Support

Support Options

Report a problem

 
You are here: Home / Forum / General Discussion / HABRI Central Reviews / #277 - Zoobiquity: What Animals Can Teach Us About Health and the Science of Healing

Forum

Zoobiquity: What Animals Can Teach Us About Health and the Science of Healing

  1. Christopher C Charles

    The review copies of Barbara Natterson-Horowitz, MD, and Kathryn Bowers’ Zoobiquity have been sent out to our brave reviewers. As you begin to make your way through the book, let us know what you uncover.

  2. Myrna Milani

    Let the Fun Begin!

    With luck I’ll upload my Zoobiquity review tomorrow, and I encourage other reviewers to post theirs by the end of June at the latest. Also, I received a hardback copy that had a different cover and subtitle than that of the trade paperback shown on the website. Am I correct in thinking that all you lucky reviewers all received hardbacks too?

    The book reviews are meant to serve as an enjoyable way to explore diverse topics of value to our understanding of the bond. As such, I encourage all members of the HABRI audience to comment on any review based on your unique background and experience. For example, Zoobiquity introduced so many different topics that resonated for me, it was impossible to cram them all into one review. Among them,

    1. —how much veterinary medicine lost when it chose to pattern itself after human medicine post- WWII instead of refining the more comprehensive “farm vet” or “horse doctor” image.

    2. —that while a boon to data-collection, the problem-oriented method reinforces inside-the-box thinking which makes thinking outside the box more difficult. While the former may benefit the researcher, the latter hampers the clinician who routinely must deal with many of the variables researchers eliminate when they design their studies.

    3. —how valuable my background in zoology, ethology, and ecology was because it taught that “different” does not automatically equal “pathological”.

    4. —that we must constantly guard against labeling effects as causes and then focusing all energy on eliminating them because doing so aborts the search for the real cause. While a certain bacteria or gene may be associated with a certain condition in many individuals, there always will be those who have the same bacteria or gene who are asymptomatic. They deserve equal attention if we seek to find cures rather than palliative treatments.

    5. — how often health-related texts mention addiction-related brain function, but rarely if ever mention non-addictive brain activity. Granted there’s more financial incentive regarding the former. Even so, it seems like the two should work together, perhaps via some feedback system, and that a balance between the two would be optimum.

    6. — that after decades of reductionist thinking and imposing it on research and clinical practice, it’s time to cultivate a more expansive view that acknowledges that, messy though it may be, it’s impossible to separate physical, behavioral, and intra- or interspecies bond “problems” in the real human or nonhuman animal living in the real world.

    Do any of these trigger any thoughts from your own research, clinical, or personal experience? If so, please share them.

Add Post

User photo

You must be logged in to comment.

Please keep comments polite and on topic. Offensive posts may be removed.