has always been ultimately serious about research. Asking the question why? Several years ago, the organization
began to sponsor research by experts in particular fields, accepting the results as a non-biased, non-postpositive, opinions
or fact. The research was been conducted by many institutions, members, and individual specialty groups:
Texas A&M, Cornell University, Purdue University, North Carolina State University, American Insurance Institute, Lawrence
Livermore Labs, Dr. Rafe Pandoff, Sigma-Aldridge, Dr. Julie Packard, just to name a few.
In 2009, the organization established a permanent research division,
whereby continuous programs and information would be consistently operational to further ask the questions, why and how? Now
it is extremely important to explain the difference between research for the global reach and research for a biased action.
There are so many papers and documents that are publishes all across the web, referring to research (some of it very proper
and treated by scientific professionals). Unfortunately, often these studies are either review information that already
exists and is readily accepted, argue points of personal opinion, or are carried out by K9 handler and trainers, who happen
to have an excellent academic background and availability for research. Again, much of this work is super but ASCT has
very specific guidelines for research we sponsor or development projects we pay for.
1. ASCT produces the questions that we seek answers to: We provide the researcher
with the information we already have: tested, untested, opinion, fact.
2. We only select researchers who
do not have any stake in K9. Meaning, we want the researcher to not be affiliated with K9. Therefore, the results
are completely non-opinionated and biased.
3. We typically sponsor research for topics that are non-training
related. For example, many documents available on the web may base a finding on a distance for the canine olfactory
detection of a specific item or scent. The ASCT research division understands a simple concept very well:
The accuracy of a canine nasal engagement is based on so many varied factors, including the handler, that in order to
accurately report research on the findings of canine behavioristic actions, a large number of dogs must be tested.
If the researcher is K9 applicable, then he might be sharing results based on one canine, his canine. If that
team is exceptionally good, the results might report something far different then a team not so in tune. It is for this that
ASCT research deals far more with physiological, neurological, cognition, chemistry, physics, and geological actions. We
are not concerned so much with how close to a vehicle can a canine alert to scent. We are concerned with what exactly
is occurring to the narcotic gasses inside various models and makes of vehicles, under specific temperature changes, and when
there are other factors present such as windows down, etc. Once that is determined, the K9 training and education can be modified
by the handler to best allow the canine to work the odor. Canines are each different. And techniques for approaching
problems vary with each dog. Thus, the research needs to be aside from the canine.
4. ASCT aquires the
research results as is. Meaning: If the results assist K9, we will implement it. If not, we do not. The
concept of the research is the question, not the answer. Sometimes, the result is not what was expected. Another
reason for assuring unbiased consultation.
We are sponsoring and reporting on research of MAMMALIAN COGNITION and MEMORY
have proposed a development of the latest liability awareness score formula from the American Insurance Institute
are sponsoring a research for succinct explanation of human odors (VOC) as it relates to chromatography and the environment