable protocols.
[Please go to the TOP of the page, under "Book Reviews" to reach the next Weeblycritique-review of the book's other Chapters or use the Links: Chapters 1 and2 ; Chapters 3 and 4 ; Chapter 8 and Notes ; Major Behavior Flaws ; Consequences ]
Chapter Five, “Later Onset Deafness”, pages 70-82: I.e. non-hereditary ‘other deafness’ caused by five classes of chemicals named.., presbycusis (old-age), noise trauma, anesthesia-associated deafness, conduction deafness.
Noise Trauma , page 81, first paragraph, after describing deafness similar to presbycusis (old-age) deafness, but caused by noise trauma physical abuse of dogs in shelters, by hunters, etc the text attributed dog behavior such as suicide and bites to their resulting deafness rather than understandable self-defense reaction against abuse by the humans. Illogically, deafness of the same sort was seemingly harmless to deaf dogs’ if inflicted by old age, but “dangerous” if inflicted more quickly by humans in rescues and shelters or while hunting, etc. The author did not query if the undesirable behavior of rescued and shelter and hunting dogs might have been an “Artifact” – caused by selective abuse of the increasingly deaf dogs by their people and custodians – likely if the dogs were stigmatized as stubborn or stupid because the dogs were becoming deaf! (Reference: Chapter eight, and Dr J. Serpell of PennU who did a far better job of straining out correlations from cause and effect when publishing research!)
The text in the chapter by systematic omission of comparable warnings that dogs rendered deaf by other mechanism automatically become self-destructive and dangerous , implied that only dogs deafened by noise trauma must be regarded as uncontrollably dangerous if startled and mentally incompetent or suicidal in avoiding or dealing with dangers such as oncoming vehicles and abusive humans. Further, in contrast to the many references to research reports detailing causes of deafness by varied risks, the text did not reference even a single research report supporting the text’s allegations that noise-deafness typically made dogs dangerous to themselves and humans. Apparently arbitrary unsupported allegations by the author about the behavior of noise trauma deafened dogs compared to the behavior of dogs deaf from the other causes severely degraded the credibility of the text comments about deaf dog behavior.
Chapter Six, “Brainstem Auditory Evoked Response (BAER)”, pages 83-107: As an introduction to the critique of the chapter, the reviewers call attention to the studied integrity of the authors indicated by the conditional “... However, behavioral testing is problematic when used for anything more than determining the presence or absence of auditory function. ...”, i.e. presence or absence of deafness: p 83, line 18 etc.
For those of a certain age, and gender preference, the BAER chapter is a roll in the hay with the memories of “Heathkiet” oscilloscopes and television set, winding your own coils and resistors, “smoke-tests” and delight when the electronic monster lit up and did something resembling what was advertised on the package. When the Apple II children’s computers hit the commercial market, and high school science fair kits arrived on the shelves, veterinary hospital-university grad students could see the dawning of a new era where Veterinarians could strike it rich if they could invent a treatment or a new kind of diagnosis equipment and market the corresponding disease skillfully. A hypothetical marketplace of testing US domestic dogs for deafness at roughly $200 per dog (not including profits from putting to sleep (killing) the dogs diagnosed as deaf, and cremating, or otherwise disposing of the corpses), with a gross market eventually exceeding 70 million adult dogs by 2011 potentially offered elysian fields worth perhaps $14 billion dollars, minus of course one-time facility and equipment costs and modest recurring costs for staff techies and advertising. And of course the market would go on for ever and ever as more puppies were born, adopted and died each year. The participation of Breed Clubs and the acceptance or tolerance by the AKC could be anticipated if the marketing were done skillfully, perhaps along the lines of the “ring around the collar” advertising for detergents, and the radon scare which had the participation of the US government.
Page 83 set up the scenario splendidly, with a review of the medical hazards, following the preliminary review in other chapters of the book of the allegedly grave physical and legal risks to each human family that from ignorance, misguided kindness or stupidity harbored a deaf dog, however tiny or gigantic the dog might be and despite its apparent day to day gentleness as a dog-companion member of the family. Then the fallibility of all alternatives to the BAER test program was reviewed with impressive swiftness and a remarkable lack of scientific data supporting the advertised claims of nearly perfect reliability of BAER tests (which were seemingly said on a prominent academic associated Web Site about deaf dogs, to be astonishingly simple and nearly painless, easily done within perhaps 15 minutes with the dog on the table or the cat in the bag, with the modern computer technology, platinum electrodes, etc compared to the no-cost “behavioral” tests.)
The BAER testing was said to conceal or suppress the signals of the "modalities" mentioned in various places by the author. Known suppression of signals of the modalities probably delayed or prevented scientific investigations of them.
Extending onto page 84, the owner of the book might be astonished to learn that the original BAER testing was rife with challenges and error sources, to say almost nothing of the trauma experienced by the practitioners facing unexpected technical difficulties and unforeseen or noise-ridden BAER-data displays. For the researchers of the old days and their entrepreneurial backers a modern reviewer of the history portrayed in Chapter Six can imagine the excitement of at last getting useful appearing BAER displays repeatedly, and processing thousands of test animals through the apparatus. In retrospect, the book’s apparently honest description of the more painful and frightening (for the dogs) experimental programs for the deaf dogs as compared to the quick easy processing of hearing dogs might reveal an almost callous disdain or contempt for the dogs who had the human-stigma of deafness-disability-defects. Even in 2011 marketing (such as the Red Book of Dalmatians) of some breeds and rescue shelters’ dogs advocated more or less why get or keep a dangerous broken deaf dog when a good one can be purchased for the same price or perhaps even less.
By the middle of page 84 the author seemingly averted their attention from the “test-specimen” companion animals, and focused almost closely on the exotic technical details of the notch filters, probes, connections, needle insertion techniques and other bits and pieces of the test apparatus with its immense array of potential malfunctions and shortfall in repeatedly getting the wanted displays – for potentially inherited deafness puppies indeed a matter of life and death (possibly with maximum profit for the test facility on the side of death.) Page 87 revealed that dogs and cats who resisted the procedures risked severe treatment to subdue them and prevent them from interfering with the meeting test quotas. Testing of an aggregate of over 10,000 dogs seems likely to have been exciting and noisy – even deafening - for the staff, and profitable for the organizations. A reviewer of the book who recalled participating in the halcyon days of the race to the lunar landing and development of the great Saturn V rockets suggested that the life in the early BAER research development and test laboratories and the management reviews although on a smaller scale was likely every bit as exciting and challenging for the human participants. Of course injuries, failures, successes and deaths were virtually certain in the early days of such complex potentially dangerous programs.
Pages 87 through 107 described BAER development challenges and misadventures that had their larger scale counterparts in the US lunar landing program. A reviewer can admire the forthright frankness of the section “What to do when it doesn’t work”, page 97 and Figure 6.4 which might have been with the reviewer’s sympathy entitled “where should I insert the wires this time?” With the usual ‘learning-curve’ reduction of uncertainty in the details of the BAER equipment and procedures, as reported on page 93, at least one program by 2007 included over 11,000 dogs. By 2011 on the Internet BAER tests at dog Breed shows were allegedly offered at prices as low as $15 each (excluding we assume any costs to put to sleep and cremate or otherwise dispose of those dogs who flunked their BAER tests.)
For owners of deaf dogs, blind dogs and blind-deaf dogs we urge people commenting on the author’s opinions about the dogs' behavior and what should be done with BAER-deaf dogs to consider the probable legal and financial restrictions on slander and libel.
For some associated with the community of deaf-dog owners, there was astonishment to learn on page 106 that BAER testing had been more valuable in human use than in detecting animal deafness, based on references dated 1975, 1988, 1997 and 1999.
Plainly (in our opinion), the persons who developed modern BAER testing for dogs and cats participated in advancing the scientific medical understanding of deafness in domestic dogs and cats. Its misuse should in no way detract from the respect owed those people by modern owners of deaf companions animals. Inappropriate, unwarranted fears of deaf domestic dogs by the author in our opinion might be a matter for sympathy.
Chapter Seven “Other Tests of Auditory Function”, pages 108-116
Technical alternatives available at least to veterinary hospitals were described and discussed in the chapter. None of them appeared to be readily affordable or useable by ordinary owners of dogs in exploring the hearing abilities of their dogs. For comparison, the text priced without a specific equipment list and training costs, a BAER test set-up [Strain, 2011, page 115] at $25,000 US (presumably in 2011 dollars) The chapter was primarily focused on the inner-ear-cochlea sensory biology and functions, despite repeated admonitions by the author that dogs use many diverse modalities, apparently highly redundant and effective compensation. The text separately noted that many owners used ad-hoc widely accepted behavioral protocols for affordably exploring the hearing abilities of their dogs. The text did not discuss research data showing the comparative efficacy of the most widely used ad hoc behavioral affordable protocols.
[Please go to the TOP of the page, under "Book Reviews" to reach the next Weeblycritique-review of the book's other Chapters or use the Links: Chapters 1 and2 ; Chapters 3 and 4 ; Chapter 8 and Notes ; Major Behavior Flaws ; Consequences ]