Jerry - several good points - my meanderings below....
Jerry J Bromenshenk wrote:
> The labs need to be
> saved, but they also are badly in need of reorganization and some
> re-direction.
Amen, Brother.
> The federal labs serve to provide some continuity to long-term issues - bee
> diseases, bee genetics, africanized bees. The current system is top heavy
> in infra-structure (buildings, lights, land, administration, salaries).
>
> 1. Assign the remaining personnel to a near-by academically-based unit --
> that's done for many agricultural and forest service labs.
That is a good description of the startup of the Tucson beelab in the late-1940s -
in UofA buildings, on the farm, with 3 scientists, one ag. engineer (Chuck Owens),
and 1 1/2 secretaries.
> 2. Use modern information technology to network the various groups, rather
> than redistribute scientists into other areas of USDA.
I have been disappointed for years at the decline in communication between bee
labs, starting with the loss of the Bee Research Division, which oversaw all USDA
bee labs. We in Tucson never even saw lists of publications from other bee labs,
and also I don't believe any lists were sent out from Tucson, except to promotion
panels. Also, the loss of the "Quarterly Reports" was a blow to communication,
caused by non-USDA workers poisoning the well by pirating ideas before
publication.
> 3. Open up the lines of communication with the industry - why, for
> example, is John Edwards, the only [ex-]USDA employee to regularly participate
> on Bee-L?
That is still a mystery to me, but my conversations have revealled fears about you
guys being mean to them. Go figure. The scientists are still graded mainly on
numbers of publications, period. They get very few points for being online.
> 4. Do these labs have an advisory board composed of various stakeholders?
> Beekeepers (commericial and hobbyist, packers, food products, regulatory
> folks, etc?) If not, maybe they should.
Yes, at least Tucson does - set up by Eric Erickson about ten years ago.
|
