The NYT reports:
In the  small world of people who train dogs to sniff cancer, a little-known Northern  California clinic has made a big claim: that it has trained five dogs - three  Labradors and two Portuguese water dogs - to detect lung cancer in the breath of  cancer sufferers with 99 percent accuracy. Skip to next paragraph Peter DaSilva  for The New York Times
The study was based on well-established concepts. It has been known since the  80's that tumors exude tiny amounts of alkanes and benzene derivatives not found  in healthy tissue.
Other researchers have shown that dogs, whose noses can pick up odors in the low  parts-per-billion range, can be trained to detect skin cancers or react  differently to dried urine from healthy people and those with bladder cancer,  but never with such remarkable consistency.
The near-perfection in the clinic's study, as Dr. Donald Berry, the chairman of  biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, put it, "is off  the charts: there are no laboratory tests as good as this, not Pap tests, not  diabetes tests, nothing."
As a result, he and other cancer experts say they are skeptical, but intrigued.
I don't have an opinion on the validity of this particular claim, but a more general point is why the emphasis merely on training dogs? Why not also breed the most trainable dogs to create a cancer-sniffing breed? These dogs could be useful in third world settings where conventional tests are too expensive, or they could be used for quick and dirty screenings of large numbers of people. The dog world is transfixed by the assumption that a breed has to be homogenous in appearance, but that should be secondary to selectively breeding a higher degree of accuracy.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment