I will try another tack.


Often we have discussions here on whether or not one or two field studies constitute enough evidence to support the authors' claim(s).


Usually, we hear from the experts on this list that no, most field studies are very flawed (they then point out all the flaws) and usually, they say we need many more corroborating studies done more carefully before we leap to any conclusions.


Here, we are talking about fundamental messing around with the genome and epigenome using biotechnology, a subject I am very familiar with, just as many of you are very familiar with farming, ecology, chemistry, or beekeeping.  What is appropriate to do in the LAB is not necessarily OK to take into the field the minute it is "out of the bag" and into a journal.  The consequences of using new methods in the lab may be monitored, regulated, etc.  The field is another story.  Think of biotech lab work, like using the the CRISPR/Cas9 system, as a kind of initial study. This and other biotechnologies are great *in the lab* where they serve many useful purposes, and the methods are tweaked along the way to improve them. As people use the techniques over and over, they become more familiar with what unintended outcomes might occur. I wouldn't trust most of those methods to work without mishap in nature, until there is an extensive (very extensive) database of laboratory work to support that move.


Randy, I think we can now agree to disagree about this subject. I reiterate my points: Some forms of genetic engineering are fairly harmless, or appear to be so far...using bacteria to make insulin, for example. Others have questionable value (golden rice), and still more are downright suspect because they cause unintended imbalance in the environment (e.g. RoundUp Ready). Finally, just because there are cool things happening in laboratories around the world does not mean we're about to have major breakthroughs out in the field, because we need many, many studies to generate the confidence necessary to introduce another Golden Rice, or virus resistant (monoculture) papaya, etc. etc.


It may surprise some to know that a scientist like me is this cautious about biotech "inventions", but we could say Daedalus was cautious too. He knew the limits of his invention. It was his non-inventor son Icarus that used that invention inappropriately and paid the ultimate price.


With that I wish we could please return to honeybees and the fascinating topic of beekeeping.


Thanks,


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