Pav wrote:
>
> At 19/09/01, Bill wrote:
>
> >It is not that 4.9 is not genuine. It may be
> >which is why there are several on this list
> >testing it. Science looks for reproducibility.
>
> The root of the 4.9 controversy is exactly that science has NOT been looking.  The
> Lusby's went public out of frustration that no scientists would take seriously the word of
> mere beekeepers who claimed they were beating varroa.  This is why the work is being
> done by other mere beekeepers (and small under-funded research in 3rd world
> countries!), who want to know if it is reproducible for them.

You do not need to wear a lab coat to practice science. Anyone on this
list can do so, without a grant. But you do need to follow the protocols
so that it can be shown that your results are not influenced by other
factors and that others can do the same and get the same results. Which
is really not too much to ask for when you may be betting the farm, or
in this case, apiary.

Many beekeeping advances were by scientists, but most of us would not
think of them as such, like Langsdorf, who we look at first as a
beekeeper. But he practiced science in his methods.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME