Hi Randy,

Thanks for raising this point but I must respectfully disagree. The criticisms and critical papers that continue to build around this topic are a fundamental part of the checks and balances that keep science moving forward. The implication in that sentence is that for science to move forward, it's current body of knowledge that it will build on must be correct within the limits of current technology; if we do not continue to question that then we would be practicing religion, not science. The response papers in particular are exactly how the scientific community questions its own (collective) findings and tests out every reasonable alternative explanation for an observation to ensure that it either meets an acceptable standard or it does not, in which case it is rejected. The point you raise here, about a suitable positive control, is a great one but is based on a flawed assumption. Had either of our groups taken a new set of colonies and looked for iridoviruses then yes, we would need to include a positive control but that was not the experiment(s) we did. In fact, in both studies we conducted precisely the appropriate positive control by analyzing the data using the same parameters that the Army did and in doing this we were able to find the same things that they did - iridoviruses and Nosema, among other things. Contrary to this, however, when the same (Knudsen/Chalkley) or similar (my own) data is analyzed in the manner in which the proteomics field has collectively agreed is the best way to do it, one does NOT find any evidence of iridoviruses. As you intimate though, a negative result is difficult to fully interpret and in both my paper and the Knudsen/Chalkley paper we do NOT claim that iridoviruses are not in bees, we simply state that the current evidence does not support such a statement.

In this situation all of this discussion could have been avoided if accepted analytical methods had been used and/or if all the data had been made available; the proteomics community has gone to great lengths to agree on guidelines around both aspects to avoid this very scenario.

To your main point though, these 'ridiculous' papers contain a BETTER positive control than the one you suggest and this 'scientific sniping' IS called for as it is evidence of a healthy scientific community whose primary interest is seeing the advancement of accurate knowledge that can explain the world around us. To try to shut it down is akin to big oil trying to muzzle climate change scientists.

Cheers

Leonard






> > Neither analysis revealed any evidence to suggest the presence of an Iridovirus in healthy or CCD colonies.
> 
> Well duh!  If they didn't find it the first time, why would anyone expect them to find it by looking essentially the same way a second time?
> 
> I don't know or really care if the Army found iridovirus or not, but these critical papers are getting ridiculous.  None of them include a positive control--that is, a sample known to contain ANY iridovirus of any sort, in order to validate that their methods would actually pick up an iridovirus in a sample handled in that manner should it actually be there.
> 
> No CCD researcher prior to DeRisi had identified spiroplasms, Lake Sinai virus, nor the phorid fly, yet DeRisi found them in abundance in his samples!  So simply not "finding" something obviously doesn't necessarily mean that it's not there.
> 
> This sort of "scientific" sniping is disingenuous and uncalled for.  It is not difficult to practice looking for iridoviruses in known infected samples with one's equipment.  Until other researchers perfect that technique, IMHO they should not waste ink in publishing critical (and often erroneous) analyses of the Army's findings.
> 
> I blind copied this post to most of the researchers involved in criticism of the Army findings.  I welcome them to respond either directly to the List, or off list to me personally.
> 
> Randy Oliver


             ***********************************************
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