Essential book for all owners!

[HopOnTrot]

‘Harmonious Horsemanship: Use of the Ridden Horse Ethogram to Optimise Potential, Partnership and Performance', by Sue Dyson and Sue Palmer

A surprisingly easy read about spotting a horse in pain, not necessarily lame but a scientifically backed checklist/scoring method to assess the horse.

Has anyone else read it? It was talked about on this podcast too which is what prompted me to buy it: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podca...rdavidmarlin-com/id1653563297?i=1000636479387

 

[Cragrat]

Unfortunatley I can't quite bring myself to trust Sue Dyson's work any more

 

[HopOnTrot]

Why not?

 

[Dave's Mam]

She falsified signing off on a study.

 

[Bonnie Allie]

Unfortunatley I can't quite bring myself to trust Sue Dyson's work any more

Same. I think her work has great value but I can’t look at without feeling like I’m being manipulated to her answer.

 

[LEC]

I have gone back in time and bought 1933 animal management produced by the War Office. It looks good and practical.

 

[rabatsa]

I have gone back in time and bought 1933 animal management produced by the War Office. It looks good and practical.

This is on my book shelf too. It should be useful if I ever get a camel.

 

[GypsGal1718]

I can’t believe sue dyson would do that! I used to love her work.

 

[HopOnTrot]

I had a google last night and she falsified a letter from the home office stating she didn’t need a license for a study. Bloody stupid.

The reports states that the quality of her work was never in doubt, just this fraudulent interaction with the home office.

 

[FFAQ]

Her book is on my shopping list!
She made a terrible mistake that ruined her reputation, but nevertheless I think her work is so important to horse welfare.

 

[ycbm]

She falsified signing off on a study.

She falsified a signature on ethical approval for the study to go ahead. The study itself was carried out correctly.
.

 

[Goldenstar]

i can’t quite trust her either .

 

[planete]

I have read her work, and it makes a lot of sense. A mistake does not negate years of genuine research.

 

[ycbm]

The big problem I have is that going by the ethogram a huge proportion of the horses I see are being ridden in pain.

I'm open to the suggestion that's correct.
.

 

[Cragrat]

Same. I think her work has great value but I can’t look at without feeling like I’m being manipulated to her answer.

Exactly this - if she will go to such lengths to get a study approved, what else is she doing to get the answer she wants?

 

[Rowreach]

She's a highly qualified vet and research scientist and her work is invaluable with regard to the general welfare and use of all equines.

She did something pretty stupid, but it would be a shame if horse owners allowed that to impact on the welfare of the ridden horse, especially since it was borne out of a passion for horses.

Her work with the saddle research trust in particular and studies into horse behaviour when handled and ridden are eye opening.

She was censured, but her work has never been discredited and (thank goodness) she continues with it.

 

[Trouper]

I think sometimes people who are passionate about a subject can sometimes lose focus on the realities around it. It doesn't necessarily make their work invalid but it does affect its credibility in certain quarters - which is a shame as it is the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve - as some of the views expressed above have shown.

 

[ycbm]

Exactly this - if she will go to such lengths to get a study approved, what else is she doing to get the answer she wants?

She didn't "go to any lengths" to get a study approved.

This is what happened.

Somebody retrospectively decided that taking the horses' temperatures required ethical sign off and refused to peer review the research, which had previously been approved and deemed not to need that certificate, and had already been completed. She forged the signature to get it published for the benefit of horses around the world.

Now people are dismissing valuable research because somebody thought something we do ourselves all the time, stick a thermometer in a horse's bum, needed ethical approval.
.

 

[Boughtabay]

A study can’t possibly be carried out “correctly” without appropriate prior ethical approval. It is really serious and not a tick box exercise, the laws govern use of ALL animals in experiments (excluding invertebrates other than cephalopods) no exceptions.

This does not invalidate any of her other existing research which has been fully approved and licensed or been below board level approval thresholds. But to imply the falsification of a signature on an ethical approval form of any sort is no big deal is really wrong.

I’m really hammering this point not to be combative with previous posters, but in case any early career researchers come across this thread and believe that fudging the ethics is a little oopsie or “my project isn’t that extreme so I’ll just….” , it’s really not ok. In certain circumstances issues with one persons ethical conduct could get your whole establishment shut down for all animal research… not just your own department wherever you are, the whole overarching establishment. Obviously this isn’t the case here.

The processes do take time and it can be frustrating for the researcher especially when funds have a time limit. BUT it’s really important - animals can’t consent to take part in research so it must be assessed whether the benefits of any harm they MAY suffer (momentarily or ongoing) are really great enough to justify the work.

Policy on use of animals in research

EPSRC’s policy on the use of animals in research is aligned with that of the other research councils. Wherever possible, researchers must adopt procedures and techniques that avoid the use of animals. Where this is not possible, the research should be designed to conform to recognised best practice.

www.ukri.org

 

[ycbm]

A study can’t possibly be carried out “correctly” without appropriate prior ethical approval.

People are perfectly capable of carrying out ethical research without anyone else telling them it's ethical.

The research was already done. Ethical sign-off had not been deemed necessary when it started. It was one peer reviewer out of two who demanded it. The certificate was required in order to get the peer review and with that, scientific publication. It was only rejected on the grounds that it required taking the horse's temperature!
.

 

[ycbm]

But to imply the falsification of a signature on an ethical approval form of any sort is no big deal is really wrong

It's a huge deal ethically and she paid the right penalty professionally, but it makes diddly squat difference to whether the research was valid or not, or to any research she did before or any she's doing now she is no longer a registered vet.

It will be a great shame for horses if people allow it to convince them that riding a horse they are too heavy for or one that's giving signals that it's in pain is OK .
.

 

[Glitter's fun]

Calling what she did "a mistake" is a bit of a "politicians' answer" isn't it? Surely she did it on purpose?

Very sad, because for many people her research will always be tainted by "I wonder if she would have been prepared to skew the results a bit to support her desired findings?" , especially if someone wants to disregard it.
With an issue this emotive, the research needs to be immaculately done.

 

[Boughtabay]

This does not invalidate any of her other existing research which has been fully approved and licensed or been below board level approval thresholds.

Given her extensive experience in the field I imagine it’s a very informative book!

Deleted the rest as my main point of concern has been stated.

 

[Rowreach]

I suspect (and have witnessed this far too often) a lot of horse owners would rather not be shown any evidence that their horses are experiencing any sort of pain or discomfort, and don't want to be told that they themselves are the cause of much of it, so maybe it's a useful tactic to decide that an expert on the subject should have their entire body of work discredited on the basis of one ill advised action, for which they have already been censured.

 

[Caol Ila]

I suspect (and have witnessed this far too often) a lot of horse owners would rather not be shown any evidence that their horses are experiencing any sort of pain or discomfort, and don't want to be told that they themselves are the cause of much of it, so maybe it's a useful tactic to decide that an expert on the subject should have their entire body of work discredited on the basis of one ill advised action, for which they have already been censured.

I had the same thought.

 

[Fransurrey]

She didn't "go to any lengths" to get a study approved.

This is what happened.

Somebody retrospectively decided that taking the horses' temperatures required ethical sign off and refused to peer review the research, which had previously been approved and deemed not to need that certificate, and had already been completed. She forged the signature to get it published for the benefit of horses around the world.

Now people are dismissing valuable research because somebody thought something we do ourselves all the time, stick a thermometer in a horse's bum, needed ethical approval.
.

I've had a similar issue with a reviewer questioning whether or not a procedure came under A(SP)A regulations, so appreciate the frustration, particularly as we have to include the ethical reference for the study - which could be used by anyone reading the manuscript to check that it went through the institute's AWERB (Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board) and NASPA ((Non)-Animals in Scientific Procedures Act) committees. For my study, I simply emailed a copy of the Home Office representative's letter to the Editor. The interaction with the HO was actually very simply and personal, not jumping through hoops at all - it was much easier than dealing with the university's own committees! I think this was a staggering lapse in judgement for someone who is much more experienced than I am in research. I fear she'll pay the price for life, now.

 

[Orangehorse]

I would add that Sue Palmer is probably one of the best qualified physiotherapists in the whole country and has written other books on the welfare and training of the horse. She used to successfully compete at dressage too.

 

[HopOnTrot]

I come to the book from the point of view of the owner who didn’t want to believe her horse was in pain (to me it was an atypical presentation, spooking in lessons, behind the leg, never grumpy or fussy to tack up), upon vet investigation my horse was in pain and in retrospect had been for years. I wish to avoid this happening again so want to learn the micro signs to look for.

 

[Palindrome]

People are perfectly capable of carrying out ethical research without anyone else telling them it's ethical.

The research was already done. Ethical sign-off had not been deemed necessary when it started. It was one peer reviewer out of two who demanded it. The certificate was required in order to get the peer review and with that, scientific publication. It was only rejected on the grounds that it required taking the horse's temperature!
.

It's not mandatory to publish your research in one particular peer-reviewed journal. One can generally try another journal or publish in open sources.

It's just my opinion but often when I read about studies on horses behaviour in the press they seem of poor quality. Low number of horses are used and lots of the conditions seem to be able to vary (time of day, handler, number of times the horse has done the exercise, fit of equipment, place etc...). Apparently in laboratory mouses the biological sex of the handler can affect the response of the mouse in certain studies (https://www.kentscientific.com/blog...searchers-and-mice-can-skew-research-results/), the biological sex of the mouse can also affect the results. Not saying it is necessarily the same for horses but my experience tells me that horses are fairly sensitive to their handlers.
Also, for a scientific study you usually need a control group, this is not always respected. The results need to be statistically significant, data should have error bars, and this can be difficult to calculate but it should be calculated.

 

[Fransurrey]

It's not mandatory to publish your research in one particular peer-reviewed journal. One can generally try another journal or publish in open sources.

It's just my opinion but often when I read about studies on horses behaviour in the press they seem of poor quality. Low number of horses are used and lots of the conditions seem to be able to vary (time of day, handler, number of times the horse has done the exercise, fit of equipment, place etc...). Apparently in laboratory mouses the biological sex of the handler can affect the response of the mouse in certain studies (https://www.kentscientific.com/blog...searchers-and-mice-can-skew-research-results/), the biological sex of the mouse can also affect the results. Not saying it is necessarily the same for horses but my experience tells me that horses are fairly sensitive to their handlers.
Also, for a scientific study you usually need a control group, this is not always respected. The results need to be statistically significant, data should have error bars, and this can be difficult to calculate but it should be calculated.

The problem with horses is that it's incredibly difficult to get a sizeable group in one place, that is treated exactly the same, and with the agreement of the owners. For my last study I was researching a common ailment (asthma) and needed samples from horses both healthy and asthmatic that were already sedated. No invasive procedures, nothing under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, but even people who knew me on the yard 'forgot' to tell me when they had the dentist or vet for a sedated procedure. Owners are often very keen...until they're not...racehorse trainers were VERY keen, but don't routinely sedate, and I did not have ethical approval to sample non-sedated animals - a twitch is very much frowned upon by AWERBs.

On your other point, every journal I have ever published in has required an ethical statement. If it's not peer reviewed, it's about as meaningful as submitting to The Daily Fail. You're correct about gender affecting some results, but it's very easy to sex mouse pups and separate at the start of a study and have meaningful numbers to generate statistical power. Any study peer reviewed will have a control group.