Direct link: http://DogTraining.LIFE
"Thank you also for the time spent setting the record straight concerning the way Fernandez misrepresented, distorted, and unfairly criticized the LIMA Principle."
- Steven Lindsay, creator of the LIMA Principle
Pet Professionals who Identify as "Force-Free" fall into two categories:
- Those who knowingly are fraudulent to benefit. These include anyone who had reasonable access to correct information.
- Those who have been deceptively educated and coerced to identify as "force-free", and have been actively discouraged from educating themselves outside of "force-free" sources of information.
The rationale for a call for action:
As a CTE teacher in a career school who is certified by New York to teach animal training and certified by Steven Lindsay himself to represent the concepts of LIMA
In my curriculum, I teach animal welfare, the contributions of BF Skinner, the Brelands, Bob Bailey and LIMA as it applies animal training. My students apply these lessons and others over a 2-year period on live animals.
It is my responsibility to teach the newest information and I cannot ethically teach false information to support unethical ambitions that seem to forget that there is a responsibility of the scientific community to hold to strict ethical standards for the benefit of the future generations of professionals and in this case also the welfare of animals.
There is no excuse for universities to push out less accurate information than what is taught in high school programs.
Unethical behavior and marketing in the dog training industry have been allowed for so long that it requires careful attention to the details to undo what the public and even many dog trainers believe.
The researcher presents his model to a known extremist. Lecture will based on the following interview of Dr. Eduardo Fernandez and his publication, which can be downloaded below:
Objectives
- Understand the illegal practices
- Understand the motives
- Understanding the evidence
- Understand a current case
- Know how to take action, if this affects you.
- Solutions moving forward
This applies to Dr. Eduardo Fernandez, Ian Dunbar (TIMA), IAABC, APDT, and CCPDT
This is the same predicament you see Karen Overall in. Not only does it open up one to legal action, but it opens up to a loss of credentialing.
- A Framework for Force-Free Dog Trainers
- Omission of important information
- Misrepresentation of Published Work
- Defamation: Misrepresentation of published work that can damage reputation and sales. In this case, this would likely be considered "trade libel" or "injurious falsehood," where false statements about a business or product cause financial loss. (speaking engagements, books sales, reputation with future clients)
- False Advertising: If the other author is using false statements about your work to promote their own, this could potentially be considered false advertising, which is illegal under consumer protection laws.
- False statement of "No conflict of interest."
- Compare to Daniel Mills paper - data gatherer is employed as a force-free dog trainer with an interest in "force-free" marketing. - Prime for Legal Action
- Paid Presenters for Force Free organizations
- Compensation model - https://tppg.wildapricot.org/Host-A-Webinar
- Their position statements - https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/about-us/position-statements/
- His webinar - https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/webinars-events/webinars/life-model/
- All of these organizations send members to gain Continuing Education Units:
- PPAB - Pet Professional Accreditation Board
- CCPDT - Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers
- KPA - Karen Prior Academy
- PMCT - Pat Miller Peaceful Paws School
- IAABC - International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants
- None of these schools are accredited and have any official oversight.
- American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) only recommends students from unaccredited "force-free" programs and has a misleading position statement:
- "Based on current scientific evidence, AVSAB recommends that only reward-based training methods are used for all dog training, including the treatment of behavior problems. Aversive training methods have a damaging effect on both animal welfare and the human-animal bond. There is no evidence that aversive methods are more effective than reward-based methods in any context. AVSAB therefore advises that aversive methods should not be used in animal training or for the treatment of behavior disorders."
- Trainers with backgrounds in "higher-level education" should be recommended whenever possible such as:
- the Karen Pryor Academy
- Jean Donaldson’s Academy for Dog Trainers
- involvement in organizations such as the Pet Professional Guild
- International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants
- Victoria Stillwell’s Academy for Dog Training
- No "higher-level education" is accredited, because they would not pass the requirements.
- Evidence of student success
- Evidence of factual information
- Take note that true accredited "higher-level education" programs are not recommended such as:
- SUNY Cobleskill - Canine Training and Management program
- There are no practical examples of dogs trained to these standards
- military
- guide dogs
- etc...
- Compensation model - https://tppg.wildapricot.org/Host-A-Webinar
Misrepresenting or failing to disclose conflicts of interest can lead to significant legal and professional consequences for the authors and the institutions and journals involved.
Here's why it's illegal and unethical:
- Scientific Integrity: The integrity of scientific research relies on transparency. Conflicts of interest, if not disclosed, can lead to biased research outcomes, which in turn can mislead the scientific community and the public.
- Legal Consequences: In some jurisdictions, failure to disclose conflicts of interest can result in legal actions, including lawsuits for fraud, breach of contract, or violations of ethical standards set by professional organizations. Journals and institutions may also face sanctions.
- Ethical Standards: Most academic journals require authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest as part of their submission process. Violating these standards can lead to retractions of published papers, damage to the authors' reputations, and loss of professional credibility.
- Funding and Grants: Misrepresenting conflicts of interest can also jeopardize funding and grants. Funding agencies often require clear disclosures, and failure to comply can result in the loss of financial support and potential legal repercussions.
Junk Science - refers to information or research that is presented as scientific fact but lacks proper scientific rigor, validity, or credibility. This term is often used to describe studies or claims that are based on flawed methodologies, biased data, or manipulated results, which can lead to misleading or incorrect conclusions.
In many cases, "junk science" is used to advance a particular agenda, whether it's in politics, law, health, or other fields, without a genuine basis in sound scientific principles.
The Tobacco Industry is a prime example - Funded studies that suggested that tobacco smoking was not as harmful as widely believed.
"Force-Free" scientific publications are another example since they falsely suggest that "force-free" training is free of coercion, aversiveness, or that is even free from "force". As well as it is inherently more effective and inherently more humane than training that is not "force-free" or uses certain training tools to accomplish training outcomes.
Evidence for reinforce based training protocols outperforming reinforcement based training methods that rely on aversive tools is a total junk science trashed paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7743949
And two trashed papers that have tried twice to create data that never proved their original point.
His History of the Events that Helped Form Both Modern Welfare and Force-Free Training Movements
From the publication:
"...Both of these events were directly connected to Project Pigeon, where between 1940 and 1943, Skinner and the Brelands trained pigeons to guide bombs as part of the war effort. Project Pigeon was so impactful that the Brelands left their academic studies to pursue animal training careers, which resulted in the creation of Animal Behavior Enterprises, IQ Zoo (a roadside tourist attraction in Hot Springs, Arkansas), and some of the first dolphin training shows (Bailey and Gillaspy, 2005; Bihm et al., 2010; Gillaspy et al., 2014). Critical to the Brelands training efforts were their public demonstrations of how positive reinforcement could be used to train almost any behavior. The movement to select rewards over coercive teaching and training methods was made more public through the efforts of an ex-dolphin trainer, Karen Pryor, who would publish one of the most influential books on reinforcement principles to date: Don’t Shoot the Dog.."
Eduardo J. Fernandez, The least inhibitive, functionally effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices,
Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Volume 71,2024,Pages 63-68,
ISSN 1558-7878,
BF Skinner
BF Skinner was a behaviorist. He has claimed and said over and over again that he is only concerned with observable behavior. Absolutely nothing that he was doing was geared toward welfare. Even when there was relevant scientific evidence that helped understand what animals were feeling during learning and behavior, it had no relevance to him.
For instance, when Jaak Panksepp, a prominent neuroscientist known for his research on animal emotions, presented his findings to B.F. Skinner, the founder of behaviorism, he dismissed the evidence and found it irrelevant to explaining the control of behavior.
What was Project Pigeon?
Walden 2
"Skinner even wrote a fictional book about this mini society Walden 2, where he talked about a society that uses reward-based methods to improve their society rather than just relying on all these aversive and coercion and etc" - Dr. Eduardo Fernandez, via Zak George Interview
He uses it as an example of how his practices applied to the human world would make a more humane world.
However, the book was heavily criticized and was one of the main reasons that he fell out of favor with the public and scientific community.
- Humans live in a compound and generally do not leave.
- Their babies are taken from them shortly after birth and raised by scientists and their behavior is shaped according to the decisions.
- Scientists determined if you were fit to reproduce.
- Children were trained like animals to the leading scientists' standard
- exposed to increasing levels of shocks as babies to desensitize them to stress
- have hungry children stand and watch other students eating
- Encourage them to marry at 16 years old and pump out children that they will not spend time with to increase the numbers to seed other communities.
- Members of the community did not have individual voting privileges, they were expected to pool all their votes to the liking of the community controller to support politicians who would support his whims..
- Leisure and food is used as a reward.
- No need for police or law because, apparently, he believed everyone is content with having their lives pre-determined as long as they had access to food and leisure.
- It completely ignores the reality of maternal instinct, raising your own children, desire for free will, and individuality. The criticisms are a mile long.
- The consensus is trying to control society with "positive reinforcement" is unrealistic.
Animal Behavior Enterprises - IQ Zoo
The Brelands and Bob Bailey are celebrated for the industrious use of animal training technology, especially for commercial purposes, such as training animals efficiently at scale using systems based on BF Skinner's work.
They were very influential because who doesn't want to see chickens playing tik-tak-toe or a duck playing a piano, but this was still behaviorism and there is a real reason why you do not see hungry ducks and chickens inside of vending machine waiting to perform behaviors for food. They were inarguably under aversive control under the umbrella of "reward based" forced-free training.
Reward-based, force-free, or training with positive reinforcement (no matter how you want to spin it) does not indicate non-aversive training techniques any more than punishment-based training plans are automatically more aversive or less aligned with animal welfare. This is not a theory; this is an important fact that has been omitted.
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its Fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative
"Freedom and food look like positive reinforcers, but when they are contingent on the cessation of artificially imposed deprivations, their effectiveness is a product of negative reinforcement; they become instruments of coercion" (41).
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its Fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative
The Birth of Force-Free
You need to understand the origin of the business model.
Karen Prior and Dolphin Training
From the interview in 1993 (the dawn of force-free movement):
Majored in English and was an author. She never studied behavioral psychology. Her husband Taylor "Tap" Pryor opened Sea Life Park. A few months before it opened they caught "all these dolphins" (in 1963) and the hired employees were having difficulty training them, so they obtained a manual from one of Skinner's graduate students, Ron Turner. Her husband asked her to read it and help since she was the only one to have ever trained an animal, her own dog and a Pony. After reading the manual she states "...the dolphins were perfect animals to try it on because they were big and greedy and you can get plenty of reinforcements in since you have plenty of room for error. They were very active. I really wasn't interested in them personally. I wasn't sentimental about them the way people are."
It is important to note that the dolphins were commercial investments.
She stated her purpose was just to get dolphin shows up and running.
She wrote the book, "Don't Shoot the Dog" in 1985 to teach a general audience about operant conditioning in everyday life, not just with animals. It was not meant specifically for dog trainers, but dog trainers were buying it. She compared the dog trainers to "hungry dolphins" so that is where the commercial interests and sales diverged.
When asked what her general definition of science is, she said "the truth."
These are not humane beginnings. This was eventually exposed through the documentary Black Fish. The Brelands and Karen Pryor are generally referenced as the pioneers of these types of practices, yet it is spun to be associated with "reward-based" training and how they proved you do not need aversive to train animals.
SeaWorld likes to talk about the relationships between the trainer and the animal. They tend to de-emphasize the role that food plays in that relationship. I know that that’s kind of a sad undercurrent…. It’s true that there exists some relationship between trainer and animal, but the question is what type of relationship. One based on love? Or hunger?
- Jeffrey Ventre, Sea World Trainer https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/in_conversation_with_jeffrey_ventre/
The Deception - Force Free
The practice of bending science for "friendly" marketing was likely learned from the early success of Ian Dunbar.
The truth about positive dog training part 1 - Competition against traditional training. Barbara Woodhouse, Brian Kilcommons, Monks of New Skete, etc..
The truth about positive dog training part 2 - When "friendly dog training" was losing popularity because of the influence of Cesar Milan, David Mech's was misquoted, and the whole history of ethology disregarded.
Despite many public statements by David Mech of being misquoted, these statements still remain in their position statements to mislead the public and create an unfair marketing advantage.
Publications on Dominance - https://dogtraining.world/article-categories/dominance/
False advertising has become so normalized that through the years, certain groups have mastered a system to block out competition.
Force Free:
- Have schools and seminars for dog trainers.
- Make them abide by the terms of "force free".
- Make them get continuing education units to keep their certification
- Educators are required to abide by the terms of "force-free".
- "Force Free" dog trainers are required to submit to veterinary behaviorists, that will only get referred to of they are "force free".
- Veterinary behaviorists only refer to "force free". (Karen Overall)
- Scientists that produce papers that support "force-free" benefit from speaking arrangements.
- Some journals will not entertain publishing work that is not force free.
- Position Statements are put out by organizations that feed their business models effectively making it "unethical" for any veterinarian or associated organization to refer to a trainer who is not "force free".
The problem is that they are bottle-necked by their origins. They are not force free, were never not aversive. The only difference was changing up to using different tools and rebranding them to have nice names. - "gentle leader" which was originally marketed as a device to simulate the dominance of the mother. "positively no-pull harness", etc..
To defend against these claims, they will go as far as saying that they don't use any kind of punishment or aversive at all, which is impossible to do without lying
Many trainers have capitalized on it, but it has been refined by a few organizations that work together.
Although Karen Pryor publically states that she believes science means "the truth". She builds an empire that uses the terms "science-based" training that is force-free.
She runs a school for dog trainers that must agree to abide to her definition of "force-free" which is to never use punishment. However, she does use and teach punishment using techniques and tools that get a waiver.
The Pet Professional Guild
"It is Pet Professional Guild’s (PPG) view that electric shock in the guise of training constitutes a form of abuse towards pets, and, given that there are highly effective, positive training alternatives, should no longer be a part of the current pet industry culture of accepted practices, tools or philosophies. In this position statement, PPG will combine decades of research with the opinions of certified animal behaviorists, and highlight the question of ethics to explain why using electric shock in the name of training and care is both ineffective and harmful."
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? EFFECTIVENESS IS NOT ENOUGH
Based on a 40-year-old standard adapted within the field of applied behavior analysis. It does not consider what the animal is feeling. It is listed as a hierarchy based on surveys of what people perceive as acceptable and what is known to be aversive in behaviorism, which is only what you see the trainer doing and not what the animal is feeling. Procedures with aversive stimuli are considered more intrusive and are recommended only after less intrusive procedures have been tried.
Basically, a hungry Orca trapped in a pool, feeling frustrated while making choices to figure out how to eat another fish would be least intrusive, and a cow in a 100-acre field with all the food it wants that stays away from the electric fence because it touched it once is considered most intrusive.
For dog training, it has been translated into this chart:
Misquotes about LIMA
One of the most significant points of misunderstanding in the critique is the role of trainer competency in LIMA. Lindsay is clear that the effective and humane application of any training procedure, whether aversive or not, hinges on the trainer's ability to make informed decisions based on a deep understanding of canine behavior and learning theory. The LIMA model, therefore, is not just a set of guidelines but a call for professional responsibility, where only those with the appropriate expertise can determine the most ethical and effective approach.
the criticisms against Lindsay's version of LIMA seem to stem from a lack of thorough engagement with his comprehensive framework. Lindsay's work is fundamentally about balancing the ethical responsibility of minimizing harm with the practical necessities of behavior modification. Any claim that LIMA is inherently flawed or that it serves to justify aversive methods is a misrepresentation of its intended purpose and application. To advance the field of dog training, it is crucial that such critiques are based on a complete and accurate understanding of the principles they aim to evaluate.
What is troublesome about the critique, is that the misrepresentations do not only reflect a lack of due diligence, it also shows evidence of a purposeful effort to mislead the researcher:
A reference for quotes about LIMA from the publication here: LIMA quotes
- Lack of Clarity about Intrusiveness on behavior.
Fernandez only lists volume 3 in his references, whereas LIMA is only referred to. It is already well defined in volume 1 and 2. If he is writing a publication with the primary purpose of replacing LIMA shouldn't he at least understand it by reading the publications?
He apparently thinks Lindsay's "Intrusive" is referring to the interventions effect on behavior, yet it is obviously spelled out in black in white in definition and within context throughout all 1500 pages of Lindsay's work that it refer's primarily toward the intrusiveness of the relationship between the owner and dog
Volume 2
Cynopraxic trainers should make an effort to conform their training interventions to the LIMA (least intrusive and minimally aversive) principle by employing procedures that represent the least necessary intrusion upon the human-dog bond and cause the dog a minimal amount of discomfort, as necessary to achieve the behavioral objective. Further, training recommendations should do no harm to the human-dog relationship, to the dog, or to the owner in the process of implementing them.
In volume 3
In addition to avoiding training procedures that are needlessly aversive, cynopraxic trainers avoid procedures that intrude excessively upon a dog’s freedom incentive (see Hydran- Protean Side Effects, the Dead-dog Rule, and the LIMA Principle). Training efforts that inappropriately restrict a dog’s ability to initiate goal-directed behavior not only adversely impact the dog’s QOL but often do so without contributing any real therapeutic benefit. For example, inappropriate restraint or isolation, pointless deprivation procedures, intrusive rules of interaction, and tedious extinction and training rituals may be of little positive benefit with respect to training goals but impose time-consuming hardships on the owner, impede the bonding processes, and impair the dog’s ability to adjust, perhaps making the problem worse. Although highly intrusive procedures do not generate physical pain, they can produce significant emotional pain and distress while augmenting interactive conflict.
Finally, in addition to lacking scientific justification, the lengthy withdrawal of social contact is highly intrusive and may violate the LIMA principle (see Compliance in Volume 2, Chapter 2). Asking a family to arbitrarily withdraw social attention and affection from a dog for long periods (e.g., 2 to 4 weeks) is a recommendation that is not likely to receive a high level of support and compliance. Abruptly withdrawing affection, play, and other forms of friendly interaction from the dog for weeks at a time is a punitive and stressful measure that may only serve to intensify interactive conflict and tensions between the dog and family members. Instead of asking the owner to withdraw affection and playful interaction from the dog, emphasis is better placed on helping the owner to discover ways to safely integrate affectionate and playful relations between the dog and family members in the process of building a trust-based bond incompatible with aggression (see Integrated Compliance Training).
The LIMA principle addressed the excesses and abuses that might arise when aversive or intrusive dog-training procedures are implemented. As such, it applies to both positive and negative punishment, and covers procedures that generate states of emotional pain and deprivation (e.g., long-term cold shouldering, crate confinement/isolation, and various restraint techniques). The LIMA principle entails that trainers use the least intrusive and minimally aversive technique likely to succeed in achieving a training objective with minimal risk of producing adverse side effects. Essentially, the LIMA principle is a competency criterion, since only competent trainers possessing the necessary know-how can make the required assessments and have the skills needed to ensure that the least intrusive and aversive procedure is in fact used. To speak of the effective and humane use of dog-training procedures in the absence of competency criterion borders on the ridiculous. Accordingly, incompetent uses of attractive and aversive motivational stimuli to modify dog behavior are liable to produce harmful effects that violate the dog’s interests and breech the trust of the responsible dog owners seeking help.
Cynopraxic trainers acknowledge and respect the dog’s preference for pleasure by advocating the use of procedures that utilize reward and minimize punishment. However, to train a dog to a reasonable degree of reliability, the use of both attractive and aversive motivational incentives is an inescapable fact of life.
"The aim of punishment is to eliminate the use of punishment in the future" (Handbook of Applied Behavior and Training, Volume 1, p. 322).
2. Ambiguity in desired training approaches - Claims that LIMA focuses on what not to do, and not what the dog should do?
The Dead Dog Rule from Volume 2
Steven R. Lindsay's "dead dog rule" is an adaptation of Ogden Lindsley's "dead-man test," which asserts that a behavioral goal should not be something that a dead man (or dog) could do, such as doing nothing or remaining still. Lindsay's "dead dog rule" suggests that training objectives should be framed in affirmative terms—specifying behaviors that a live dog can do, rather than simply focusing on the absence of undesirable behaviors. For example, instead of training a dog not to jump on guests (which a dead dog cannot do), the goal should be to train the dog to sit calmly when guests arrive. This approach ensures that training is directed toward producing positive behaviors rather than merely eliminating negative ones.
"In recent years, there has been a growing professional use and interest in electronic devices for dog-training and behavior-modification purposes. Unfortunately, scant little technical information has been written on the proper use of such devices in the context of canine behavior therapy and dog training—a situation that is especially problematic with respect to radio-controlled collars. With significant trepidation and concern about the potential for abuse, Chapter 9 addresses the use of electronic devices in the context of problem solving and training. When properly used, such devices and techniques can be highly effective and humane for the control of certain otherwise intractable or difficult-to-control behavior problems. It is the author’s sincere hope that cynopraxic trainers will use electronic devices, and other tools that produce aversive stimulation and startle, sparingly and with an appropriate degree of restraint and respect for the dog and not fall into the trap of reaching for an electronic collar whenever a tough problem presents itself. Aversive tools and techniques can be extremely useful as motivational incentives to promote behavioral change in the context of reward-based training efforts, but they should not become an alternative to affectionate, playful, and creative attractive incentives. Aversive procedures should be applied in conformity with the dead-dog rule (see Dead-dog Rule in Volume 2, Chapter 2), the least intrusive and minimally aversive (LIMA) principle, and cynopraxic goals."
3. History of aversive training methods justification
What becomes clear in these statements is that LIMA was not intended to be an attempt to minimize the use of aversive stimuli, as many modern force-free trainers have conceptualized. Instead, Lindsay intended LIMA to be a framework to help trainers select their aversive stimuli and tools. As one of the latter statements in the handbook concludes:
“Aversive procedures are legitimate and valuable tools for controlling undesirable behavior…” (p. 725).
This is a dirty misleading trick.
He didn't finish the quote because it says this. "Aversive procedures are legitimate and valuable tools for controlling undesirable behavior, but such techniques can be rapidly debauched into a form that substantially complicates matters."
It is the first sentence of the chapter titled HYDRAN-PROTEAN SIDE EFFECTS, THE DEAD-DOG RULE, AND THE LIMA PRINCIPLE.
The Hydran-Protean Side Effects is based on the dangers of using aversive techniques incompetently and under the many wrong conditions where other techniques would be more effective. He also includes procedures such as time-outs/isolation, gentle leaders, and no pull-harnesses aversive.
Coincidently in the same chapter Lindsay writes:
"the dead-dog rule is a complementary logic for framing the LIMA principle. By converting training goals into affirmative statements and identifying objectives that can be achieved only by a live dog, the resultant perspective is biased toward reward-based training efforts. For example, instead of training a dog not to bite (dead dogs do not bite), the dog is trained to be friendly and trusting, that is, to show affectionate, cooperative, and playful behavior incompatible with aggression— behavior that a dead dog cannot do."
This highlights Dr. Fernandez's lack of care in representing Steven Lindsay's published work and the professional dog trainers who adhere to his standards.
This undoubtedly harms Steven Lindsay's reputation and future professional opportunities, despite his ethical, thoughtful, and well-researched publication that prioritizes the welfare of dogs and their owners over personal gain or recognition.
The Facts of "Punishment Based" Training
"..The forms of behavioral control we call "positive" and "negative" are inextricably linked. Thus, decisions about "good" and "bad" methods of control must be decided quite apart from the questions of whether the methods meet the technical specification of "positive reinforcement" or "aversive" control. We need to seek a higher standard, one that emphasizes outcomes more than procedures. Our chief concern should not be whether the contingencies involve the processes of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or punishment. Instead, we should emphasize the ability of the contingencies to foster behavior in the long-term interest of the individual. Of course, this is all we can ask of any behavioral intervention, regardless of its classification." - Negative Effects of Positive Reinforcement, Michael Perone 2003
"The aim of punishment is to eliminate the use of punishment in the future" (Handbook of Applied Behavior and Training, Volume 1, p. 322).
Simply if done correctly it does what it is supposed to do reliably without any side effects, and there are real studies that use real scientific methods that prove this on dogs, pigeons, rats, humans, etc..
Stopping a behavior may be part of a process, before or after rewarding a more appropriate behavior.
Punishment works and does not have side effects:
Rewards and Punishments work best together - there are no real publications that remotely prove that reward-based training is superior to punishment-based training:
Punishment can stop behaviors quickly if necessary to support a better quality of life:
Fixed-Ratio Punishment, N. H. Azrin, W. C. Holz, and D. F. Hake
Neuroscience
Mountains of research confirm that avoidance learning "feels good" long term and that Reward-based training that uses intermittent reward schedules can "feel bad."
New Science
Question for Fernandez
What is "force-free" training anyway?
What is your definition of obedience?
Considering that we have an obligation to a paying client:
How do you train a dog to obey? For instance to remain in a large unfenced yard to play and enjoy life with their owners, regardless of squirrels and dogs across the busy street.
What to Do?
- Voice your concerns to the credentialing bodies - enter PHD issuer.
- Voice your concerns to Educational Institutions - It affects their funding.
- List complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, under unfair marketing guidelines.
- If you are personally affected, consider hiring an attorney or entering a class-action lawsuit
- This can be done by professionals who are affected
- This can be done by dog owners who were misled and suffered damage or financial loss
- here is are examples:
Examples of active lawsuits:
- Class action lawsuit: A consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Radio Systems Corp. for misrepresenting and omitting information about its PetSafe shock collar products. The lawsuit alleges that Radio Systems uses euphemisms like "static correction," "surprise," "tickle," and "stimulation" to falsely describe the painful electric shocks the collars deliver to pets.
- Lawsuit against Protect Animals With Satellites (PAWS): In November 2024, Radio Systems Corp. filed a lawsuit against PAWS, the manufacturer of the Halo Collar, alleging unfair competition and false advertising. The lawsuit claims that PAWS's ads for the Halo Collar containment system are misleading and divert sales away from Radio Systems Corp.. The complaint also states that the Halo Collar's poor performance makes customers distrustful of GPS-based pet containment systems.
The Reality of False Conflict of Interest Statements
it is illegal and unethical for scientific publications to state that there is no conflict of interest when, in reality, one exists. Misrepresenting or failing to disclose conflicts of interest can lead to significant legal and professional consequences for the authors, as well as for the institutions and journals involved.
Here's why it's illegal and unethical:
- Scientific Integrity: The integrity of scientific research relies on transparency. Conflicts of interest, if not disclosed, can lead to biased research outcomes, which in turn can mislead the scientific community and the public.
- Legal Consequences: In some jurisdictions, failure to disclose conflicts of interest can result in legal actions, including lawsuits for fraud, breach of contract, or violations of ethical standards set by professional organizations. Journals and institutions may also face sanctions.
- Ethical Standards: Most academic journals require authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest as part of their submission process. Violating these standards can lead to retractions of published papers, damage to the authors' reputations, and loss of professional credibility.
- Funding and Grants: Misrepresenting conflicts of interest can also jeopardize funding and grants. Funding agencies often require clear disclosures, and failure to comply can result in the loss of financial support and potential legal repercussions.
Examples of:
there have been several cases where researchers, institutions, or journals faced legal consequences due to the failure to disclose conflicts of interest in scientific publications. These consequences can range from retractions of papers and loss of credibility to lawsuits and financial penalties. Here are a few notable examples:
1. Duke University and Dr. Anil Potti (2010)
- Case: Dr. Anil Potti, a researcher at Duke University, was found to have falsified research data in studies related to cancer treatment. It was later revealed that he failed to disclose financial relationships with companies that stood to benefit from his research.
- Legal Consequences: The case led to a major scandal, resulting in numerous retractions of published papers. Duke University faced lawsuits from patients who participated in clinical trials based on his research. The university settled for millions of dollars, and Dr. Potti's medical license was revoked.
2. Dr. Charles Nemeroff and Emory University (2008)
- Case: Dr. Charles Nemeroff, a prominent psychiatrist, was accused of failing to disclose significant payments from pharmaceutical companies while conducting research on their products. Despite receiving over $800,000 from GlaxoSmithKline, he declared no conflict of interest in his publications.
- Legal Consequences: Emory University faced federal scrutiny and potential loss of federal funding for failing to enforce conflict-of-interest policies. Dr. Nemeroff stepped down as department chair, and the case led to stricter oversight on conflict-of-interest disclosures in federally funded research.
3. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the Vioxx Scandal (2004)
- Case: Researchers involved in the publication of studies on the drug Vioxx, manufactured by Merck, were found to have financial ties to the company that were not disclosed in the publications. The studies downplayed the drug's cardiovascular risks, leading to widespread use before the drug was eventually withdrawn from the market due to safety concerns.
- Legal Consequences: Merck faced numerous lawsuits, resulting in billions of dollars in settlements. The case led to a reevaluation of how conflicts of interest are managed and disclosed in medical research, with journals and researchers facing increased scrutiny.
4. The Harvard/MGH Conflict-of-Interest Case (2008)
- Case: Three Harvard Medical School psychiatrists failed to disclose millions of dollars received from pharmaceutical companies while promoting drugs to treat children with bipolar disorder. The payments were not disclosed in scientific publications or in federal grant applications.
- Legal Consequences: The U.S. Senate Finance Committee launched an investigation, leading to significant negative publicity. The doctors involved faced institutional sanctions, and Harvard University implemented stricter conflict-of-interest policies as a result. While there were no direct legal penalties, the reputational damage was severe.
5. Amgen and Dr. Steven E. Nissen (2007)
- Case: Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a prominent cardiologist, was accused of failing to disclose payments from Amgen, a biotech company, while publishing studies that were critical of a competing drug. This conflict of interest raised concerns about the objectivity of his research.
- Legal Consequences: Although Dr. Nissen was not directly penalized, the case highlighted the need for greater transparency in conflict-of-interest disclosures and led to increased scrutiny in the medical community.
Dr. Eduardo Fernandez gaining paid speaking engagements with organizations biased toward publication results can be considered a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a researcher’s personal, financial, or professional interests could potentially influence—or appear to influence—their objectivity in conducting or presenting research.
Here’s how this situation could be considered a conflict of interest:
1. Financial Gain:
- If a researcher receives payment from an organization that stands to benefit from the research findings, it creates a financial incentive that could compromise—or be perceived to compromise—the integrity of the research. Even if the research was conducted objectively, the post-publication financial relationship could cast doubt on the credibility of the findings.
2. Bias and Influence:
- Organizations that are biased toward certain results may seek to promote those findings, and paying a researcher to speak about them could be seen as a way to bolster the organization's agenda. This relationship could lead to concerns that the researcher might tailor future research or public statements to align with the interests of the paying organization.
3. Perception of Objectivity:
- The integrity of scientific research relies not only on actual objectivity but also on the perception of objectivity. If it becomes known that a researcher received significant financial benefits from an organization with a vested interest in the research results, it could undermine public and professional trust in the research, even if no actual bias occurred.
4. Disclosure Requirements:
- Many academic journals and research institutions require the disclosure of any financial relationships that could influence—or appear to influence—research outcomes. If a researcher anticipates or receives paid speaking engagements as a result of their published work, this relationship should be disclosed to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
5. Legal and Ethical Standards:
- Failing to disclose such a relationship could lead to legal and ethical consequences, particularly if the paid engagements are substantial and directly related to the research findings. This could result in retractions of the publication, damage to the researcher’s reputation, and potential sanctions from professional organizations.
Fair Trade Commission (In the USA):
Request an examination of unfair competition and false advertising supported by IAABC, APDT, CCPDT, Karen Pryor Academy, Victoria Stilwell Academy, Academy of Dog Trainers, and the American Veterinary Medical Association's Veterinary Behavior Division. seeking to gain unfair marketing advantages through misleading claims against "non-force free dog trainers" and false advertising toward consumers.
- Website: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/
Contact Creditionaling Bodies
Many credentialing bodies have a code of ethics to maintain licenses or credentials.
Inform the organizations and request an examination.
Consider Class Action Lawsuits:
- Trainers who paid for courses at specific schools "force free schools" or CEU through the requirements of the school (CCPDT, KPA, IAABC, etc) under the impression that they were receiving accurate information that led to a failure to thrive in the profession.
- Customers who hired trainers through the credentialing of these organizations under the impression that they were highly qualified and did not receive what was expected or suffered damages, such as injury to people or dogs (including rehoming or euthanasia)
Civil Lawsuit as an Individual
Tortious Interference - involves intentionally disrupting current and potential business relationships or opportunities.
- Involves trying to cancel other trainers' scheduled business engagements and future ones.
- Interfering with trainers' referrers, such as veterinarians, groomers, animal shelters, etc.
- This in itself is illegal, but especially illegal when combined with defamation.
Fab and very important lecture.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here