Ouch, when the ship is sinking, they cut the money needed to save it.  The
decline of beekeeping reflects the alleged decline of other pollinators.
If this continues, it will certainly become evident by the costs and
country of origin of produce in the grocery stores.  The labs need to be
saved, but they also are badly in need of reorganization and some
re-direction.

The federal labs serve to provide some continuity to long-term issues - bee
diseases, bee genetics, africanized bees.  The current system is top heavy
in infra-structure (buildings, lights, land, administration, salaries).
The pittance that each research scientist gets to support her or his
research is so small as to be almost worthless - I've heard that some are
lucky to get $10k/yr - not a lot when you need replicated experiments,
special equipment, etc.

For example, to examine pesticide residues, the lab needs about
$250-$500,000 in instrumentation alone, then a trained technician, etc.
Its no wonder that private analytical labs charge $400-1000 per sample.

In my opinion, moving the bee labs to southern climates was a mistake.
Remember, Weslaco used to be a Wyoming lab, Tucson a Madison lab.  Bees,
management, mites, treatments for pests and diseases all work differently
in northern states than in southern, and most of the migratory beekeepers
spend several months in the northern tier states.

There are options that could save USDA money, yet not close down the research:

1.  Assign the remaining personnel to a near-by academically-based unit --
that's done for many agricultural and forest service labs.  We have some
housed on our campus.  AND, these don't have to be land grant colleges.
Our own land grant college gave up beekeeping years ago, but we continue to
practice it at a liberal arts college that also has a USDA forestry lab and
a USFWS Cooperative Research Unit.

2.  Use modern information technology to network the various groups, rather
than redistribute scientists into other areas of USDA.

3.  Open up the lines of communication with the industry - why, for
example, is John Edwards, the only USDA employee to regularly participate
on Bee-L?  Are these scientists instructed not to participate in public
forums, or do they have a mandate as those of us at University's do to
provide Public Service?  In my mind, that doesn't mean ignoring bee
discussion groups, reading but not responding.  They are the experts, let's
see some of that expertise shared in forums other than meetings and
articles, or static web pages.

4.  Do these labs have an advisory board composed of various stakeholders?
Beekeepers (commericial and hobbiest, packers, food products, regulatory
folks, etc?)  If not, maybe they should.

5.  I don't mean this as sour grapes, but the existence of the bee labs is
used against those of us outside USDA when we apply for grants.  If we go
to USDA, as an academic, I have to request salary.  As I understand, for
some of these grants programs, USDA scientists can also apply, but since
they work for USDA, they don't charge salaries.  That gives them an edge -
and maybe that's ok.

But, the more serious problem is when agency's like the National Science
Foundation reject a bee study because there are Federal labs whose mandate
is to study bees - AND they argue that the honey bee is an introduced bee
(NSF likes basic science and endemic species).

In the old days, one could get bee research grants from the USDA labs -
that's more or less gone.

Don't get me wrong, the labs serve a vital purpose and need to be preserved
and strengthened for continuity of long term research.  But they could also
use an overhaul.


Failing that, close all of the bee labs, even Weslaco, sell or rent all of
the facilities, and put the recovered funds and the operating budget $$
into a competitive bee research grants program, open to beekeepers, private
groups, and universities.

Cheers

Jerry