BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:07:16 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
> As I recall, you were "heckled" for claiming that a 
> study by Geoff Williams found that exposure to 
> neonics turned queens into drone layers, when in
> actuality that was not at all what the study found.  
> You were "heckled" for making things up, not for 
> bringing up the issue of early queen failure.

Flatly incorrect.  
There was no justification for the completely unacceptable behavior.
Nothing was made up.

This list is archived.  Check the archive.
The TITLE of the paper was "Neonicotinoid pesticides severely affect honey bee queens"

Here is the link to the paper:
http://nature.com/articles/srep14621

My post merely linked to and quoted the paper, which said:

"After four weeks post queen emergence, 25% fewer neonicotinoid queens were alive compared to controls (contingency table  = 2.6, P = 0.11; Fig. 1). REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY SURVIVED TO FOUR WEEKS, 38% FEWER NEONICOTINOID QUEENS PRODUCED WORKERS COMPARED TO CONTROLS (contingency table  = 8.2, P = 0.004; Fig. 2a). Even within our abbreviated observation interval, a significant 34% reduction in success (i.e. alive and producing worker offspring) was observed among neonicotinoid-exposed queens compared to controls (contingency table  = 4.5, P = 0.03; Fig. 2b)."

Now, if "38% FEWER NEONICOTINOID QUEENS PRODUCED WORKERS COMPARED TO CONTROLS" how was it "making things up" to call those queens not producing workers "drone layers"?  What other term would one like to use?

Now, I remember that the paper did not match some of the more verbosely-expressed preconceived notions about systemic pesticides, but if one had any argument, one's quarrel would be with:

a)  The authors of the paper
b)  The editorial board of the journal "Nature"
c)  The esteemed, credentialed, and hardworking researchers who provide "peer review" for Nature.
d)  All the researchers who read the paper, but declined to critique the paper on Nature's website

But not with me.  
I just post the more interesting pre-prints that I am sent as soon as the embargo is lifted.  You're welcome.

I find it amusing when attempts are made to explain why a paper published by a high-end journal like "Nature" somehow does not mean what it plainly says, but instead, means something else.  How could such massive errors slip by all of (a) through (d) above, only to be noticed by an opinionated beekeeper?

Claims that this or that study are somehow "flawed", merely because they contradict one's own notions are the stuff of climate-change denial, Anti-Vaccination gadflies, fracking shills, and smoking/cancer flacks. Such critiques rarely make it into print in journals, for obvious reasons. In this case, there are no critiques posted to the paper at issue, despite the easy-to-use "comment" feature provided by Nature on the very web page where the paper appears.

Such critiques are only found in online blogs, as even the letters to the editor section of the "The Lone Tree Reporter" ( in Lone Tree, Iowa) would rather print a letter about why the girls' softball team needs a new coach.  I realize that some people never met a pesticide they did not like, but one need look no further back than Penncap-M to see how "new" does not always imply "safer".

But nothing was made up, and the quote was verbatim.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2