> They clearly take the concept that neonics "have been implicated",
> which they have, and proceed to study the effect of neonics, which
> are known to harm insects. Let's reinvent the wheel.

Science demands replication, repetition, and testing of any hypothesis
or previous discovery.

> Whereas, Johnson et al start with the phenomenon of sudden colony
> collapse, and attempt to find a cause. Since they do not find the
> murder weapon, their paper is ignored while "studies" such as this
> get all the headlines.

This is unfortunate, but that is how human society is, and that is a
study -- or studies -- in itself, made difficult due to the difficulty
of achieving a detached viewpoint.

IMO, both approaches have value.  Each has its limitations, and each has
its strengths.  Both contribute.  If we are going to have a hanging, we
should make certain we have examined the issue from all sides and with
all available methods.

Generally when panning for gold, and especially when resources are
limited, it is prudent to pan where gold has been found before or where
indications are that finding gold is likely.  This approach may not turn
up the motherlode, but it can put food on the table.

At the same time, looking for gold where gold has never been found can
pay off and possibly with a far bigger find, but the likelihood of
finding anything at all is much less.

What concerns me is that, rather than working together many tend to root 
for the home team and discount the efforts of competing interests.

It is in our best interest to examine all efforts and to verify the 
methods, the data, and the analyses -- and especially the probable 
meaningfulness assigned to the results.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html