Several on the list have commented about the apparent fuzziness in
research protocol that we have encountered with respect to the use of
various oils to treat mites, as well as funding for such research.
 
   I will comment about only a few of the points raised:
 
1)   Jerry Bromenshenk wrote (in part):
 
>....In the U.S., most Research Grants REQUIRE Publication and Dissemination
>of Results - they do not impose a gag on the investigator.  Failure to
>publish in Peer-Reviewed Journals will bring one's research to an end in a
>hurry.  Most academic and national laboratory research falls into this
>category.
 
   My comment:   If I remember correctly, Dr. Pedro indicated that he would
publish his techniques and results of experimentation so that we could all
have the opportunity to independently assess the quality of work and
successful results he has alluded to.  So far, I have not seen such an
account appear in print.  (I want to see the data.)
 
   [Roy Nettleback said much the same in his comment:  "Your work is not
lost. It needs a published research paper that can pass the test of the
scientific community."]
 
>[Bromenshenk again: ....I encourage every beekeeper to help promote and
>sponsor >critical research.
>But if you send your check, you have a right to expect a full accounting of
>what you paid for (how was the money spent, what was the research, what are
>the results?).  There are many good researchers in this world who would be
>more than glad to have some support for a bit of equipment, or a student.
>And many are non-profit.
 
   My comment:   Only rarely would a person working alone be able to do all
the experimentation, keep all the records and books, and send full reports
to all those who contributed money.  That is why we have university, USDA,
and state research groups.  The "overhead" from their grants provides wages
for people to do much of the routine paperwork.  (The sponsored researcher,
though, must still write the proposals and reports.)
 
*********
 
2.   Roy Nettleback wrote:
 
>....I have no doubt about  FGMO killing Varroa. We can kill varroa with many
>different means.  A fine mist of oil was used years ago to kill the mites. It
>killed the mites and some bees along with it because the application did not
>have a standard.  Over the last year we have had beekeepers here in
>Washington State, using spray bottles and killing all of their bees. A
>little bit of information is inherently dangerous in the hands of
>beekeepers.  Carefully applied, means different things to different people.
 
   My comment:   Relying on testimonials from people who successfully
tinkered with their colonies is like too readily accepting comments from
those who just returned from Las Vegas, Reno, or Atlantic City and reported
on their winnings.  You normally hear only from those who beat the system
that last trip.  The legion of people who lost money remain remarkably
silent when they return home.  (Those large gambling casinos were not built
because players most often won!)
 
   So also with a beekeeper who has tried a method that failed.  We can
expect silence from such a person.  Perhaps the technique was applied
wrong.  Perhaps the beekeeper is too embarrassed to admit to a large loss
of colonies by being foolish.  Many rationalizations are possible.  And
what about a technique working in one part of the country but not in
another --- or in one season but not in another?
 
3.  Another beekeeper wrote that he was switching to FGMO for all his colonies.
 
   Our research on Santa Cruz Island indicates that colonies can remain
viable for more than two years after varroa infestation before collapsing.
That collapse is sudden.  As I have indicated before, colonies seem to have
a morale breakdown --- they just give up.  Do you beekeepers really want to
put all your eggs in one basket and then wait more than two years before
realizing that the experimental technique failed?
 
4.  Someone else wrote that older beekeepers and researchers were too set
in their ways and thus would not accept some new technique.
 
   My comment:   I have found some of the older people actually become
mellow and more willing to accept new ideas ("older and wiser").  Others
remain fixed in their opinions until they die.
 
   I have also seen many young people come out of their education and/or
training VERY fixed in their belief systems and totally unwilling to
entertain alternative explanations to the "facts" indoctrinated into them.
 
 
   In other words, let's not consider one's age a factor in this discussion.
 
********
 
   Yours for better science.
 
                              Adrian (nearly 70 and still fighting mindsets)
 
Adrian M. Wenner                         (805) 893-2838 (UCSB office)
Ecol., Evol., & Marine Biology           (805) 893-8062  (UCSB FAX)
Univ. of Calif., Santa Barbara           (805) 963-8508 (home office & FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA  93106
 
***********************************************************************
*  "Discovery is to see what everyone else has seen,                  *
*         but to think what no one else has thought."                 *
*                                       ---    Albert Szent-Gyorgyi   *
***********************************************************************