Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]> did the Ivy League some credit in writing:
> Beekeepers gathered them into
apiaries, which probably produced some unnatural overcrowding, which
encourages disease ...
> and for better or worse, we are responsible for
their well being.

        I believe any scientist (or medico or vet) would agree fully.
This is a solid, if slightly vague, basis for discussion.


> It *is possible* for species to be
changed into other species, as proven by the scientists currently at
work.  I will not comment on whether this is a good thing or not, but
simply state that if humans can alter species by altering the genes,
then the potential was there to begin with, and nature certainly
*could* have used it.

        Many say so, but that's a mistake. Genetic modification (GM)
generally imposes gene-insertions that *could not* occur in nature.  Some
of the processes used are drastically different from anything in nature;
others are modified virus infections, reminiscent of natural processes but
transposing genes between remote species (e.g. from jellyfish into
sugar-cane or humans into cows) which do not normally exchange genes.


> Whether evolution is a fact or a theory has become moot with the
>arrival of genetic engineering.

        I think this remark is not central to the argument, but I want to
mention that the facts gleaned from fossils, augmented recently by
molecular details, very very strongly suggest that evolution has occurred.
The body of evidence from which this deduction flows is so huge, so
multi-faceted, and so coherent, that evolution is regarded as a fact by
almost every scientist today.
        This has very little connection to the issue of GM.


>I wonder how many would be in favor of genetically altering the honey
bee to combat the varroa?

        This is the question I raised some months ago.
You can safely assume some gene-manipulators are trying to get funding to
'improve' Apis spp by transgenic expts.   It will be prudent to refrain
from such unknown territory, while expanding conventional genetics &
breeding of bees.


> Obviously, Apis cerana  has some form of
defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be
transferred to Apis mellifera?

        The idea that any such trait is based on only one gene, or on some
very small package of genes, is  implausible.  Furthermore, the methods
available today to insert genes into Apis spp are extremely crude and
unpredictable.  Unforeseen pathogens could well result, and the probability
of any benefit is tiny.
        I would urge that no such expts be permitted, at least until a very
careful and public investigation had been completed into the proposed
expts.

        As a dedicated egg-head I am pleased at the thoughts from Cornell.
They are way ahead of the Lysenkoist speculations about cell-size.


R



-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949