Ok, I just read my Jan/Feb ABF newsletter.  Front page banner "ABF Asks for
Doubling Federal Bee Research Funding In Response to Massive Bee Die-Off
from Varroa Mites".

But the article paints a somewhat different picture.

In the article itself is the statement:  "Speculation is rife as to the
actual cause of the deaths."  Then the body of the text goes on to ask
whether it is the mite, vectored viruses, mite treatment residues,
chemicals in beeswax?

Reports of colonies collapsing last fall are noted, as were reports that
scientists from the federal labs had gone out to CA, but not one word of
any conclusions from the feds as to what is going on or how bad the problem
really is.

There is a comment that:  "Estimates have placed the losses at 50%..."  but
no information as to where these estimates came from, and as I said in my
earlier post, I can't find any hard data on this.  I do agree with the
statement that some beekeepers may have lost 75-80% of their hives -- I met
one who said this had happened to him.


Ok, apparently the Bush Administration wants to cut $640,000 from the Baton
Rouge and Weslaco labs.  Not surprising when other federal agencies have
been targeted for as much as a 25% reduction in their Total research
funding -- in part to pay the war bills.  At least this time, the bee labs
haven't been singled out -- in fact, the cuts appear to be proportionally
less than for many other federal research groups -- which I guess is good
news, sort of.

During the USDA/ARA Bee Lab overview presentation in Reno, I noted that on
a good year, my university/private company research team is funded at a
level higher than either of two of the main federal bee labs!  So, its no
wonder that they are strapped for resources.

Keep in mind, we have to find/compete for every nickel of funding, we don't
get any money from the state, the feds, or the national beekeeping
organizations -- although I do get a few small donations each year from
beekeepers and my thankfully from the MT State Organization.

Ok, so I agree, its hard to imagine that the federal labs can get much of
anything done after they pay salaries, light and heat bills, etc.  FYI, we
keep to a much leaner staffing level and don't get paid near as well, so we
can 'stretch' our dollars a bit more. If I had their salary and overhead
bills to pay, we wouldn't get anything done.

Now, Danny Weaver in his ABF report says that ABF is also 'suggesting'
increasing CSREES Nat Res. Initiative and land grant university bee
research money, to augment and accelerate definition of the causes and
development of solutions.

I'll buy that, although since we're not a land grant school, doubt that
we'd ever qualify -- as would be the case for many university-based
researchers who might be able to help out.  Keep in mind, not all bee,
mite, pesticide, or other related work is done at land grant/ag schools.

Finally, the article says USDA wants to hire two geneticists, two molecular
biologists, and two computational biologists.  All necessary for certain
lines of research -- but maybe not what you need to hire if the fundamental
question is "defining the causes".

Don't get me wrong, the Fed Bee labs play an important role, and they are
under-funded and under constant attack for closure.  And, there are some
fine, hard-working scientists in those labs.  But in a year of TIGHT money,
I'd be cautious of launching a scare campaign to get funding.

Ok, at the risk of sounding self-serving, a few comments.  What do academic
and private researchers talk about over a beer at national meetings?

First and foremost, we ask what's real?
Second, there's general frustration about not being able to get any
signicant funding to look at the problems.
-- NSF doesn't like to fund the needed bee studies, because honey bees are
any introduced species, and much of the research is applied (they target
basic research),
-- the presence of the national labs is leading many federal agencies to
say -- bee research is already funded better than other endeavors, after
all, you've got 5 established labs, so we don't need to fund you, and
-- since you are a university, you can do this for free or on a pittance --
after all, students are cheap.

And by the way, giving a student a small amount of money, but then
expecting them to travel to the opposite side of the U.S. to give a report
at a national meeting has a major downside -- the poor kid spends most of
his/her research dollars on the trip.  The experience is certainly
worthwhile, but the research dollars should be separate from the project
report trip dollars.

Oh well, now that I'm this far down the slippery slope, what would I
do?  I'd close 2 of the 5 labs, and pump up the overall funding for bee
research, and use the recovered and additional funds to open a well-funded,
national, competitive research funding program, open to anyone in the U.S.
(ARS employee, land grant, academics, small businesses) who can bring
solutions, in a hurry, to the table.

The requests for proposals would appear at least twice a year, preferably
quarterly, with an open solicitation for anyone with a probable Fast
Fix.  The proposals would be thoroughly peer-reviewed, work plans and
budgets required, with timely deliverables.  Projects leading nowhere could
be axed, projects finding solutions could be quickly pumped up.

I can see I've spent too much time working with DARPA, the Defense agency
research group that drives high risk, high pay-off research.  Just don't
borrow their technology transfer models -- its doesn't work well.

But, they do get innovation and some major successes (like the Internet and
the Stealth bomber).

Time to sign off, tried to be an equal opportunity thorn in the side --
actually, I'm hoping to stimulate some more creative options other than
simply throwing money.

Jerry

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::