Dog DNA Determines Guilt

It is surprising how inexpensive and accessible DNA testing has become. Many readers of Mere Inkling have submitted samples ourselves. But how many of us have had our pets tested?

The science of genetics is quite recent. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) is considered the father of such studies. As Britannica describes the history, “The word genetics was introduced in 1905 by English biologist William Bateson, who was one of the discoverers of Mendel’s work and who became a champion of Mendel’s principles of inheritance.”

Molecular genetics did not begin in earnest until 1941 . . . A major landmark was attained in 1953 when American geneticist and biophysicist James D. Watson and British biophysicists Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins devised a double helix model for DNA structure.

The Human Genome Project didn’t begin until 1990, and didn’t reach its goal until the new millennia. The astute reader will recognize that C.S. Lewis lived before these genetic studies reached their current status, so we should not expect comment from him on DNA per se. Nevertheless, as Francis Sellers Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (2009-2018), says his work is quite compatible with C.S. Lewis’ writings.

In fact, in a lecture at Cambridge, he described how Mere Christianity was pivotal in his conversion from agnosticism to Christianity. According to this preeminent geneticist, “even in the first few pages, all my arguments about faith just fell apart. It was breathtaking . . . Lewis remains my best teacher.”

There is some question as to whether the DNA testing market has peaked. Unsurprising, since it isn’t like tobacco, coffee or rich desserts that “addict” customers to generate repeated purchases. As Advisory Board says, “given one’s genetic data is unlikely to change, most consumers may not see a reason to purchase another DNA testing kit.”

So, how might these corporations remain profitable? Why, by expanding their offerings to the animal kingdom. One such company called Embark claims to offer the “most accurate dog DNA test available.” 

Some people purchase the service to satisfy their curiosity about a pet’s breed (often a blend of several). A more valuable benefit is gaining insights into their health and traits. The oddest aspect of the process appears to be Embark’s boast that they offer “the world’s first canine relative finder.”

Like many of us, C.S. Lewis loved dogs. He didn’t, however, go so far as to worship them. I suspect that C.S. Lewis would opt out of the chance to DNA-define his pets. Best to just love them and savor their companionship.

In his essay “The Personal Heresy,” C.S. Lewis proposes an interesting argument about expressing love only to those capable of receiving it.

There is a reaction at present going on against the excessive love of pet animals. We have been taught to despise the rich, barren woman who loves her lap dog too much and her neighbor too little. It may be that when once the true impulse is inhibited, a dead poet is a nobler substitute than a live Peke, but this is by no means obvious.

You can do something for the Peke, and it can make some response to you. It is at least sentient; but most poetolaters hold that a dead man has no consciousness, and few indeed suppose that he has any which we are likely to modify.*

DNA service businesses are probably licking their lips at the prospects offered by a new market. The French are blazing a new trail for the rest of us. According to Euronews, Béziers will require pet owners to “carry a ‘genetic passport’ for their dog.”

The reason is simple. Too many dog walkers are failing to perform their civic (and humane) duty of cleaning up after their pets. 

Dog excrement found on the streets would be collected and tested then sent to the police. They would match the DNA to national pet registers, locate the owner and charge them up to €122 for cleaning up the streets.

Apparently, similar efforts have been attempted in Valencia, Tel Aviv and portions of London.

It sounds like a rather extreme way to address what superficially appears to be a simple problem. But, sadly, in many places, public sanitation has declined to unbelievable depths. In San Francisco, for example, the once picturesque metropolis has voluntarily surrendered many areas to criminals and addicts who feel no compunction about defecating in public. While I can’t speak for European, Asian, African or Latin American countries, in the U.S. a similar story of decay is repeated in many urban centers.

San Franciscans can’t be criticized for not throwing money at the problem. Nevertheless, when progressive Slate magazine reported last year on the city’s newest public toilet, they said “cities shouldn’t need $1.7 million and years of design review to build a municipal toilet.” 

Not that San Francisco treats such facilities with care. One space age toilet lasted only a few days before malfunctioning. But it was expensive, stainless steel, and bore the upgraded title of “kiosk.”

A highly hyped new SF bathroom hailed as “the future of public toilets” lasted only three days into said future, as the high-tech bathroom kiosk quickly had to be relieved of its duty and found itself closed for repairs.

Since these are manufactured by a Paris-based company, perhaps they can design a canine kiosk to solve the Béziers dilemma? After all, the cost might well be equivalent to the sum of all of the DNA tests the citizens are being forced to cover. 

A Final Thought about Animal DNA

Many of us, like C.S. Lewis, are pet lovers. And many also care about the suffering of other animals, domesticated and wild. There may come a day when DNA testing offers ways to enhance the lives of these other creations of God.

However, it does seem frivolous, does it not, to apply such advanced (and not inexpensive) processes for the purpose of tracking down derelict dog walkers? Or, in other judicatories, which have not yet embraced that level of surveillance, simply to attempt to track down doggie-relatives?

As to the matter of checking pet DNA for genetic abnormalities, “Should you get your pet’s DNA tested? Scientists urge caution” counsels careful consideration.

In the interview, Elinor Karlsson, director of vertebrate genomics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts says,

With genetic tests for humans, there have been so many studies that look at whether or not a certain mutation in your genes actually leads to you developing a certain disease. There just isn’t this massive body of work on dog genomes. So many of these tests are telling owners that their dog could get a certain disease without any major studies on how likely that is to happen. The science needs to catch up.

In response to the question “what are the dangers of potentially inaccurate test results?” Lisa Moses, a veterinarian affiliated with Harvard Medical School in Boston advises,

In my veterinary practice, I’ve seen more and more people coming in with results that show their dog has a chance of developing conditions like epilepsy, heart disease, and degenerative muscular disorders, and they want to make treatment decisions right away.

They’re ready to pay for more tests or medical interventions that the dog might not actually need, that could be quite expensive, and that could be invasive for the dog. In some cases, people preemptively end their dog’s life if they think their dog is predisposed to a degenerative disease, because don’t they want their pet to suffer.

So once again we see that, as they often do, silly scenarios can lead to serious subjects.


* The passage from “The Personal Heresy” continues: 

Unless you hold beliefs which enable you to obey the colophons of the old books by praying for the authors’ souls, there is nothing that you can do for a dead poet: and certainly he will do nothing for you. He did all he could for you while he lived: nothing more will ever come.

 I do not say that a personal emotion towards the author will not sometimes arise spontaneously while we read; but if it does we should let it pass swiftly over the mind like a ripple that leaves no trace. If we retain it we are cosseting with substitutes an emotion whose true object is our neighbour. Hence it is not surprising that those who most amuse themselves with personality after this ghostly fashion often show little respect for it in their parents, their servants, or their wives. 

Peculiarities of the German Language

Mark Twain wrote some entertaining travelogues about his overseas travel. In A Tramp Abroad, he relates a conversation he and a friend had with an American who had been studying veterinary medicine in Germany. The expatriate complains about how long his studies have taken – nearly two years – and proclaims how good it is to hear his native tongue.

The student’s most humorous words relate to his impression of the German language. It’s unusual in its nineteenth century phrasing. However, he does note one rather common opinion in his earthy observation.

“I spotted you for my kind [fellow Americans] the minute I heard your clack. . . .” The young fellow hooked his arm into the Reverend’s, now, with the confiding and grateful air of a waif who has been longing for a friend, and a sympathetic ear, and a chance to lisp once more the

sweet accents of the mother tongue, — and then he limbered up the muscles of his mouth and turned himself loose, — and with such a relish!

Some of his words were not Sunday-school words, so I am obliged to put blanks where they occur. . . . “when I heard you fellows gassing away in the good old American language, I’m – if it wasn’t all I could do to keep from hugging you! My tongue’s all warped with trying to curl it around these forsaken wind-galled nine-jointed, German words here; now I tell you it’s awful good to lay it over a Christian word once more and kind of let the old taste soak in. . . .

“I’m learning to be a horse-doctor! I like that part of it, you know, but ____ these people, they won’t learn a fellow in his own language, they make him learn in German; so before I could tackle the horse-doctoring I had to tackle this miserable language.”

And, as if mastering German wasn’t difficult enough in itself, he continues:

“First-off, I thought it would certainly give me the botts, but I don’t mind it now. I’ve got it where the hair’s short, I think; and dontchuknow, they made me learn Latin, too. Now between you and me, I wouldn’t give a ____ for all the Latin that was ever jabbered; and the first thing I calculate to do when I get through, is to just sit down and forget it. ’Twon’t take me long . . .”

I don’t intend to offend Germans for the challenge their language poses to some. (In fact, one set of my grand-parents named Vonderohe originally came from Pomerania.) But the nature of agglutinative languages is so alien to most of us that the very length of the glued-together words becomes daunting.

Since I’m not a linguist, I had to research to discover as I wrote this post that German is not a truly agglutinative language. It merely uses agglutination. Apparently, the distinction involves distinctions with which most non-linguists need not concern themselves. We can be satisfied with the simplified definition provided by Glottopedia.org – “Agglutinating language is a language which has a morphological system in which words as a rule are polymorphemic and where each morpheme corresponds to a single lexical meaning.”

In truth, it’s quite logical to make new words by stringing them together. Most English compound words are a combination of two elements. Longer Germanic words seem more common. Kraftfahrzeug-Haftpflichtversicherung, for example, sounds “nine-jointed,” but is actually only two words, meaning motor vehicle liability insurance.

C.S. Lewis and the German Language

C.S. Lewis was multilingual, and studied German while relatively young. He and his wife used every language as a source when playing Scrabble.

Nevertheless, Lewis was quite modest about his grasp of German. In 1954, while thanking a German professor for the offer of a philosophy book he had written, Lewis wrote,

I look forward to reading the book (when the translation arrives! My German is wretched, and what there is of it belongs chiefly to the libretto of the Ring and Grimm’s Märchen – works whose style and vocabulary you very possibly do not closely follow).

The following year Lewis wrote once again to Helmut Kuhn. This time it was to thank him for a review Lewis’ works. Lewis said, “it certainly seems to me that your grasp of the whole situation in which I have written and of the relation of my ideas both to it and to each other, goes far beyond any criticism I have yet had.” Before he makes that noteworthy statement, Lewis makes a playful comment relating to the presumed dignity implicit in the German language itself.

To be written about in the German language is, for an Englishman, a grave temptation to spiritual pride. The sentences are so massive and the words so long that, even if the content were less flattering than it is in your article, the subject can hardly resist feeling that he must be a much weightier phenomenon than he had ever supposed!

Eucestoda Words: Well Worth a Postscript

Germans are an accomplished, literate people who take pride in their language. They have gone so far as to coin a word that specifically identifies these sometimes lengthy compound words. Germans call them bandwurmwörter, which literally means “tapeworm words.” (Mark Twain would have delighted in knowing that.)

Friedrich Akademie, an education website, devotes a page on their website to “Beautiful German Tapeworm Words.”

Tapeworm words . . . what a fascinatinglyinventivesemanticnovelty!

Pharisaical Cats

catsCats or dogs? Which makes the best companion? This is one of the few topics guaranteed to arouse arguments as intense as political debates.

The fact is, the first three words already elicited a visceral reaction from most readers. “Cats or dogs” might as well read “cats versus dogs.”

Even though many of our homes welcome both species as residents, we all know they are drastically different. Many dogs eagerly solicit feline playful attention, while most cats choose to remain aloof from them, barely tolerating their canine presence.

The humans who share the habitation may genuinely loves both types of animals, but in the deep recesses of their hearts everyone possesses a (sometimes secret) preference for one or the other.

Of course, if we’re a “cat person” we wouldn’t want our dogs to know that; it would hurt their feelings. And, if we’re a “dog person” we wouldn’t want our cats to know, lest they treat us with even greater disdain than they already do.

C.S. Lewis was an animal lover. He had both dogs and cats during his lifetime. And he recognized well their differences. In a 1955 letter to an American correspondent, he wrote:

We were talking about Cats & Dogs the other day & decided that both have consciences but the dog, being an honest, humble person, always has a bad one, but the Cat is a Pharisee and always has a good one. When he sits and stares you out of countenance he is thanking God that he is not as these dogs, or these humans, or even as these other Cats!

I love Lewis’ comparison of their temperaments. I don’t think I’ve ever met a cat who was not at least a little bit self-righteous. As for canines . . . even disobedient rascals (like our yet-to-be-sufficiently-trained adolescent border collie) are quite aware of the fact that they are being “bad.” Some are even grow remorseful.

In a 1961 missive Lewis addresses the psychoanalysis of a cat. He is responding to a correspondent’s announcement that her veterinarian had diagnosed her cat with some behavioral problem.

I hope your vet is not a charlatan? Psychological diagnoses even about human patients seem to me pretty phoney. They must be even phonier when applied to animals.

You can’t put a cat on a couch and make it tell you its dreams or produce words by ‘free association’. Also—I have a great respect for cats—they are very shrewd people and would probably see through the analyst a good deal better than he’d see through them.

Lewis is quite likely correct in this observation. Our cats obviously see through all of their human “family.” They are not only astute, they act disinterested, but actively observe us all day long. (Well, at least during the ninety-four minutes when they are not napping each day.)

I have written about C.S. Lewis’ dogs in the past. I’ll close now with a passing reference Lewis made in a 1962 letter to a fellow cat-lover.

We [you and I] are also both ruled by cats. Joy’s Siamese—my ‘step-cat’ as I call her—is the most terribly conversational animal I ever knew. She talks all the time and wants doors and windows to be opened for her 1000 times an hour.

So it goes with our pharisaical felines. With majestic posture, they patiently wait for us to fulfill their commands.