Yoon Sik Kim, Ph.D. said:

> We are talking about regularly administering antibiotics for every disease
> in the book: pimples, colds, diarrhea, indigestion, etc.  Why not?  "They
> are available and they work wonders."

"Regularly administering antibiotics" is clearly something that is not
advisable with bees, humans, or any creature.  "Regularly administering"
anything is foolhardy.  First you test.  Then you decide if you need to treat.
But nearly everyone whines that "testing" is too difficult, too expensive, or
too time-consuming.  The larger the beekeeper, the more shrill the whining.

> This process have already resulted in genetically modified bee strands
> fit for the Garden of Eden, caught inside the bubble of human medication.

This is completely incorrect.
Use of medications has not changed the genetic structure of bees at all.
What might have "changed" the genetic makeup of bees would have been
to NOT use any medications at all.  This would have meant loss of the
majority of all colonies, and re-stocking from the small number of survivor
colonies, if any.  But even this might do nothing more than force re-stocking
from LUCKY colonies, and not result in any better success with the problem at hand.

I have not been "sick" in decades, but I assure you that my genes are no
"better" than anyone else's.  I'm just lucky, or stubborn.  This does not imply
that my descendents will be "resistant" to any disease.

The concept of "resistance" does not even really apply to subjects like SHB,
since the standard model of "resistance" is a very bad fit for parasite problems.

"Breeding for resistance" pre-supposes that some EXISTING and known mechanism
can overcome the problem, as the immuno defense system (white blood cells, et al)
can overcome infection.  But when the problem is a pest, such as SHB, tracheal mites,
or varroa mites, one is trying to develop a "new behavior" that did not exist before, or
only exists in another, very different species of bee.   This is likely only possible via
overt breeding and lots of testing, such as Sue Colby's breeding efforts.

But these efforts result in queens that cost more, and come with trade-offs like
lower production.  Beekeepers seem to prefer bees that "make lots of honey",
and are clearly not willing to pay more for queens with "better survival traits".
Again, the larger the beekeeper, the more shrill the whining.

> They need to be taken out and exposed to bee-microbes.

If microbes were the only problems we faced, I'd agree.  But microbes are not the
major problem.  The major problems take the form of exotic invasive pests from the
other side of the planet that moved from other species of bees to Apis mellifera,
and then moved "here" from "there" via various human-created transportation paths.

> This kind of exposure to poison or pathogens will strengthen our bees, my
> whole point.

"Pathogens" are not a major problem in the first place, and such "strengthening"
would be at the price of a complete collapse of beekeeping during the "transition",
with no guarantee that there will be survivors.  You see, sometimes there are
NO survivors, and no pre-existing trait that exists to "save" some small faction of
the population from this or that.

Perhaps mapping the DNA of bees will yield some clues, or even result in some
tangible progress.  But even this approach has potential drawbacks.

a)  The phrase "loss of hybrid vigor" comes up often when one talks about seeds.
     It has implications for any cross-breeding or DNA-manipulation program.

b)  A very astute friend of mine posed an interesting question.  He asked:
     "Will genetically-modified bees be viewed as making 'genetically-modified' honey?"
     The subject is a real tarbaby.  While there are many good reasons why this
     would not be the case, one would end up adopting many of the same arguments
     offered by the purveyors of genetically-modified crops.


                        jim