Deknow stated:
<1. The two authors listed besides Dr. Lu are my friends, and people whom
I respect greatly.>
You might ask your friends how they ended up on the paper, and whether
they fully understood what was done in the experiment, the unsupported
premises.
You said one is a bee inspector. Unless he's seen CCD, it is easy to be
persuaded that CCD is the same as a varroa induced dwindle, as Randy pointed
out. I've some friends who are bee inspectors who still don't believe
that CCD is anything other than varroa dwindle (as it seems does our friend
Bob H), or a varroa induced exodus - I've seen this as it played out in some
tunnel trials. If the bee inspector has not seen actual cases of CCD, it
is likely he wouldn't know the difference. Randy and I have seen both
the mite induced and the CCD induced dwinder/collapse; and they are different.
As per your friend the entomologist, social insect biology and a specific
problem like CCD is not a syndrome the average entomologist would
encounter. Bees are very different than most other insects, being one of the few
social populations(made up of sub-families) that persist year round. That
makes them a different system to study from a toxicological perspective. The
difference affects many issues, including appropriate statistical design.
Years ago, when I started using bees in studies of pollution, I used to say
that bees were one of the only animal species that were biological
indicators and biological monitors at the same time. Indicators are usually very
sensitive to an impact, respond rapidly, often die. Individual bees are
often indicators, as are SMALL groups of bees that are too small to
coordinate complex social behaviors. The entire colony, on the other hand is a
biological monitor, where the population responds in ways that provide
long-term data. Some bees and the queen usually survive anything other than a
very severe poisoning event. My point is that the colony itself responds
differently than individual bees or small groups of bees.
What I see in the Harvard study are unsupported claims made ( I assume) by
the principal investigator - e.g., imidacloprid occurs in HFCS at levels
of concern being the biggest unsupported claim (some would call this a
lie), sublethal levels of imidacloprid that were in reality extremely high
doses, study has sufficient replication to support reliable statistics, which
is not true.
I would imagine the bee inspector and the entomologist trusted that the PI
was making statements based on published studies and knew how to set up a
bee study; that they were flattered to be included as authors - not
realizing that the study ranks (in my opinion) as one of the all time bad studies
in so many ways, the list is getting to be as long as the study.
I don't know much about the background of Dr. Lu. I'm guessing here, but
could it be that the PI got interested in HFCS because of the questions
about human health and high levels of consumption of HFCS?
Add to that the unsupported claims of the 'organic' gentlemen who says
imidacloprid occurs in HFCS - with the 'trust me', we've seen it, but its hard
to analyze for, so I don't have numbers, attitude; and it begins to sound
plausible to a non-bee scientist that HFCS might be an issue. And, as I
said before, initially there was concern about HMF in HFCS. So one can find
people and papers discussing CCD and HFCS.
However, what Dr. Lu would not necessarily know was that HFCS isn't used by
all beekeepers, even amongst commercial beekeepers. And, that only a
small proportion of CCD operations have used HFCS - based on our own surveys.
Dr Lu may also not know that the Gastonia lab has analyzed a lot of
samples, and may not have know to call them and ask about HFCS, as Randy did.
The Harvard paper has been published by press release, then released prior
to publication, but until it appears in press it is not yet a publication.
There is still time to withdraw the article, or for individual authors to
remove their names.
So, I'm hoping your friends were mislead, didn't realize what they were
signing on for, and understand that as co-authors they have options.
I like good movies, and I sometimes like to go to really bad, campy
movies. However, before making a choice, spending my money, I often go to the
Rotten Tomatoes movie review web site. Rotten Tomatoes summarizes film
reviews. Its name derives from audiences throwing _tomatoes_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato) and other _vegetables_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetables) at actors who give a poor stage performance. What makes a
poor score by Rotten Tomatoes brutal is that the scores represent a collective
assessment. As posted today, on this paper, we seem to have a convergence
of agreement by those of us who often argue with each other.
Therefore, I nominate the Harvard study for a Rotten Tomatoe award. Any
suggestions as to an appropriate tomatoe score?
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
|
