Longevity in pet dogs: understanding what's missing.

Being a scientist is a bit like being a detective – always looking for clues. Logically then, investigators who seek to understand the factors that have an impact on canine longevity ask: ‘Where can the most reliable clues be found?’ Fresh approaches generate new evidence and, as the pieces of the puzzle come together, new sets of questions arise. Our ability to make sure progress – to shake loose from the tyranny of old ideas – will depend upon our ability to uncover the most reliable clues. Our challenge is always to separate the genuine from the spurious. In the most recent issue of The Veterinary Journal, Dr. Dan O’Neill and colleagues of the Royal Veterinary College, London, UK, and the University of Sydney, Australia, present the results of a canine longevity study conducted in England (O’Neill et al., 2013). The authors begin their paper: ‘Improved understanding of longevity represents a significant welfare opportunity for the domestic dog.’ They are undoubtedly correct in making this assertion. And, as their work draws attention to the need to better understand aging, it also points out the need to carve out a research habitat that will nurture progress – an informed interplay of complementary approaches so that new discoveries can enhance the precision of our predictions. To better understand what we are learning about canine longevity, we should examine longevity research in dogs more closely. It is detective work of this sort that just might surrender the most important clue of all – an understanding of what is missing. Where shall we look for what is missing? It would seem logical that indicators of the well-being of any investigative enterprise might fall within three domains of critical self-assessment. First, we might reflect upon who we are as investigators. Exploring the biology and epidemiology of longevity and successful aging will be challenging, demanding interdisciplinary expertise and the commitment of teams. Furthermore, the training and experience of investigators in any field of inquiry establishes constraints – the preconceived notions and boundaries that will steer the direction and emphasis of the research. Veterinarians educated in North America do not receive training in the biology of aging as part of their Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) curriculum. As a consequence, it is justifiable to question whether their educational experience renders DVMs well-prepared to critically evaluate or effectively debate new research on the biology of successful aging and healthy longevity. At the very least, this educational shortfall – what is missing – translates into a missed opportunity to inspire a critical mass of veterinary professionals to dedicate themselves to investigating canine longevity. As a second step toward evaluating what is missing from canine longevity research, we might consider the individuals that we are investigating. Just what are the origins of the canine populations we are counting on to offer up clues about successful aging? If we