>What I see here are some mundane and unsurprising results, labeled with a
provocative click-bait title.  I've seen this before.  UMD clearly has a
"good" press office, and the better the press office the more risky it is
to be a conservative, respectable researcher, quietly toiling away.  See
attached graphic, which sums up the "Science News Cycle" succinctly.

While I understand and think I appreciate the skeptism, I'm not sure I have
read a compelling argument nor has anyone presented an alternate literature
review study yet which has materially refuted the central premise of the
paper - caged bees in laboratory settings appear to be living approximately
1/2 as long as they did 50 years ago when the results are normalized for, **...
year of publication, dependent and independent variables, cage population,
the presence or absence of dietary variables (water, sucrose, pollen,
pollen substitute, and honey), the source or type of water, pollen, or
pollen substitute offered, sucrose type and concentration, the presence of
a buffer in any fluids offered, the use of commercial Queen Mandibular
Pheromone (QMP), incubator temperature and humidity, the age of the bees at
the beginning of the experiment, median lifespans of control groups,
duration of the experiment, the season the bees were harvested, and the
country and state/province/territory hosting the experiment.**

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