🐕 Form follows function

Learn that physical features do not define performance, how to keep your dog away from flower beds, and what the FDA is doing against animal testing.

👋 Hi, and welcome back to my free newsletter where I share hand-selected dog research, news, and tips every week.

In this week's edition, you will learn that physical features do not define performance, how to keep your dog away from flower beds, and what the FDA is doing against animal testing.

Enjoy reading! ✨

📑 STUDY

Physical features ≠ performance

For centuries, people have bred dogs selectively to perform specific tasks like herding, guarding, hunting, and detecting scents.

Traditionally, it's been believed that these specialized roles were supported by distinct physical features, especially in the skull, that evolved to suit each job.

But a recent study questions this long-standing assumption. Instead of skull shape determining a dog's task performance, the research suggests that behavior and personality may play a much larger role.

Using advanced 3D imaging, the researchers examined 117 skulls from 40 domestic dog breeds along with 18 wild canid species.

Their analysis revealed significant overlap in skull structure among the various breeds, indicating no clear skeletal adaptations for roles like biting or scent detection.

Rather than physical specialization, the findings point to aesthetic preferences guiding most selective breeding practices over the past two centuries.

The study focused on breeds often used in bite-related tasks or scent detection, common in police and military work.

These breeds were compared based on classifications by groups such as the American Kennel Club (AKC) and United Kennel Club (UKC).

Despite their different appearances, many breeds shared similar skull structures, particularly in regions like the jaws and nasal passages—areas that would logically influence task performance.

This similarity contradicts the idea that certain dogs are structurally better suited for specific jobs.

For instance, measurements showed that dogs trained in bite work didn’t have notably stronger bite force than other breeds.

Likewise, those bred for scent detection didn’t exhibit significantly enhanced olfactory anatomy.

“In the past 200 years, humans have created hundreds of dog breeds that look really different and are pretty specialized at some tasks like herding, protecting, and detecting odors,” said Lindsay Waldrop, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Chapman University.

“We have assumed that these dogs look different because they are structurally specialized at these tasks, but our study shows that, at least for their skulls, they are not specialized for tasks that involve the skull, such as biting tasks and scent work.”

One of the study’s key takeaways challenges a widely held belief that some breeds, like pit bulls, possess unique jaw structures, making them more dangerous by nature.

Waldrop explained that certain breeds often become the focus of media coverage following dog attacks.

“Some people claim that these dogs bite harder than others of the same size or have special features like ‘locking jaws’ that make them especially dangerous to people. Our study shows that this is simply not true. Dogs bred to bite things aren’t structurally different than dogs bred to do other things,” said Waldrop.

Similarly, dogs trained for scent work showed no major skull adaptations related to smell, reinforcing the idea that behavior and training, not skull shape, are the dominant factors in their abilities.

One exception to the overall trend involved brachycephalic breeds like bulldogs and pugs.

These dogs have shortened snouts, a result of selective breeding for looks rather than performance. But even these unique shapes don’t correlate with specific working abilities.

“I was most surprised by the overall similarity we see in most of the dog skulls,” said lead author Nicholas Hebdon, a postdoctoral research associate at Chapman University.

“Humans have done so much breeding work to alter the visual appearance of these animals that I honestly expected to see really marked groupings of some kind, and we really didn’t see much of that.”

In contrast to domestic dogs, wild canids like wolves and foxes displayed clear skull adaptations, including longer snouts, features likely tied to survival needs such as keen smell.

This suggests that evolutionary pressures shape skull morphology more meaningfully than human-guided breeding.

Interestingly, the study found structural similarities between some terrier breeds and foxes, both of which have histories rooted in hunting small animals.

This may point to convergent evolution, where similar needs produce similar physical traits.

The research pushes back against the idea that physical features alone determine working ability in dogs. It highlights the importance of behavior, temperament, and training.

Although some behaviors are heritable, like herding or scent tracking instincts, the study emphasizes that trainability and temperament are more useful criteria than skull structure when selecting dogs for roles in areas like law enforcement, rescue work, or service tasks.

This could lead to a shift in how dogs are evaluated and chosen for such roles, with a greater focus on psychological traits and learning ability.

Ultimately, the study calls for a reevaluation of how humans understand the connection between breed, appearance, and function.

While selective breeding has dramatically changed the way dogs look, these changes may not reflect true functional specialization.

By dispelling myths about structural superiority in certain breeds, the findings pave the way for more effective, evidence-based approaches to dog training and selection.

Instead of relying on assumptions tied to breed appearance, trainers and breeders might place more value on behavioral and cognitive traits, a shift that could benefit both dogs and the people who rely on them.

Photo by Mario Verduzco on Unsplash

 🐕 TRAINING

Flower beds

We all love seeing our dogs enjoying the outdoors but not when they're digging up the daisies or trampling tulips!

If your pup sees your flower bed as a playground or snack bar, here are a few strategies to help protect your garden:

1. Create Clear Boundaries
Dogs don’t always know where the “no-go zones” are. Use decorative fencing, garden edging, or even low picket barriers to clearly mark off flower beds.

Even a simple border can help your dog understand where play ends and plants begin. If that doesn’t work, a tall fence may be necessary.

2. Use Natural Deterrents
Dogs dislike certain scents, like citrus, vinegar, or coffee grounds. Sprinkle safe, dog-deterring substances around the perimeter (be sure they’re non-toxic!).

3. Provide a Digging Zone
If your dog is a digger, give them an approved spot to do it! Fill a sandbox or section off a corner of your yard with loose soil and hide toys or treats there.

Reward them for using it and discourage digging elsewhere.

4. Supervise and Redirect
Watch your dog when they’re outside, especially at first. If they head toward the flower bed, redirect them with a toy or a game. Consistent redirection helps build good habits over time.

5. Train with Positive Reinforcement
Teaching a simple “leave it” or “off” command can be a game-changer. Reward your pup for ignoring the flower beds and reinforce the idea that good things happen when they stay on the lawn.

Bonus Tip: Choose dog-safe plants. Some flowers can be harmful if ingested. Check that your garden is free from common toxic plants like lilies, azaleas, and daffodils.

📰 NEWS

Animal testing

In a landmark move to advance public health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is overhauling its approach to drug development by shifting away from traditional animal testing for monoclonal antibody therapies and other pharmaceuticals.

This shift prioritizes more predictive, human-relevant alternatives designed to enhance drug safety evaluations, streamline development timelines, and lower both research costs and drug prices.

The agency’s updated strategy introduces a suite of new methods, including artificial intelligence-driven toxicity models and lab-based testing using cell lines and organoids (collectively referred to as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs). These alternatives will begin to be integrated immediately into investigational new drug (IND) applications.

A comprehensive roadmap outlining this initiative was also released. As part of this strategy, the FDA will begin incorporating real-world safety data from other countries with equivalent regulatory standards where the drug has already been administered in humans.

“For too long, drug manufacturers have performed additional animal testing of drugs that have data in broad human use internationally. This initiative marks a paradigm shift in drug evaluation and holds promise to accelerate cures and meaningful treatments for Americans while reducing animal use,” said FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, M.D., M.P.H.

“By leveraging AI-based computational modeling, human organ model-based lab testing, and real-world human data, we can get safer treatments to patients faster and more reliably, while also reducing R&D costs and drug prices. It is a win-win for public health and ethics.”

Enhanced Computational Tools
The FDA’s roadmap highlights the potential of AI and computer modeling to simulate a drug’s interaction with the human body.

These digital models can forecast how monoclonal antibodies are distributed and predict adverse effects based on molecular profiles, greatly minimizing the reliance on animal studies.

Human-Derived Testing Systems
The agency is promoting the adoption of lab-grown human organoids and organ-on-a-chip technologies that replicate critical organ functions.

These tools provide a more accurate representation of human physiology, enabling better detection of toxic effects that might not be observed in animal models.

Regulatory Incentives for Modern Testing
Updated guidance will support the submission of non-animal safety data. Developers that present robust NAMs data may benefit from expedited reviews, reducing both development time and the need for redundant animal experiments.

This move aims to encourage investment in next-generation testing platforms.

Accelerated Development Timelines
By replacing slower and less predictive animal models, the FDA anticipates a more efficient development pipeline, allowing monoclonal antibody treatments to reach patients faster, without compromising safety standards.

Leadership in Global Regulatory Science
This initiative solidifies the FDA’s position at the forefront of regulatory modernization. Responding to calls from Congress and scientific leaders, the agency is pushing for wider adoption of humane, science-driven testing alternatives.

This announcement underscores the FDA’s commitment to keeping pace with advancing technologies.

To support this transition, the FDA is working closely with agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the National Toxicology Program, and the Department of Veterans Affairs through the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM).

A public workshop is planned for later this year to discuss the roadmap and gather feedback. Additionally, the FDA will launch a pilot program inviting select monoclonal antibody developers to use predominantly non-animal testing strategies under direct FDA oversight. Results from this initiative will help shape future policy and regulatory updates.

Commissioner Makary emphasized the broader implications of this shift. “For patients, it means a more efficient pipeline for novel treatments. It also means an added margin of safety, since human-based test systems may better predict real-world outcomes. For animal welfare, it represents a major step toward ending the use of laboratory animals in drug testing. Thousands of animals, including dogs and primates, could eventually be spared each year as these new methods take root.”