Note: This is a revised version of the book review I wrote when Zoobiquity came out. I’m also including this link to Barbara Natterson-Howitz’s TED Talk because I believe this material is more relevant than ever. If more in the human medical community accepted the work of veterinary and wildlife scientists as on a par with their own, the response to potential and actual cross-species human-to-animal and animal-to-human infections would be much more efficient. This isn’t about maintaining professional status. It’s about saving human as well as animal lives.
Zoobiquity: The Astonishing Connection Between Human and Animal Health by Barbara Natterson-Horwitz, MD and Kathryn Bowers (Knopf, 2012)
As a veterinarian with a long-standing interest in the interaction of health, behavior, and the human-animal bond, of necessity I pay attention to what’s going on in human as well as animal health and behavior. As a clinician, I rely on human input and support to help my animal patients. Anything that compromises animal caregivers’ health and behavior could comprise their ability to do this. This inter-species orientation also is essential to preserve the safety of my patients and those of all species who interact with them, including humans. Aside from that, using my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society by promoting public health and medical science (among other obligations) was part of the oath I and countless other veterinarians took when we graduated.
Because of this, I found Zoobiquity by Barbara Natterson-Horwitz, MD and Kathryn Bowers a long overdue introduction to a subject long ignored by many in the human medical professions. Many similarities exist between normal and abnormal animal and human physical conditions and behavioral displays.
The combination of Dr. Horowitz’s experiences and Kathryn Bowers’ writing and editing skills results in a very readable discussion of one highly trained cardiologist/psychiatrist’s foray into a world familiar to many animal professionals—e.g. veterinarians, wildlife biologists, ethologists, ecologists, ranchers, farmers, breeders—and others interested in animal health and behavior. As the authors point out, the human medical profession traditionally has held itself above those who worked with animals. Those who dared propose that similarities existed in human and animal behavior and/or medical conditions often risked vigorous censure from the human medical and behavioral community. This threat didn’t affect those of us working in near-obscurity who often had excellent working relationships with some of those human medical and behavioral professionals. But it most certainly could put the damper on a promising academic career.
Readers unfamiliar with human-animal health and behavior crossovers will enjoy the range of topics the authors chose to make their case. Cancer, addiction, eating disorders, erectile dysfunction, obsessive-compulsive displays, sexually transmitted diseases, bullying, risky adolescent behavior…: you name it and animals somewhere are experiencing it. Moreover, sometimes they’ve worked out solutions to problems that could be adapted for human use. Equally intriguing in this era when shrinking definitions of normal threaten to relegate all but a lucky few to a physically and behaviorally diseased or pre-diseased status, the merits of embracing the wider range of normal (and the survival-enhancing diversity that goes with it) found in wild animal populations merits consideration.
The authors provide multiple compelling reasons why an elitist view that dismisses what is known about animal health and behavior could cost, and already has cost, the human population dearly. But how might such a combined approach work? Instead of viewing particular medical or behavioral conditions as uniquely human, human medical researchers might expand their preliminary literature searches to include wild and domestic animal studies. In such a way these folks could build on relevant existing research regarding similar conditions in animals, thereby saving time and research dollars. Given the readily accessible animal medical and behavioral database —including for Canis lupus familiaris, the species with whom we’ve intimately co-evolved for so long—what a mother lode of insight into comparable human conditions this information could provide!
And speaking of Canis lupus familiaris, I do wish the authors had devoted a chapter to the physiological and behavioral effects of domestication as these relate to human-animal health and behavioral similarities. Admittedly those who maintain a “Humans at the Top of the Species Pyramid orientation may find the idea of humans as members of a domestic species loathsome. And most certainly this idea opens a Pandora’s Box of philosophical and theological considerations that could rival the never-ending evolution debate in scope and passion. After all, who with an exalted view of themselves wants to admit that, relative to our wild ancestors, we possess more neotenic (i.e. immature) physiology and behavior, let alone that we evolve as a mind-body unit? Still, the potential to stimulate the more out-of-the-box thinking this concept evokes can’t be denied.
And while I congratulate the authors on their valiant efforts not to perceive the unfamiliar or personally distasteful as pathogenic, they didn’t always succeed. For those with a more comprehensive view, the starting point when faced with any long-standing physical or behavioral phenomenon, no matter how superficially detrimental it may appear, is to acknowledge that it persists because it bestows some benefit that outweighs its cost. In the case of parasites this awareness led to research demonstrating the role parasites may play in the development of a healthy immune response.
This upside-of-parasite research simultaneously complements the increased awareness that the organisms which dwell within us form an ecosystem consisting of a diverse, balanced population or microorganisms upon which we depend for our optimum physical and mental health. This functions not unlike the way our health also depends on the presence of a diverse and balanced population of animal and plant life in our macro-environment. Does the fact that any one component of these may create problems for certain individuals when that balance is upset justify the wholesale destruction of that organism (let alone that of any “good” organisms also wiped out by the treatment) because we’re blinded to the broader picture by our pathogenic labels?
Readers of Zoobiquity no doubt will experience many light bulb moments as they read and think of their own experiences 
with animals. A personal one occurred within the first few pages of the book. When Dr. Horwitz did the familiar stare-baby talk routine with a tarmarin (a very small primate), the zoo veterinarian asked her to stop lest she throw the animal into capture myopathy. I knew that wild animals related to by people in a manner the animals perceived as an incomprehensible mix of dominant and subordinate displays literally could scare them to death. And I also knew from my own clinical experience that similar mixed human responses aimed at some dogs and cats could generate a significant amount of animal stress. Sometimes this resulted in a fear-based aggressive animal response.
From what I’ve learned from some pediatricians and nurses, daycare providers and others who work with young kids, such adult human displays may generate a similar amount of stress in some babies and toddlers too. But would these youngsters’ responses be considered pathological, or would they be considered normal within the context in which they occur? And as with animals, should we drug or otherwise change the children so that they’re willing to accept this behaviorally unacceptable adult human behavior? Or should the onus be on the adults to change their inappropriate behavior to benefit the children?
Most people consider the answer to that a no-brainer. Unfortunately their no-brainer answers may be quite opposite! Studies in the human-animal bond also expand the notion of One Health, a subject briefly touched on by the authors of Zoobiquity. As soon as we acknowledge how the bond and animal and human health and behavioral parallel and impact each other, adding natural and artificial environmental influences logically follows. Still, the authors’ first venture into a fertile but long-neglected area necessitated that the authors of Zoobiquity choose those topics that would make their points, as well as engage a diverse and in some cases possibly skeptical audience. In that regard, they succeeded admirably.
Note: This is a revised version of the book review I wrote when Zoobiquity came out. I’m also including this link to Barbara Natterson-Howitz’s TED Talk because I believe this material is more relevant than ever. If more in the human medical community accepted the work of veterinary and wildlife scientists as on a par with their own, the response to potential and actual cross-species human-to-animal and animal-to-human infections would be much more efficient. This isn’t about maintaining professional status. It’s about saving human as well as animal lives.
As a veterinarian with a long-standing interest in the interaction of health, behavior, and the human-animal bond, of necessity I pay attention to what’s going on in human as well as animal health and behavior. As a clinician, I rely on human input and support to help my animal patients. Anything that compromises animal caregivers’ health and behavior could comprise their ability to do this. This inter-species orientation also is essential to preserve the safety of my patients and those of all species who interact with them, including humans. Aside from that, using my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society by promoting public health and medical science (among other obligations) was part of the oath I and countless other veterinarians took when we graduated.
Because of this, I found Zoobiquity by Barbara Natterson-Horwitz, MD and Kathryn Bowers a long overdue introduction to a subject long ignored by many in the human medical professions. Many similarities exist between normal and abnormal animal and human physical conditions and behavioral displays.
The combination of Dr. Horowitz’s experiences and Kathryn Bowers’ writing and editing skills results in a very readable discussion of one highly trained cardiologist/psychiatrist’s foray into a world familiar to many animal professionals—e.g. veterinarians, wildlife biologists, ethologists, ecologists, ranchers, farmers, breeders—and others interested in animal health and behavior. As the authors point out, the human medical profession traditionally has held itself above those who worked with animals. Those who dared propose that similarities existed in human and animal behavior and/or medical conditions often risked vigorous censure from the human medical and behavioral community. This threat didn’t affect those of us working in near-obscurity who often had excellent working relationships with some of those human medical and behavioral professionals. But it most certainly could put the damper on a promising academic career.
Readers unfamiliar with human-animal health and behavior crossovers will enjoy the range of topics the authors chose to make their case. Cancer, addiction, eating disorders, erectile dysfunction, obsessive-compulsive displays, sexually transmitted diseases, bullying, risky adolescent behavior…: you name it and animals somewhere are experiencing it. Moreover, sometimes they’ve worked out solutions to problems that could be adapted for human use. Equally intriguing in this era when shrinking definitions of normal threaten to relegate all but a lucky few to a physically and behaviorally diseased or pre-diseased status, the merits of embracing the wider range of normal (and the survival-enhancing diversity that goes with it) found in wild animal populations merits consideration.
The authors provide multiple compelling reasons why an elitist view that dismisses what is known about animal health and behavior could cost, and already has cost, the human population dearly. But how might such a combined approach work? Instead of viewing particular medical or behavioral conditions as uniquely human, human medical researchers might expand their preliminary literature searches to include wild and domestic animal studies. In such a way these folks could build on relevant existing research regarding similar conditions in animals, thereby saving time and research dollars. Given the readily accessible animal medical and behavioral database —including for Canis lupus familiaris, the species with whom we’ve intimately co-evolved for so long—what a mother lode of insight into comparable human conditions this information could provide!
And speaking of Canis lupus familiaris, I do wish the authors had devoted a chapter to the physiological and behavioral effects of domestication as these relate to human-animal health and behavioral similarities. Admittedly those who maintain a “Humans at the Top of the Species Pyramid orientation may find the idea of humans as members of a domestic species loathsome. And most certainly this idea opens a Pandora’s Box of philosophical and theological considerations that could rival the never-ending evolution debate in scope and passion. After all, who with an exalted view of themselves wants to admit that, relative to our wild ancestors, we possess more neotenic (i.e. immature) physiology and behavior, let alone that we evolve as a mind-body unit? Still, the potential to stimulate the more out-of-the-box thinking this concept evokes can’t be denied.
And while I congratulate the authors on their valiant efforts not to perceive the unfamiliar or personally distasteful as pathogenic, they didn’t always succeed. For those with a more comprehensive view, the starting point when faced with any long-standing physical or behavioral phenomenon, no matter how superficially detrimental it may appear, is to acknowledge that it persists because it bestows some benefit that outweighs its cost. In the case of parasites this awareness led to research demonstrating the role parasites may play in the development of a healthy immune response.
This upside-of-parasite research simultaneously complements the increased awareness that the organisms which dwell within us form an ecosystem consisting of a diverse, balanced population or microorganisms upon which we depend for our optimum physical and mental health. This functions not unlike the way our health also depends on the presence of a diverse and balanced population of animal and plant life in our macro-environment. Does the fact that any one component of these may create problems for certain individuals when that balance is upset justify the wholesale destruction of that organism (let alone that of any “good” organisms also wiped out by the treatment) because we’re blinded to the broader picture by our pathogenic labels?
Readers of Zoobiquity no doubt will experience many light bulb moments as they read and think of their own experiences
with animals. A personal one occurred within the first few pages of the book. When Dr. Horwitz did the familiar stare-baby talk routine with a tarmarin (a very small primate), the zoo veterinarian asked her to stop lest she throw the animal into capture myopathy. I knew that wild animals related to by people in a manner the animals perceived as an incomprehensible mix of dominant and subordinate displays literally could scare them to death. And I also knew from my own clinical experience that similar mixed human responses aimed at some dogs and cats could generate a significant amount of animal stress. Sometimes this resulted in a fear-based aggressive animal response.
From what I’ve learned from some pediatricians and nurses, daycare providers and others who work with young kids, such adult human displays may generate a similar amount of stress in some babies and toddlers too. But would these youngsters’ responses be considered pathological, or would they be considered normal within the context in which they occur? And as with animals, should we drug or otherwise change the children so that they’re willing to accept this behaviorally unacceptable adult human behavior? Or should the onus be on the adults to change their inappropriate behavior to benefit the children?
Most people consider the answer to that a no-brainer. Unfortunately their no-brainer answers may be quite opposite! Studies in the human-animal bond also expand the notion of One Health, a subject briefly touched on by the authors of Zoobiquity. As soon as we acknowledge how the bond and animal and human health and behavioral parallel and impact each other, adding natural and artificial environmental influences logically follows. Still, the authors’ first venture into a fertile but long-neglected area necessitated that the authors of Zoobiquity choose those topics that would make their points, as well as engage a diverse and in some cases possibly skeptical audience. In that regard, they succeeded admirably.