University of Lincoln research: “Very seriously flawed and should not be relied on”

Four separate expert reviews find Lincoln’s e-collar research to be full of mistakes
One of the reviewers is the world expert Professor Doug Elliffe who is Deputy Dean of Science at New Zealand’s top-rated University of Auckland. His hard-hitting review concludes that Lincoln’s work is “very seriously flawed and should not be relied on”. [2]
Professor Elliffe also states that there is established research which contradicts Lincoln’s view that reward-based training is better than e-collar training. He has found e-collars to be “reliable” in reducing predatory behaviour by dogs. Such reductions “could certainly not be achieved by positive reinforcement – ‘reward-based learning’ – alone”. [4]
In a second academic critique Sargisson & McLean say that Lincoln produced no evidence to support its conclusion that e-collars caused “suffering”. [5] They also state that, as the dogs were on leads, the results “shed no light on the possible behaviour of the dog if off-lead or when the owner is absent”. The inconsistencies meant that the research “cannot be used to justify the banning of e-collars for the prevention of canine predation”.
Finally a review by the School of Canine Science found that “the bias seems to go one way” as the dogs Lincoln selected for training with e-collars had more pre-existing behaviour problems. [7]
The flaws identified by these expert reviews are not primarily with the analysis in Lincoln’s China et al. (2020) paper. (It was the first attempt at writing a paper by an MSc student.) They are due to multiple errors in the underlying research which Lincoln conducted for Defra.
[1] China, L, Mills, D.S., & Cooper, J.J. (2020). “Efficacy of dog training with and without electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00508/full
[2] Elliffe commentary on China, Mills & Cooper (2020)
[3] The winter of 2010/11 saw extreme weather in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80%9311_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
[4] Elliffe commentary on China, Mills & Cooper (2020) see footnote 8. This view of the efficacy of e-collars concurs with the findings of CAWC, 2012 which stated that ”a systematic review of peer-reviewed scientific publications revealed… that the application of an electrical aversive can suppress predatory-type behaviour and that these effects might be quite enduring”: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/14640/1/CAWC%20ecollar%20report.pdf
[5] Sargisson & McLean draft commentary for Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2020
[6] Bailey review of Lincoln’s AW1402A research project for Defra
[7] School of Canine Science review: https://www.facebook.com/schoolofcaninescience/posts/3160247170734282