Christopher C Charles
10 May 2013
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.
14 May 2013
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
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
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.
You must be logged in to comment.
Please keep comments polite and on topic. Offensive posts may be removed.