> I don't expect the paper to solve CCD--if it did, USDA would have
> released the info.
No one at the USDA has the ability to "release the info", as it is
not solely USDA work. The involvement of multiple entities and
multiple researchers requires all to agree on "what to say", and
too much has been "said" already, from the point of view of someone
who wants a paper published in one of the many journals that demand
"exclusive first publication rights".
Merely finding a suspected proximate cause does not in itself
"solve" anything. Note that we don't have any "cure" for any
of the well-known viruses that have been around for years.
I also think that it is highly premature to claim that the virus
or viruses claimed to be linked to CCD "came from Australia".
It is possible that the problem came in on AHB that hitch-hiked to
the USA via uninspected cargo containers and/or uninspected
cargo ships. It seems much more reasonable to think that CCD
symptoms were shrugged off as "absconding" in "managed" AHB
colonies than to claim that CCD went undetected in Austrialia,
or imply that anyone deliberately ignored the problem.
But regardless, the days of bees arriving at US ports without
sampling, inspections, and tracking to the end-user are over.
Stow-away hives have to die. Imported bees have to be inspected
at port-of-entry, not withstanding the condescending reassurances
of the WTO approach to what they want to call "biosecurity".
> ...the different viruses which are now causing problems were
> known long ago but were more of a "laboratory" curiosity than
> something that was causing problems. After mites arrived,
> that changed.
I don't know how "long ago" you mean here, but I'd be interested
in hearing who found what when using which technologies, as
viruses were not very easy to tell apart until recently.
> But it will be very interesting to see Jerry B and the Army
> fire up their IVDS machine to look for whatever Lipkin found
> by metagenomic analysis.
No, it would be the REVERSE in a perfect world populated by
honorable people, as Jerry B and the Army freely offered their
findings to all and sundry in the USDA-ARS Beltsville meetings
months ago. The fact that Lipkin and his cohorts have made no
effort to cooperate with other "team members", not even to the
extent of privately comparing simple parameters like particle
sizes, indicates that the increasingly-inaccurate term "team"
has now proven itself to be a mere expression of wishful thinking.
If the fabled paper does not give credit where credit is due
on this point, you will witness a unique form of Kabuki theater
rarely seen in beekeeping circles. It will be an actual scandal,
where Lipkin and his co-authors stick their fingers in their ears
and say "La la la, I can't hear you" while the Army offers
tersely-worded statements about their findings of months ago,
and how amazingly similar they appear to the highly-publicized,
yet still hard-to-pin-down findings rumored to be in "the paper".
Other science writers have asked me to explain the lack of
pre-prints under the usual "embargo" or "non-disclosure agreement",
as the pre-release of a paper under such restrictions is the
normal and customary approach for even science of the most
significant sort. The game is simple - science writers
need lead-time to prepare articles, so the system operates
on the basis of trust and reputation. If you want to play
in this space, you play by the rules. The actions in regard
to this specific paper are somewhat "childish" in the view
of many, as this is not the Manhattan Project. All I can
offer is that the quotes and statements that have been
offered are either:
a) Examples of slip-ups, where too much was said to
writers with no experience in science writing by
researchers with only limited experience in dealing
with "the press", explaining the lack of the usual
controls like non-disclosure agreements. (This
theory would explain the fragments appearing in
obscure publications written by obscure authors.)
b) Deliberate attempts to get some pre-publication hype
and thereby generate interest in a paper that is
likely to be more speculative than authoritative.
The press hype over CCD has been massive, so the
attention given to this paper's authors could be
career and reputation-enhancing if enough
"anticipation" can be created. (This would explain
the New Yorker article, where the publication was
not obscure, and the author was a regular staff writer.)
I'm not going to make accusations of "manipulation" when
it is still possible to ascribe the "leaks" to simple
miscommunication and inexperience, but other science
writers have much more cynical views of the situation.
My crystal ball is on the fritz, but my money is on
the guys who found something, and openly informed
everyone involved in the "CCD meetings" of their
findings. While "first to publish" certainly does
establish "priority", the refusal to compare notes
indicates a reckless disregard for the need to give
credit where credit is due. I expect that every
story written about "the paper" will note the
"surprising absence of any mention of prior work".
Regardless of the tempest in a trebuchet around the
credit due, the one thing we can expect and demand as
a result of this paper is a reconsideration of
port-of-entry inspections on WTO-mandated imports and
port-of-entry inspections of cargo to detect stowaway
bees. I was one of a tiny number of people who called
for inspections back when the WTO-mandated imports of
live bees were approved back in the 2002-2005 timeframe,
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/apis_bc.pdf
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/regs.pdf
so perhaps a few more people will start to get with the
program, and demand that USDA-APHIS be instructed and
funded to treat bees as what they are - live animals
that can carry viruses and pests like small hive beetles.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
