One of the things that I am developing a reputation for is my skepticism about the growing trend to label a training method or a principle as being “scientifically proven”. More people are trying to justify their approach to training by explaining the physiology behind the way a horse behaves. They spout theories about the horse brain, nervous system, hormone system, etc to explain why their approach to training is the best.
I am a huge advocate of scientific methods. I was a medical researcher for many years looking at hormones in the fetus, placenta, and mother that determine the right time for a baby to be born. It was detailed and technically difficult work and required a rigorous adherence to the scientific method.
However, I don’t find that same degree of rigorous understanding and adherence to scientific methodology in the equine behavioural studies that I read. Behavioural studies, especially in large animals, are notoriously difficult to carry out. Sample sizes are usually too small to be statistically significant. Meticulous control groups are often missing. Assumptions are often made from studies on non-equine species. Studying behaviour in horses is often just doing the best you can given the restrictions of what is possible.
However, just because it is hard, or maybe even impossible, to design and perform rigorous scientific studies with horses does not mean we should accept less than the highest standard of study.
When there are questions still unanswered or doubts about how a study was performed it is a blatant falsehood to refer to the results as ‘fact” or “evidence”. It means more studies, better studies, need to be performed. It doesn’t mean the theory is wrong. It just means the theory is still a theory and not yet a fact. So it is misleading at best and fraud at worst when a trainer makes bold claims about a theory being a scientific fact when it is not. It’s okay to talk about it as a theory, but they should not try to sell it as a scientific fact.
Let’s look at an example of a study I came across from 2020 that was published by a group of equine behaviourists in a veterinary behaviour journal. I was directed to this study by a trainer on YouTube discussing the regulation of the nervous system in dealing with stress.
The researchers tried to test the theory that licking and chewing in horses was because the horse released dopamine from the brain, which represented a downregulation from a state of stress (via the sympathetic nervous system) to relaxation (via the parasympathetic nervous system).
I have heard similar explanations where beta-endorphin was referred to as the mediating hormone. But let’s just stick to discussing dopamine for simplicity.
I will outline the study and attempt to explain a few of the reasons why I am a skeptic.
OUTLINE
The researchers chose to study a herd of 17 wild horses in their native environment. They observed them from a distance. The object was to record if and when a horse licked and chewed after experiencing a stressor. The stressor chosen by the researcher was when a horse experienced being made to move out of the way of another horse. They monitored these events and recorded how often and for how long the horse that was moved displayed licking and chewing.
SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ON THE STUDY
. Seventeen horses is a very small sample size to achieve statistical significance. I think 100+ horses would be required considering the lack of homogeny of the herd.
. There was no accounting for the uniformity of the group of horses. Horses varied in gender, age, and experience. With a small sample of only 17 subjects, it would be very difficult to show the statistical relevance of this study.
. They did not account for licking and chewing being triggered by some other factor like food or grooming.
. The determination of stress was a subjective decision. There was no attempt to measure stress in an objective way independent of the observer. Different observers will probably assess stress levels differently.
. There was no attempt to categorize the way a horse licked and chewed. Was the licking and chewing a lazy action of the mouth or was it frantic chewing or something in between? The quality of the licking and chewing may be important in determining the degree of downregulation from the stress event.
. There was no measure of the timing of licking and chewing. Was it 5 seconds after a horse was forced to move or was it 5 minutes or 5 hours? This may be important in determining the degree of downregulation from the stress event.
. There was no attempt to record other behaviours that dopamine might influence. This would support the idea that dopamine was a factor in the behaviour.
. The theory that dopamine was involved stems from research on purpose-bred lab animals. Not horses in real-time.
. To help confirm dopamine, the researchers could have administered to each horse an antagonist to block the production of dopamine or to block the binding of dopamine to a cell receptor.
I could go on and on with the problems, but I am sure you are very bored by now. I doubt this paper would ever have been published in a high-quality scientific journal. Yet it is out there being quoted by horse trainers as if it is strong evidence that dopamine is an important hormone in the recovery from stress in horses.
The point is scientific evidence requires more than observing a herd of wild horses and watching which horse moves the feet of another or how many times a horse pins its ears or swishes its tail, etc, as evidence of stress. It takes more than reading about a study on lab rats.
As yet I have not read a single report that comes close to scrutinizing the physiological responses to horse behaviour with the rigour necessary to claim their observations as “evidence” or “fact”.
It’s okay to present a study that is not definitive or is flawed. But it needs to be appreciated that it is deceptive to present results from such studies as hard evidence not to be questioned. Without definitive evidence, a theory remains a theory. Too many horse professionals are guilty of labeling an idea as scientific fact when it is only a theory. Too often when I point this out to my colleagues I am accused of being the “bad guy” and not knowing what I am talking about because the information was published in a journal of behaviour. It’s time all of us ask these people the hard questions when they try to sell an idea they don’t understand.
Science is about questioning everything until there are no more unanswered questions. It is not about designing a study to prove a theory. It’s about designing a study to test a theory.
I want to be absolutely clear, my finger pointing is not directed at the researchers in the study I quoted or at any of the studies I read. They know the research is not finished. They know there is more work to do before theory is made fact. My problem is with the horse people who promote flawed and unfinished research as evidence for their theory. They want it to be true so they can sell it to their audience. It makes them different with something unique to teach us. I get that and there is nothing wrong with finding a hook to market your business. But it is based on a slippery premise. Most have almost zero understanding of science and the scientific method, so they should stop pretending otherwise.
Finally, I want to ask who cares if dopamine regulates licking and chewing? Which horse trainer cares if the sympathetic system is activated or if the polyvagal theory is real? When a horse tries to bolt away does any trainer ask about brain chemistry and the sympathetic nervous system? What difference does it make when working a horse in a round yard? Who is going to base their training on whether serotonin, dopamine, or alpha-MSH are involved? Who cares if there is a deregulation of ACTH receptors when a horse lowers its neck? Is anyone going to measure brain hormones in real-time while riding a horse that is struggling with straightness? I see that these studies can have academic interest, but I fail to see how they affect a single thing about how a person will approach a training problem. Will knowing about the role of the hypothalamus make you a better trainer? We work with the behaviour of a horse, not the physiology. So why are horse trainers pushing these theories when they have no effect on how a person will apply their training methods?
I know this essay will disturb some people. That’s not my goal. I aim to encourage people to look at the research with a critical eye. I don’t want to discourage research. I want people to require a higher quality of research. Surely that can only be a good thing.
