> >You have a huge audience, Randy, and a huge voice, but your audience sees
> your bias.
TThanks for your opinion Ann. May I suggest that you rethink where the
bias actually lies?
I'm currently in Cleveland (at the A.I. Root Four Pillars of Bee Health
Conference), and just finished an interesting conversation with a prominent
bee health researcher and the director of a beekeeper pesticide-watchdog
group. The three of us were lamenting the strong bias of the scientific
journals towards "sexy" anti-neonic papers, whereas any negative findings
simply cannot find a publisher. This clear bias by the publishers was
inexcusable to us. Our interest is in truth and facts, which are often
difficult for the layman to sort out from all the headlines.
The prominent researcher and I both agreed how we most enjoy when either of
us challenges something that the other says. Rather than going into
defense, either of us then wonders whether we have mis evaluated
something. Since we greatly respect each others' opinions, we then
question our own opinions. And both of us have over the years publicly
reversed our opinions on certain things when new data supported a
reevaluation. Overall, we agreed that we both like when we independently
reach the same working conclusions.
And we both lamented how old it is getting to be demonized by those who
disagree about what we say. The discussion should not be about the
person--it should be about the evidence and its interpretation.
I also spent considerable time speaking with a few large professional
beekeepers (who run tens of thousands of hives in agricultural areas). We
all agreed that there are clear problems with neonics, as with any
pesticide (mostly planting dust issues, applications other than seed
treatments, effects upon native pollinators, and perhaps other as yet
confirmed adverse effects upon queens or immune response). But the
conversations of all tended to shift to their frustrations of everything
being blamed on neonics. The consensus was clearly that we should focus
more upon fungicides and "inerts." And of course, varroa and miticide
adverse effects.
I'm finding it quite interesting that many others are now directing their
attention to fungicides and inerts--something that I've been suggesting for
years. This is not to give neonics or any other pesticide a free ride, but
rather due to the fact that both commercial beekeepers as well as research
data consistently tends to link fungicide exposure to colony health issues.
In any case, I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em. You can bet money
that I will continue to report on good research, no matter whose opinion it
supports. And I will continue to critique shoddy research or unsupported
conclusions when appropriate.
I review the research and claims either pro- or anti-neonics just the same
as I review the research and claims on varroa treatments, pollen subs, and
bee health products. Oh, I've also been busting the myth of pollen
digestion in beebread--I don't know what sort of antibacterial bias I will
be accused of.
The most amusing perhaps are those who accuse me of being a sellout to
Monsanto, when in fact I'm on Monsanto's shit list for comments that I
submitted to EPA on the registration of RNAi products (of which I am in
favor).
I don't ask anyone to believe anything I write. What I do suggest is that
you do as I do--read the research in full yourself with unbiased scientific
skepticism and see whether it stands up to scrutiny. Ask yourself whether
it would hold water in a court of law.
And if you've already got your mind made up on the neonics or anything
else, then why even bother reading my posts? I write to inform and to
challenge fuzzy thinking. This forum is a great check for whether one's
thinking can stand up to polite challenge, as it should be.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com
***********************************************
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
|
