On November 1, 2017, the American Journal of Veterinary Medicine (JAVMA) published an article called Danger dog debate, begs the question, “Livestock bans are common, but do they keep the public safe?” JAVMA senior news reporter R. Scott Nolen told our executive that the article is about the current state of breed-specific legislation. This is a good topic for discussion as it is important for everyone to be aware of what breed discrimination laws are in place repealed and rejected more than what it is being put on.
As a scientific journal in the field of animal welfare, JAVMA should be well aware of this fact and of the studies promoting this trend. But rather than focus on research and facts, JAVMA’s Nolen chose to interview the owner of a tabloid website as an attempt to create relevancy for his article.
Nolen opens her post with an emotional retelling of the story of when dogbite.org (DBO) founder Colleen Lynn, a former web designer turned online psychic, was bitten by a dog. 2007. Being bitten by a dog is certainly scary and painful, but it doesn’t make one an expert in canine behavior, biology, public safety, or even the law.
The feelings and compassion people have for people bitten by dogs are important on a human level, but feelings are not facts. They have no place in scientific journals. Scientific journals are just science. They draw on provable facts, give context to nuanced situations, and perform their due diligence to confirm the claims presented by their sources.
Nolen either made the conscious choice of ignoring the well-known fact in the scientific community that the DBO doesn’t have the legitimate evidence to make it a serious source of material, or he’s stupid enough not to. knew this and he simply didn’t do his due diligence. With a little effort, Nolen was able to uncover the limitations of his source. In addition to Nolen’s errors, the journal as a whole should be held accountable for this lack of judgment. Where are the editors to embrace this unscientific reporting approach?
The question is, “Did JAVMA justify the DBO’s pretense or did it decide to be the one who clicks and chooses pageviews instead of the truth?” Either way, it runs the risk of being discredited.
It didn’t take long for Nolen to discover that the DBO and Lynn were not reputable sources. One of Lynn’s first claims in the article was that “pit bulls” were more dangerous than other dogs. This shouldn’t have been difficult for Nolen to verify authenticity, not when he himself AVMA debugged it.
As we read this article, we had to wonder if we were in some kind of Onionesque universe where everything is out of date and websites call doctors “whores,” as the DBO did. , used as a scientific resource. Not really, this is exactly what happened in Nolen’s paper.
In a blog post in 2011, the DBO called veterinarian Mahfouz a “scientific whore” who “contaminated” the truth to a local newspaper. They also did this with Dr. Amy Marder in 2012. In case you forgot, as JAVMA certainly does, those who accuse others of being “prostitutes” are not reputable people to seek out the truth. In this case, the term “scientific whore” means that Dr Mahfouz is being paid by “small thieves” to lie about science. There’s no proof of this, but who needs proof when you can play on people’s emotions?
Scientific journals, that’s who – or at least they should be. Nolen ruined his reputation as a science reporter by turning to a website filled with slang terms and minor insults as a source of advocacy for violence against people and animal.
To make matters even more absurd, the term “scientific prostitute” comes from the DBO’s sister site Maul Talk. The name itself is a gift that is not unbiased. There’s nothing objective about using the word “maul” in the title. It’s a violent site, and it often tries to discredit scientists with insults and accusations, rather than using facts.
Maul Talk verifies some of its insults, which it has listed in a glossary, with amusing sources. Maul Talk tries to give credibility to the term pit nutters by citing its inclusion in Urban Dictionary. Anyone can add and edit Urban Dictionary definitions. It is a dictionary of slang terms, which can be socially used terms or simply jokes between friends. To make sure no one misses this point – anyone can add words and definitions to this site. It is not controlled and it is not reviewed by scientists.
So let’s put this back into JAVMA: The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association interviewed someone who suggested that the Urban Dictionary is a valid source of information. So one JAVMA senior news reporter put the weight on Urban Dictionary as he gives the CDC scientific research and perspective, The American Bar Association, the Humane Society of America and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and presidential administrations.
This is embarrassing for the scientific community as a whole.
The dogs and their families can’t afford a scientific journal to roam the pages of tabloids and Facebook likes. Families lose pets and dogs die when that happens. Furthermore, when everyone gives equal weight to the alternative facts and the actual facts, legislators do not know what is true and what is not. This means they can pass ineffective laws based on reactionary tabloid language, rather than effective, non-discriminatory regulations backed by well-researched science.
JAVMA as a collective knows this, even if Nolen herself does not. This means that the people behind the magazine are risking more than their reputation by clicking, they risk the safety of the community and the welfare of the dogs.
JAVMA has a responsibility to be accurate and to fulfill its accountability. They failed. Perhaps the failure rests only on the shoulders of an incompetent reporter. In either case, JAVMA needs to act to regain their reputation as a scientific journal.
Tell JAVMA that you want them back to well-researched scientific reports, not tabloid reports. Write a letter to editorPlease contact AVMA via Their websiteor visit them on Facebook.
