Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 5 Nov 2022 18:57:26 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> The funds were specifically for research to examine the parameters of specific practical beekeeping problems. Many applicants had 'pure' science in mind and publishing something unrelated.
Or was the "pure science" intended to uncover the basic premise underlying the issue, and allow one to move forward with a workable theory rather than blindly moving forward with trial and error?
> A few years back we wondered if commonly used GRAS food preservatives used to prevent molding and other microbial food spoilage might work against nosema due to some commonalities in the organisms. A month or two and a grand or two later we had an answer. No significant effect.
So trial and error was directly funded, and the money was wasted.
What if that same money were spent to find our more about the Nosema "life-cycle"? "Know Your Enemy", etc. That has a much higher chance of revealing what WILL work against Nosema.
It is not my place to critique how a bunch of beekeepers in Alberta want to spend their own money, as they have already chosen to invest in trying to keep bees where they cannot even survive without significant human intervention.
But the end work product of most "basic" research is to rephrase the question, and focus the work to come on a smaller area. It is the single most efficient way to make progress. Just as one example, from the Wright brothers to the moon landing only took 66 years. No room for trial-and-error in that schedule, everyone had to have a good grounding in an uncountable number of theoretical areas and calculation techniques.
***********************************************
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
|
|
|