"It not a problem of lack of reviewers, it is the "Paleo Movement/Naturalistic bias" of current generations that have taken many scientific boards.?"


Juanse, I don't agree. In the science world where I operate, science is conducted objectively. There is arguable bias in the questions/experiments that are chosen for study, and there is clear bias in the way funding is allocated (think first world health issues like heart disease getting way more funds than third world issues like malaria, although more people die from malaria worldwide than heart disease) but the *process* of science, once it is underway, is protected pretty well from bias. Review is meant to correct problems of experimental design, and also problems of interpretation. Had I reviewed that paper, I would have told the authors to re-frame their claims around "processed" vs. "raw" carbs fed to bees, and the genomic expression consequent to that. They would have had to do one more series of tests, these would include "raw" nectar as well as "processed" HFCS and sucrose. Then the paper would have been much more valuable. So I still maintain that reviewers are to blame here.


Christina


             ***********************************************
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