I’ve written a lot of posts on this page. A lot of those posts inspire a significant amount of commentary from you guys. Most comments are supportive, but a fair proportion are critical. I welcome both kinds provided they are polite and respectful. I have noticed that some contributors point out the error of my ways by quoting a study they found that contradicted my ideas. Some even provide links to their favourite study in an attempt to have a ‘gotcha’ moment. This trend has been increasing over the last 2 or 3 years.

I try to keep up to date with what’s going on in the horse world. I read a lot. I watch as many videos as time permits. In recent times, it’s become obvious that there is a growing trend by trainers and horse people, in general, to quote studies to support their message. In theory, it is a great idea to use data gathered from independent research to corroborate our views on all things horse related. But in practice, it is proving to be, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, a pile of marketing excrement.

On the surface, many of the studies that people quote seem solid and supportive of the claims they make. But when a person looks deeper and understands the concepts of experimental design, data analysis, statistics, and extrapolation, very many (if not most) of the studies hold as much water as a sieve.

I remember when an famous clinician said that he could get a horse calmer by lowering its head because head-lowering caused a release of beta-endorphin which can be a relaxing hormone. When I went to the research library to confirm the claim I discovered there was no study. And at the time, nobody had measured beta-endorphins in horses and there was no evidence of receptors in the brain for that hormone. No laboratory had even developed an equine antibody for which to measure the hormone specifically in horses. The claim was a theory but told to me as if it was fact.

A friend sent me a link to an article that quoted a study where a rider’s weight was examined as a factor in lameness in horses. The study examined 7 horses. Only 7. The study did not control for age, breed, training, or veterinary history. It did not control for a rider's experience or skill. The study did not account for other possible factors as a cause of lameness. Yet, the study was being seriously used to support a hypothesis.

 The question remains, how many horse people who read that article would question the lack of control groups or the low sample size before telling their friends this new found knowledge that came from a ‘scientific’ study?

Many of you may follow trainers who talk about the role of brain hormones in determining horse responses. It sounds rational. It’s told to you as if it is settled science. But ask those trainers for references to papers in quality scientific journals about receptors for dopamine or serotonin in horses in real-time during training. Ask them about the evidence of the activity of peptide cleavage enzymes for pro-opiomelanocortin during episodes of stress in the equine pituitary. Ask them how much of the work on the endocrine system of the brain has been done in horses (rather than lab animals or other species) in real-time.

When I was a medical researcher presenting a paper at a conference, the job of every scientist in the audience was to pick apart every aspect of my work and not accept a single sentence of what I said until I had responded to each query to the satisfaction of my colleagues. That’s how real progress is made in our understanding of the universe. This is no less true when understanding how horses operate.

When a trainer or behaviourist or nutritionist or veterinarian, or any horse professional cites a study as proof of something, they are failing in their duty if they cannot satisfactorily answer every detail about the work. If they cannot do that they are not qualified to evaluate the worth of the study and therefore are not qualified to quote it as if it is an established fact.

If people want to quote a study that has holes in it, it is fine to do so provided it is made clear that it is a theory. Maybe later work will confirm or refute the theory. But it is still a theory until proven false. It is not a fact.

I hope scientific research into how horses operate will grow and improve and help us gain a greater understanding of horses. But it should be done by expert researchers who are trained in scientific methods and understand experimental design, data collection, statistics, and analysis. It should not be done by amateur scientists and clinical people like body workers or nutritionists or behaviourists. It should not be done by horse trainers, saddle makers, bit designers, herbalists, and other interested people. At best, researchers should use horse professionals in an advisory role only and not as part of the research design team. It requires a different set of skills to undertake credible scientific research than most horse professionals possess. Being good as a horse professional does not make a person qualified to do worthwhile research or evaluate the research of others and spread it as if it were gospel. Treat it with scepticism.

And lastly, most of what I read that is being touted as “scientifically proven studies” does not affect or alter one iota how I will approach my training. That’s because the final word of how I will approach training will always lay with the horse, not the scientific study.