Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:15:14 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I couldn't post to Bee-L yesterday, Randy helped me out.
The ABSTRACT that I sent and that Randy forwarded is for a paper published
in PLoS ONE in January. It is the SAME method as in Science paper, but
with more doses and two chemicals, and a different interpretation. The
paper in Science more or less ignores the existence of the earlier, better (in
my opinion) paper. It cites the PLoS ONE paper (Ref 14) but then says
something to the effect that other investigators have seen an effect on
foraging, refs (10-14). Very misleading, forgetting to acknowledge that an
earlier, more extensive study, using same RFID methods, 'scooped' them.
Unfortunately the PLoS ONE paper didn't get any press.
Jerry
***********************************************
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
|
|
|