The role of trust in science

For generations, scientists were among the most trusted professionals. They earned that trust through disciplined pursuit of truth, careful methods, transparent data, and a culture that valued correction over convenience. The public believed science could rise above politics, money, and ego because integrity was the standard, not the exception.

When bias poisons the work

That trust shatters when a study is built to deliver a preferred result. This is not a small lapse. It is a severe breach of ethics, a betrayal of the very purpose of science. When the answer is chosen first and the method is arranged to reach it, the product is not science but advocacy dressed as research. Every serious scientist recognizes this. Intentional bias corrodes credibility, damages institutions, and misleads the public that depends on honest findings.

When personal benefit compounds the harm

The harm is deeper when biased findings enrich the researcher. Career advancement, speaking fees, consulting opportunities, and alliances that grow from those results create a clear conflict of interest. The public sees this and feels deceived. Professionals who must rely on solid evidence feel stranded. It is one of the most painful forms of professional betrayal because it takes the language of truth and uses it to sell a conclusion.

Why it matters for laws and everyday life

Scientific papers do not live only in journals. Policymakers read them, advocacy groups cite them, and regulations are written with them in hand. When flawed or biased studies influence legislation, the consequences reach real people. In the dog training world this can limit tools that keep families safe, restrict the freedom of skilled professionals to practice ethically, and narrow the choices available to dog owners.

Daniel Mills, criticism, and consequences

Daniel Mills, Professor of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine at the University of Lincoln and a long-time figure in applied animal behavior research, has published studies that critics argue favor predetermined outcomes. His work has been cited in campaigns and legislative pushes to restrict training tools, reshaping industry standards and the daily lives of trainers and owners.

The strongest criticisms have centered not only on his methods but on his conclusions. His papers on training methods, especially those concerning electronic collars, have been described by peers as drawing sweeping and damaging claims from narrow data. Researchers have pointed out that his sample sizes were small, his controls limited, and his interpretations selective. What troubled many was not just the design but the way he presented the results: conclusions that suggested broad harm and ineffectiveness, despite evidence that was thin, inconsistent, or equivocal.

Colleagues in the field have openly questioned whether the data Mills produced could support the weight of the conclusions he drew. Some went further, arguing that his interpretations were not only weak but irresponsible, because they dismissed large bodies of work showing different outcomes and instead gave advocacy groups the scientific backing they sought for restrictive agendas. One commentary in response to his later studies said bluntly that the findings “do not justify the conclusions reached,” and warned that policymakers should be cautious about relying on them.

This pattern has led many professionals to feel that Mills’ work blurred the line between science and advocacy. Instead of clarifying difficult debates, his conclusions gave the appearance of certainty where none existed. And because those conclusions directly aligned with organizations that later welcomed him into their circles, the appearance of bias has been impossible to ignore.

The troubling part is not only the research itself but what has followed. Daniel Mills is now actively collaborating with the very organizations that gained from his conclusions. His speaking roles at events such as the CANIS Conference, his plans to collaborate with Ian Dunbar, and his appearance on Michael Shikashio’s podcast make it clear these ties are ongoing and deliberate.

This is not the behavior of a scientist safeguarding integrity. It is the continuation of a pattern in which studies criticized for bias and overreach are rewarded with platforms, recognition, and influence. The result is a cycle where flawed conclusions shape laws, restrict freedoms, and give advocacy groups the credibility they need, while those responsible are celebrated for the very work that drew so much criticism.

When scientists abandon objectivity and align their careers with agendas that thrive on their disputed results, the damage extends far beyond academia. It corrodes public trust, distorts policy, and undermines the very foundation of scientific integrity.

Truth or Agenda?

References and Criticisms

Studies that raised the most concern

• Cooper, J. J., Mills, D. S., et al. (2014). The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward-Based Training. PLOS ONE.
• China, L., Mills, D. S., & Cooper, J. J. (2020). Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

Key criticisms from peers

• Sargisson, R. J., & McLean, I. G. (2021).Commentary on: Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
  • Concluded that the study’s findings “do not justify the conclusions reached.”
  • Pointed out that the training methods tested may not represent the most effective use of e-collars.
  • Noted limited welfare data and absence of long-term effectiveness measures.
  • Raised concerns about the statistical analyses used.

Summary of concerns across the literature

• Peers judged the conclusions to overreach the supporting data.
• Methodological limitations included small sample sizes, narrow welfare metrics, and short-term follow-up.
• Critics questioned whether these findings should be used as justification for policy or legislation.