[GSAS-Member] To Test or Not To Test............

["Hess, Clay A" <clay.a.hess@boeing.com>]

Soooo, I finally could resist this thread no longer.  My two cents on
testing (rigorous or otherwise), financial incentives and the user
community.

First, rigorous testing.  There is a place for it.  We do a lot of this
in my industry and I am very glad of it.  I would like to think that is
part of what makes our airplanes the best available to fly on.  Rigorous
testing works great on inanimate subjects and can prove to be very
worthwhile.  With that said, testing is just that....testing.  Without
using the data from the testing to verify hypotheses and arrive at
conclusions we would have no use for testing. 

The problem with "financial incentives" is exemplified in what we see
today in the drug industry. ABUSE and COST.  Drug research is not a
simple thing.  Developing and testing new drugs costs a fortune.  With
the push to find better drugs for less cost driving the drug industry,
the opportunity for abuse is high.  Drugs are tested on subjects that
may not realize the implications.  And, drugs are tested on animals that
have no choice.  The only thing that limits this abuse is the fact that
human subjects can speak out against this type of abuse.

Imagine what this industrial abuse could be like if all we were doing
was developing and testing new drugs for fish.  Who knows where this
could lead?  Our waters are polluted enough, but, given the proper
"financial incentive" I could see major drug companies poisoning our
rivers, lakes and oceans in an attempt to find the ultimate fish
medications.  Not a pretty vision.  "Rigorous testing" does not play out
so well on living subjects if done for the wrong reasons.

Thus, I am happy to not have "rigorous testing" on fish medications.  If
given the choice between clean rivers, lakes and oceans or medicating my
fish with rigorously tested medications, I shall choose the clean water.
And, in the search for medications that might work to fix my fish's
maladies I will ask other aquarists for their experiences and treat my
fish based on this input.  

Once again, looking at testing and the fact it does no good without the
data being analyzed and conclusions based on the analysis I would
venture to say Aquarists can prove useful. Aquarist can provide
reasonably good data if analyzed appropriately and it is understood
there are limitations as to how the data was aquired.  For instance,
many hobbyists have told me that changing 50% of the tank water once a
week keeps their fish in premium condition.  In fact, so many hobbyists
told me this that I feel compelled to change my water on this same
schedule.  My fish seem very happy when their water is changed this
frequently and to this extent.  A simple enough treatment and one that
is only based on hearsay from other aquarists.  However, I have found
evidence to support this treatment myself. Going on vacation for two
weeks and, thus, not changing the water in my aquariums for almost three
weeks because of this, I came home to ill fish.  These fish seemed
"stressed" and behaved rather different from their usual patterns.  I
changed 75% of their water immediately upon seeing this.  The next day
my fish seemed much better, more like they should before I left on
vacation.  Now, I could chock this change, in my fish's health, up to
the fact that they missed me.  Yet, somehow, I really do not believe
that to be the case.  I do think that the "treatment", that I was shown
by many aquarists, was more likely the solution to my fish's illness.

There ya go...lots of words.....one conclusion......."What works for
you, just might work for me too"......and I appreciate all the data our
club members share with me....it does add value to my aquarium hobby
experience.

Clay


-----Original Message-----
From: matt kaufman [mailto:igotadose@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:49 PM
To: gsas-member@thekrib.com
Subject: Re: [GSAS-Member] big cichlid appetites...

What's missing from all this discussion on how to treat fish is any sort
of rigorous testing of results in order to form conclusions. We're just
sharing our individual experiences, and recommending what works for us.
The problem is, that's the best you'll ever find for the ornamental fish
industry, as there's little financial incentive to implement anything
resembling a rigorous set of tests with reproducible, accurately
measured results. This is why there are, for example, no expiration
dates on fish food, nor on a lot of medications, and marketing of
products like "Bausman's Miracle Tonic" 
or "Miracle Food" or "Chemi-Pure" that don't describe their contents, or
that nowhere will you see the words "Guaranteed Analysis" on fish food
or meds.

It's simply just, "What works for me."  Dumping vitamins in megadoses
into the water might do something - or maybe it's because the fish is
isolated, the water is changed regularly, it's not having to compete for
food, etc.  I certainly wouldn't be in favor of that treatment as it
risks fouling the water, nor has there been anything but anecdotal
evidence for success of alternative treatments for people (i.e., since
it's just voodoo for humans, applying the same reasoning to fish
treatment is no more than continuing to promulgate voodoo treatment)

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from
McAfee(r) Security.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
GSAS-Member mailing list
GSAS-Member@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/gsas-member

_______________________________________________
GSAS-Member mailing list
GSAS-Member@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/gsas-member