I started this thread with science in the title for a reason. 
Interesting that science is being slammed, disparaged and discounted 
when the poster disagrees with it, but upheld as the fount of all 
truth when it agrees.

What is obvious in the discussion of genetics as the cause of DD is 
that "suggests" and "hypothesis" are predominate with no research 
proving that conclusion. The data leads that way for the researcher, 
but it was not proved.

However, now we have actual studies that show it was not the basis for 
DD.

As far as peer review, it all depends on the publication. If it is the 
ABJ I respectfully suggest that the door is wide and the acceptance 
rate is high compared to most real scientific journals. When I edited 
our State newsletter, I read two articles lifted from it in the ABJ 
without attribution. So, as I said, the acceptance process is not 
stringent if they lift articles from a State newsletter. Flattering, 
however.

The real issue is not if an article is peer reviewed, but 
scientifically proven. Take cold fusion. It was peer reviewed and 
published, but then the real work started. Did it work in other labs? 
It did not and that was the end of cold fusion. Dee can have her 
papers published, but, as Jim noted, when her queens exhibit AHB 
behavior in Florida, it tends to say more than any peer reviewed paper.

So in the case of DD, we had a hypothesis, then an actual study and 
the hypothesis was disproved. How many people peer review a hypothesis 
is not as important as research that affirms or disproves it. 
especially when that research is repeatable in other labs.

Science is not static. It is a continuing process with things being 
affirmed and disproved. Most science stands the test, but occasionally 
  things that were thought to work one way are shown to work another 
or not at all. That is the exception, but those are always the cases 
that are brought up to show science is not to be believed, even if 
they are few in number.

Actually, it was science that showed that it was incorrect, so the 
arguer is stuck in an irrational argument. "Science cannot be believed 
because science can prove itself wrong."

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************