Microchips Save Lives
Like anything nowadays, microchips have taken a beating from the press. What’s infuriating about such articles is their ignorance of how science and research work. It goes like this; the scientist has a question. She creates an experiment to prove or disprove a hypothesis. The study is conducted, observations made, results calculated. The hypothesis is either proven or disproved. A theory is suggested when the experiment can be repeated with the same results. One study such as the one cited above does not a theory make. The way it’s reported though, a reader would assume that microchips pose a high risk of cancer.
Microchips provide a permanent way to identify pets. Permanent identification is required when traveling overseas or if an animal is shown. Once a pet is microchipped, the registered data is entered into a national database. If Fido gets out the back yard or is lost in Spokane while on vacation with his owners, he can be identified, his owners contacted, and the pet and his owner reunited. What’s the alternative? Less than 25% of lost pets ever get reunited with their owners. A sobering fact, indeed.
To give the other side its due, microchips are not without their issues. There can be failure of the chip. A chip can migrate. There is controversy surrounding the chip itself. As regards to cancer, the evidence is barely present. The British Small Animal Veterinary Association has tracked adverse reactions with microchips for 11 years. During that time, an association between microchips and cancer was found in two dogs. Over four million pets are microchipped in the United Kingdom. The consensus of the American Veterinary Medical Association is that the benefits outweigh the minimal risks.
