Can The Bulldog Be Redesigned?

Humans created the dog more than 10,000 years ago, that bridge was crossed a long time ago and there is no going back now. But since we've created these wonderful animals in all their unique shapes and sizes, we are so too responsible for their health. The Bulldog does need to be redesigned so that it may, without human assistance, persist happily. Our vainglorious efforts of anthropomorphizing these animals is a testament to our own preference of beauty over health. Let us not continue to make that mistake.

So as I understand this article, all dogs are the same, they just have been 'mutant-ized' for our visual pleasure and the poor dysfunction bull dog made it to public market being liked and yes with many dysfunctions.

Now the mad mad genetic scientist wants to tinker more and really go out there in mutant-isum to try and help the poor bull dog. Well this is not helpful for any existing bull dog that already out there in the world and with their owner’s continuing breeding them.

It’s already too late; the poor mutant bull dog is off its leash and running loose.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Okay this is disgusting. The humane society has a really ironic name considering all of the dogs and cats they put down every day. And I would expect nothing less from the U.S government wanting to genetically tamper with life. I own dogs, pitbulls, and no dog lover would EVER subject their dog to genetic manipulation unless they were truly ignorant / or didn’t care about their dog or it’s offspring.

We did not create the dog 10,000 years ago. Wolves were domesticated, and then over time, domesticated wolves bred with each other and the breed became more and more domesticated. Then dogs with specific traits were bred with each other to enhance those traits. That’s where we get different breeds. This is an art form, born through, love and necessity

Now enter greedy breeders and stupid humans. There is a reason when you buy a good dog, a pure bred, it can run anywhere from $1000 - $5000. That’s because the (good) breeders are responsible and are breeding the dog according to the traits that are true to the breed. They avoid inbreeding. Greedy breeders only care about $$ so when you buy a dog like for $200-$500 it quantity not quality you are buying. Some people like more wrinkles, taller, fatter, less slober. All that is what makes the breed weak and sick. It’s irresponsible. But I promise you, there are pure bred bulldogs that are healthier than any genetic mutant dog could ever be.

In my area there was a Rottweiler craze a while back. Everybody wanted a Rottie, but then everyone wanted the biggest baddest rottie. So fake breeders started breeding for height and girth, instead of staying true to the design of the breed. The result : big Rottweiler’s, but rotweilers aren’t supposed to get that big, so they couldn’t jump, they suffered broken hips and blindness.

If you buy a dog, please buy from a certified respected breeder that breeds according to the standards of the breed (Kennel Club of America).

Genetic tampering may serve many good purposes in the lab. But don’t try to pawn it off as if you are helping the dog.

This article misleading and the writer is truly ignorant and shouldn’t be writing about dogs.

@ Robot:

I'd like to point out that mad scientists did not create the bull dog; breeders did. And they did not do this by manipulating them gene by gene in laboratories with mysterious bubbling fluids in flasks and beakers. They did it by selective breeding and imbreeding. That's what caused this situation - thousands of years of misuse of genetics (which makes sense, since until just recently, we had no idea genes existed).

Now it's because of science that we understand the implications of what we've done and have the capability to make life better for these wonderful animals. Thankfully, this is a gift science has given us; the knowledge to make meaningful, moral improvements to living, breathing animals for the purpose of improving life for them.

It's correcting a wrong first created by ignorant humans. Thank god for knowledge, eh?

@ Aldrons Last Hope

With regards to domesticating dogs, that basically by definition is genetic mutation (or, if it's not by definition, it at least depends on this). When you domesticate an animal, you're selectively breeding - intentionally or not - traits particularly favourable to domestication (more willing to approach a human, docile, playful, reduced aggression, etc.).

And the fact is, every time you allow a dog, or any animal, to breed, you're participating in genetic modification. It doesn't matter if you're aware of this or not.

What does matter is if you're breeding, as lawsonrw said, for beauty at the expense of health. And to this end, regarding your comments on greedy breeders (not all breeders are greedy), I wholeheartedly agree.

They're monsters without concern for suffering in animals. Despicable, particularly today now that we know better.

Canadian_Skeptic,
I did not say mad scientist creates the bull dog.
I did say "..Now the mad mad genetic scientist wants to tinker more..".

Breeders created the problem and I believe mad geneticist scientists will just amply the problem, under the guise of medical science.

The dog was fine before the breeder and scientist got interested.

What is left of this article of all the dogs that are TRASHED because the breeder goofed and all the dogs that will be TRASHED again by the geneticist scientist tinkering. They seem to leave that little detail out.
But it an absolute harsh reality and wrong!

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

what is wrong with removeing genetic deficenies ? like bad hearts? Nothing i say and anyone who says otherwise is a god nut.

I wish someone had tinkered with my parents genes to fix my crappy eyes, low metabolism,and flat feet.

Responsible breeding is no different than responsible gene engineering except gene engineering is faster and potentially weirder.

I say make corrective genegineering legal RIGHT now( well after extensive research of course)

, so the next generation doesnt have to suffer from things like cystic fibrosis alzheimers and so on there are so many horrible ailments.

Dear quseio2,
I pray and wish and hope all that is good come your way and all is good to you.

I also worry if some person played with your genetics while you were in the belly of your mom, you be worse off or dead.

But, still I wish to say again, I PRAY HARD YOU HAVE A BETTER LIFE! I AM ON YOUR SIDE! I ONLY WISH GOOD THINGS FOR YOU!

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

I pretty much agree with Aldron -- it's extreme breeding that raises heck with some fine breeds.

A lot of this is done when breeds get popular, and everybody wants certain characteristics. Some breeders cater to these trends, and develop some animals that have a hard time because of these extreme characteristics.

Unfortunately, it also sometimes happens within the show world. German Shepards have an unusual stance, and people bred for extra loose hip joints to emphasize this point. It led to animals troubled with hip dysplasia. There are similar stories about other breeds.

This usually gets recognized in the show world and people work to bring moderation in these areas. Generally it gets corrected.

It does get 'corrected' among the popular breeds as well, but probably a little more brutally. People discover that they have animals with issues, and get them put down. Eventually the breed wanes in popularity.

I don't know specifically about the Bulldog, but the issue is probably one of extreme breeding in this case as well. More than likely, Bulldogs bred more moderately will still fit the standard, and be much healthier.

@ Robot

The dog didn't exist before the breeder.

Infant death rates in Canada/United States today are around 5-7 in every 1,000 births. Compare to somewhere like Afghanistan where, even today, it's more like 150 deaths in every 1,000 births (15% infant mortality rate). And it wasn't that long ago that our infant death rates were as high or much higher (to the extent you might have to have 3 or more kids just for one to survive).

That's thanks to the guise of medical science. Fact is, you're likely only alive because of advances in modern medicine (as am I). And while gene therapy isn't extensive yet, they do tinker with biology via drugs and shots given both to the soon-to-be mom and the baby in vitro.

It won't be long before our genes are modified right at birth to:
1) live longer
2) be more resistant to disease
3) be more resistant to cancer
4) just generally lead healthier, happier lives

These things will happen, we even have much of the capability now (though, yes, a long, extended period of testing must be done first to ensure we're not hurting more than we're helping).

The same is true for these dogs. They've already had their genes manipulated, and we do have the ability to now rectify the mistakes of the past - mistakes bourne of ignorance, now treated with knowledge.

I would highly encourage you to look into the disciplines of scientists -- biologists specifically, if you're interested -- and see for yourself the level of scrutiny and precaution they put into all levels of trial and implementation.

Robot, I'm thankful as ever that modern science has been able to grant you the gift of life; a life which, without science, god may not have granted you. I wish you health and happiness.

Dear Canadian_Skeptic,
Perhaps at times I communicate my words poorly and you miss understand me or vice versa. Then I also read your words and believe we both agree completely on things.

I guess the haunting that comes to my mind, which I did not say is before is the horrible puppy mills that exist to make cute little dog of whatever breed and the rest or just disposed of; this even happens to the race dogs and other work dogs too. It just breaks my heart when any dog it disposed of.

I am very much for medical science for the benefit of us humans of course and yes animals. I just do not want to see any dog being abuse or treated like trash.

I have 3 dogs and to me they are like children and I do all I can to take care of them. They are family.

I am watching the Macy’s Parade now. I love this holiday Thanks Giving. I wish you and yours well!

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Robot,

On those comments, you're right, I can wholeheartedly agree. Abusing animals is horrendous, and callous people do it far too often. Puppy mills as such are terrible, terrible things.

It's my impression that the specific scientists interested in helping these dogs are like you and I; genuinely interested in the wellbeing of these precious animals. I have faith their efforts are not to make the problem worse, but to restore these bulldogs to a much more natural state (though I can absolutely agree that other scientists might have more nefarious intentions, I don't think that's the case here).

And while I typically dislike the word natural, in this sense I think it's appropriate, because natural selection would never have bred an animal so prone to such issues.

Thank you for your words, and happy Thanksgiving to you also -- though, as a Canadian, I celebrated my Thanksgiving a while ago :)

Robot is just acting as a troll, want proof?

"Dear quseio2,
I pray and wish and hope all that is good come your way and all is good to you.
I also worry if some person played with your genetics while you were in the belly of your mom, you be worse off or dead.
But, still I wish to say again, I PRAY HARD YOU HAVE A BETTER LIFE! I AM ON YOUR SIDE! I ONLY WISH GOOD THINGS FOR YOU!"

Nothing about the article was even mentioned... So now i'm also a troll for pointing this out and going of topic, then everyone who responds to this is a troll unless they mention the article. At the end of it all he used his desire to annoy and troll and subjected us to it. If you want to really win, IGNORE HIM!

Anyways this sounds like a "who's at fault the Gun maker or the Gunner?" type of question, In the end it's up to us stupid humans to fix our past mistakes and up to those same stupid humans to make more mistakes to be fixed.

Anyways I am an American citizen and I hate the obsession with Dogs I have two perfectly healthy mutts and they do fine they're unique and cute in their own way as well so it all works out, the girl has given birth to 26 puppies in two labors, on her own in my backyard. They are both approaching the age of 8 with no HEALTH issues to this date! So why not focus our attention on the millions of starving then dying children around the world, that need genetic treatment as well, heck in fact they would be even happier with just having a dollar's worth of food for a month! Screw the genetic stuff.

So before you go complaining about genetic manipulation focus on the bigger picture. In fact this is a waste of time for the "HUMAN RACE" maybe after we fix our own we can worry about another race!

All that aside I do agree with genetic research and implementation, I do not believe in the Christian god or any man-made god, What I do believe is in doing good for the sake of good and and collaborating for the sake of living and prospering together. Forget all prejudices we are all equally powerless against the grips of time! Let's fight to end that and take back control of our bodies! Let it be that we die, when we choose to, not when Gods or Luck decides to. Bring back the power to believe in ourselves and not depend on flawed views. Let's try to make our own views!

Lricardo101,
I.E, proof represented of the terrible trollisum. This is how you begin your commentary and to what end? You act as, if my words have done terrible cosmic harm.
You did have the obvious choice of just making your own comments of the article and let them stand for own their own. Why didn't you? What if few others do not feel my comments were of trollisum, then we are left with you being the troll as you started your own comments. But I do not feel you are bothered.

First at times I do write poorly, sorry, stuff happens. Second with the comments on here is a learning process and people can change opinions you know.
Any who...

I feel bad for the overly breed bull dog, that must know live with dysfunctions, just for the benefit of the owners amusement of its other traits.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Lricardo101,

You seem to be all over the place.

We don't work on global issues in silos. We have scientists and politicians working on the issues of poverty and global hunger (increasing grain yields from a given volume of crop, social studies, and so on), but that doesn't mean we should stop all research on other issues like this.

At the end of the day, these scientists are human beings. They're interested in the wellfare and health of these animals, and they wish to use their experience and knowledge benefiting them. You can't simply tell all scientists everywhere to stop what they're doing and work on one issue, arbitrarily deemed to be the the "most" important.

Further, you'll note that almost all human trials are done on animals first, then humans. Now I won't argue this is moral, but it is a fact. And certainly by successfully improving the wellbeing of these dogs is a good step towards doing the same for human beings born with mental disorders like down syndrom, physical deformities, or other problems.

As for the bigger picture, you may want to reconsider your definition. The bigger picture is indeed what's best for the human race (actually, I'd argue what's best for all living creatures, not just human), but the bigger picture is not simply "how do we feed people." Feeding people is a single issue -- a highly important one, maybe the most important one -- but it is not alone the big picture. The big picture considers everything, including our destiny a la our genes.

Your anecdotal story about having two health dogs does nothing to serve the conversation. Your experience is not representative of all human (or animal) experience.

Robot and I, while disagreeing on finer points (are the scientists benevolent, or are they greedy?), at least had a pretty civil conversation and came to an understanding.

It's you who ran in, gun blazing, crying "troll." Your request that we all just forget all prejudices is a rather ironic statement, in this light.

For the record, I'm an atheist too. But that never seriously bore into this conversation until you side-tracked it.

Even if we did undertake to fix our own inadvertant mismanagement of breeding, I don't think it would do any good. As others have said, people are out there that are interested in the quick buck. As long as people are there to demand the breed as they currently are, those after the buck are going to supply them. It would probably take decades to get those with their current health issues "out of circulation", and I don't mean by putting them down.

It disgusted me that there are those out there with the lack of morality towards breeding and treatment. I love my dogs as family (2 boston terriers) and I couldn't imagine treating them wrongly. I don't even like to put them in kennels or cages.

If there were a way to help out a breed to fix its genetic disposition of unhealthy traits without the "experimental" lives then I'd say go for it. I'm not sure we're at that point yet though.

There may be a day when people can pick what traits they would like their children or pets to have. It will be like a tattoo parlor. Just go in and flip through all of the selections. And insert into vulva.

But that is not here yet. We are in an intermediate stage right now, just like kids splashing in a mud puddle. So there will be a lot of trial and error and mistakes made. And those mistakes will manifest in the form of deformed, mutant, species. That will have to be aborted and but down. A true house of horrors.

I find it ironic that the people who are into eugenics (that’s what this is). Are not the picture of the perfect human. They are all, old, weak, unattractive, short, big noses, ….they want to fix their off spring with an injection. That’s why they obsess over the “super human” because they covet those traits which they do not have.

Another thing, if this becomes a reality and we can simply choose what our children will look and act like. That throws the whole “survival of the fittest” paradigm out of wack. Because why should I worry about preserving my genes when they will be re-written anyways…and once perfection is reached everyone will be the same…BORING.

Also what will make my child have a connection with me if choose Jordan’s physical attributes, with the brain of Steve Jobs. What connection will they have with me or their mother? This is an attack on family values.

The more I think about this, the more this whole thing is twisted and sick in a Dr.Moreau kind of way.

Also someone said something about this giving longer life. That’s not true….I know people in the 3rd word that are living well into their 90’s w/o so called “modern medicine”.

There are already people working to fix the breed the same way it was ruined in the first place. Through breeding, not in a petri dish. Just plug Olde English Bulldogge into any search engine.

Humanity needs projects like this. We need the experience in gene-modification that this will give.

As Canadian Sceptic said earlier, most of us are alive only thanks to modern medicine. That basically means we have cut out evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection. THINK about what that means in the long run.

Unless we experiment and delve into gene-modification and gene-therapy there will come a time when all the diseases and problems that are currently only solved through surgery or medication will have become very wide-spread simply because we have kept the carriers alive through ARTIFICIAL MEANS. It's either we kill/sterilize every genetic carrier of those problems or we resort to gene-modification.

We have removed the 'natural' part of 'natural selection' through our medicine. We are treating problems that would have just died off a century ago and without removing the faulty genes we will need to treat every subsequent generation too.

To sum it up, we run the real risk of becoming that sick Bulldog in future generations. This can be solved through 'breeding' or gene-modification. Letting it be is not an option.

I wrote a long-form (3,000 word) response to the NYTM's "Can the Bulldog be Saved?" Essentially, I criticize the lack of evidentiary foundation for the welfare claims made in the NYTM's article. If you are interested in this topic, I'd be honored if you read my essay: http://www.varsityreportblog.com/2011/12/09/does-the-bulldog-need-saving/

Cheers,

Dan