Peter Borst noted:

> Money runs the research establishment; big grants are
> funded by national institutions in basic research.

Here is a significant mandate from the US Congress that
may help to refocus federal funding on practical ("applied") work.
Here is what the US Senate said last week:

ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/sr156.txt

   Committee Report - Senate Rpt. 107-156
    S.2551

(scroll down to find the heading below)

   AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
   SALARIES AND EXPENSES

   "...The Committee is disturbed by proposals submitted in the President's
   budget request for fiscal year 2003 that would eliminate a number of
   critical agricultural research projects that have been established through
   congressional directives over the past 2 years. The only apparent rationale
   for these reductions by this and previous Administrations is an attitude that
   research priorities of the Congress have no merit on their face and seem not
   worthy of, at least, a thoughtful analysis by the Executive Branch in terms of
   budgetary and subject-matter priorities. In addition, the President is proposing
   to terminate a number of important Federal research locations, including locations
   at which honey bee research is conducted. The accidental introduction of varroa
   and tracheal mites in the United States during the mid-1980's has reduced the
   once-thriving populations of feral honey bees by more than 80 percent. These
   bees are necessary for the continued pollination of crops and wild plants.
   The Committee finds the proposed elimination of honey bee research at three
   Federal locations, in spite of serious reductions in bee populations and
   consequences related to pollination, which might adversely affect the world's
   food supply, extremely short-sighted and based on an unfortunate, and mistaken,
   assumption by the Executive Branch that all meaningful research must originate with it.
   The Committee directs the Secretary to take no action which would reduce research
   activities proposed for elimination in advance of congressional direction in that regard."

When one combines the above with prior comments made by the
US House, one is encouraged that the funding for the bee labs will
be restored when the USDA FY 2003 budget is "marked up" by
Congress sometime this summer or fall.

I'm sure that the folks at the USDA ARS can read not only the
handwriting on the wall, but also what is printed in the Congressional
Record in black and white.  It should be obvious to even the casual
observer that restoration of funding for the US bee labs is being expected
to result in work on practical "survival issues".  I'm sure that the ARS will
take the hint, and re-focus a bit.

> ...in his opening statement said that research does not help
> commercial beekeepers.

This sounds like the usual statement of someone does not know
the difference between the scientific process and alchemy.  They
expect that focusing all efforts directly on a "answer" or "solution"
to a specific problem will magically result in a practical method or
product of value by sheer force of will and effort.  The view evinces
a lack of understanding of how one solves any but the most simple
problem.

I really don't think that anyone who even bothers to read the abstracts
of papers can  dismiss "basic research" (as opposed to "applied research")
as "no help to the beekeeper".  Yes, everyone wants a solution to the mite
problem, just like everyone wants cures for AIDS and cancer.  But the "basic"
research is the concrete foundation for the heavy artillery.  No, it does not
directly fire rounds at the target itself, but it is a prerequisite to firing at all.

> Those trying to do applied research face extremely limited
> budgets and little support from colleagues.

We are doing what little we can.  Profits from Bee-Quick, now that we
have some, go straight into the EAS Honey Bee Research fund.  This year,
the amount we are giving is enough to equal the awards to this year's
projects, so the fund does not "shrink".

The EAS awards are not "big money", but it can be assumed to be focused
on projects of value to beekeepers.  I have no idea what projects were awarded
funding, nor would I ever attempt to influence the committee that makes awards,
but the committee is sure to want to fund "practical" work with a promise of
a tangible outcome of value to beekeepers.

        jim