Bob observes:
> it seems the quickest way to fame in research today is to do a anti neonic paper?

Right. Earlier studies where the effect of field realistic doses were used were not wildly popular. The difference between those and the ones being done now is clear. Early studies were meant to determine if neonics were safe to use in the field. Later "studies" attempted to prove that neonics are highly toxic to bees, an entirely different goal. 

This is like looking a prescription pain killers to see whether they can be used to commit suicide. Of course they can. Prescription pain killers kill more people than street drugs, the are used in suicides, cause overdoses, and they are highly addictive. The are also perfectly safe when used to control pain and alleviate suffering. 

With effective products come risks. The cost benefit ratio needs to be worked out in an unbiased manner. To suggest that companies that market these products don't look into this is naive, of course they do. Years ago I was told by a highway engineer that ratio of the degree of a curve to human fatalities had been worked out.

More curve, more deaths. This was compared to the cost of straightening the route where obstacles like hills would suggest a curve. The cost of human lives was calculated against the cost of moving earth, etc. Anyone who goes on a highway is taking a calculated risk of dying. Sadly, it is the people who actually work on highways that are killed the most frequently.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm