Randy has suggested a group study of pesticides and bees.
I spent many years conducting pollution impact studies, with hundreds of
volunteers taking samples and making measurements (70s-80s, then on to
more traditional research trials at DOE and DoD sites during 90s through 2002.
Since our primary issue at the time of working with volunteers (70s-80s)
was the possible air pollution impacts from EPA Superfund Hazardous Waste
Sites, the environmental, human, and legal aspects were in many ways similar
to those that will be encountered with a study of pesticides and bees.
Bad science wouldn't accomplish anything useful, the science had to be
good.
We managed to publish our citizen (volunteer) science in journals such as
Science, so I think we met the quality standard:
Science 8 February 1985:
Vol. 227 no. 4687 pp. 632-634 DOI: 10.1126/science.227.4687.632 Pollution
Monitoring of Puget Sound with Honey Bees _J. J. BROMENSHENK_
(http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=J.+J.+BROMENSHENK&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)
, _S. R. CARLSON_
(http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=S.+R.+CARLSON&sortspec=date&submit=Submit) , _J. C. SIMPSON_
(http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=J.+C.+SIMPSON&sortspec=date&submit=Submit) and _J. M. THOMAS_
(http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=J.+M.+THOMAS&sortspec=date&submit=
Submit)
When we conducted this study, which encompassed several years, EPA sent
out Quality Assurance Monitors to visit and audit our volunteers. The EPA QA
folks were sure we couldn't conduct quality research with a volunteer
group and attain quality standards.
They were wrong, and they admitted it. Our success ended up impacting
future work through some of the EPA labs - if a contractor said it wasn't
possible to impose a high level of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
standards on a field study, EPA pointed to our research; reasoning, if we
could do it with volunteers, then there was no reason why a contractor could
n't figure out how to meet rigorous QA/QC with their trained crews.
That's not to say conducting citizen based science was easy, nor cheap.
It was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work. I spent a lot of time on the
road. We had to not only establish Standard Operating Protocols (guidelines
for how to do each measurement), but I had to TRAIN each and every
volunteer. I then visited most of them to observe (audit) how they were doing
things. Since EPA was cautious, they then sent out their own QA/QC auditor
for an independent audit.
I and my EPA project officer eventually wrote a paper describing the
experience:
Individual Article (Electronic Only) available on the web: _Public
participation in environmental monitoring: A means of attaining network
capability_ (https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/up13t47518048017/) _Jerry
J. Bromenshenk_
(https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/?Author=Jerry+J.+Bromenshenk) and _Eric M. Preston_
(https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/?Author=Eric+M.+Preston) _Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment_ (https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/0167-6369/) , 1986, _Volume
6, Number 1_ (https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/0167-6369/6/1/)
, Pages 35-47.
Bottom line from this paper, we found:
(1) Volunteers with proper training and oversight could satisfy QA/QC
(similar to the GLP mentioned by David Fischer earlier today). If EPA is
going to take your results seriously, you have to establish, maintain, and
document GLP (Good Laboratory Practices),
(2) Volunteers sometimes did better at taking samples and making
measurements than trained researchers - the researchers may have been tired, in a
rush to finish or catch a plane, or just brain-dead from days and days of
sampling and making measurements, so they weren't always on top of things.
The volunteers had a vested interest in the results, in most cases, the
beehives were in their own backyards. I'd get lengthy letters, calls about
people worried whether they were doing it right.
(3) Small scale (I still call them hobby beekeepers) were the most
dependable in terms of correctly sampling, on time, making the correct
measurements, carefully documenting everything - they have the free time and
interest.
Large scale beekeepers were always helpful, but they would get busy, truck
would break down, someone got sick or left, they were short on crew -
the priorities of running the business would usurp the testing/measurements.
With them, it was often better to let them offer access to colonies, have
someone else conduct the tests, make the measurements. (Here's where I
expect some push back from the List - Randy I'd imagine would prioritize
trials, but making a living and hive management has to be the first concern of
many commercial beekeepers).
(4) Our results have held up, in follow on studies conducted by the Air
Pollution agencies in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Specifically, our maps of
pollution dispersion have held up. Almost two decades later when these
agencies conducted extensive soil sampling and analysis - the soils showed the
same dispersion patterns as the bees from the early 80s. In fact, their
reports acknowledge that the bee study was the best match of all of the
studies that they could find, over all of the years.
(5) However, this citizen science approach wasn't exactly cheap. Ensuring
the quality of the data required training, audits, chain of custody for
samples, chemical analysis, etc. The LABOR force was greatly expanded, so
we were able to do a lot more, but there was a significant cost to
organizing and running the trials.
Without training, coordination, audits - you have no idea of the quality
of the science, and any results will be questioned. If the people
conducting the studies do a bad job, the results will just confound the key issues.
Years ago, I suggested that a study like this could be done, and also that
the data streamed to the web in real time. People thought I was joking.
I'm not, the technology is there for equipping hives with scales, adding
weather data, etc. Taking the volunteer idea to the next level, even data
processing and exploration could be distributed - but again, one needs to
establish clear guidelines, or this will just add to the confusion.
Can it be done - certainly. And, it is a way to get the public involved.
Local groups could sponsor hives. For the busy beekeeper, a retiree,
small scale, high school or college student could conduct the measurements.
But, this all needs oversight and coordination, if you want the data to be
useful.
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
|
