?> All scientific trials need to be replicated, often with slight tweaks, 
before the conclusions are widely accepted.

If we are talking about field trials, even then, in many or even most cases, 
the conclusions cannot be generalised safely.  Location, strain of bee, hive 
configuration, history, unknown influences,  oversights, errors and 
assumptions, together with selection and treatment of data all combine to make 
each trial and each replication unique.

Besides, consensus is very often dead wrong and is not a reliable indicator of 
truth.

If we are talking about lab experiments, it should be possible to more closely 
control the conditions and supervise the procedures and materials, but 
researcher bias, prejudices and oversights still can come into play along with 
lab errors and bad data analysis.

In neither case does peer review guarantee much more than that the work was 
done to the satisfaction of the reviewers who may well be biased and suffer 
from the same assumptions, plus  be restrained by a a strong survival instinct 
that tells them that the middle of the herd is the safest place to be.

> Public dissing of good research or researchers (as you are want to do) does 
> not serve the beekeeping community well.

That is why, on BEE-L, we try to avoid using peoples' names except in a 
positive manner, but our policy is "No Sacred Cows", and any  valid criticism 
or expression of doubt about IDEAS is welcome here.   We attack ideas with a 
gusto, but attacking people is discouraged.

As it happens, though, sometimes specific researchers are closely associated 
with particular pieces of work or positions and they get into the line of fire.

You will notice, though, that moderators are reluctant to reject strong 
criticism or confrontation as long as it is politely expressed and does not 
turn into a mud-wrestling match.  We do reject attribution of controversial 
statements to others, especially researchers asked hypothetical questions in 
the hall, and try to shield our researchers from personal criticism.  We value 
them all and know many personally.  We may criticize their work or conclusions, 
but we respect the fact that they have far more information and background in 
what they tackle than most of us.  Difference of opinion are healthy; personal 
conflicts are not.

> You may have noticed that beekeepers often ask questions that have already 
> been answered by older research.  As you pointed out, just look at all the 
> questions about HFCS, or the feeding of vinegar in syrup to attempt to 
> control nosema.

Often, it is simply a matter of not knowing.  There is a lot to know and that 
is why we keep bringing up the same questions here.  If everyone read the 
guidelines and spent time reading the archives before asking questions or 
making statements, this would be a very quiet list.

Additionally, few of these questions will ever be answered completely and 
simply or universally.  Just because research concluded something is no proof 
of anything except that somebody took a look and got that answer.  If believing 
that answer works, then good, but often a wrong answer can be better than no 
answer at all because, it seems that most people need to believe things to 
function.  (Douglas Adams makes makes mention of believing multiple 
contradictory things at once, and it works for me).

> Or for that matter, the current questions about neonics.  Good research is 
> dismissed out of hand by beekeepers who simply don't like what actual data 
> indicates.  Which is why I want to get buy in from all beekeepers prior to 
> running any sort of neonic trial.

Well, some of us are not as easily convinced that all that research is "Good 
research".   We follow the money and note that much of it was not readily 
available when we needed to decide.  What we do see of it looks a bit 
amateurish, and now we are hearing of lab work that confirms our suspicions.

Some of us never make up our minds.  It keeps us out of the Kool-Aid, but also 
makes us as popular sometimes as a skunk at a garden party -- especially when 
people are patting themselves on the back after a strenuous, yet obviously 
flawed study and looking for admirers.  I hate it, when  after a presentation 
that masks a flawed piece of work, the presenter asks, "Are there any 
questions".  No problem with many presentations, but sometimes there are holes 
big enough to drive a truck through, and it all some of us can do to shut up. 
We come here to grouse about it later.

> >As for Randy I have been called worse than "full of hot air" and I am 
> >actually helping Randy on his neonicotinoid experiment.

> For the List's benefit, Bob and I frequently correspond in a friendly manner. 
> It's just fun to put on our little show in public.

We're all pals.  What some of us have in common is hard heads and the ability 
to take the ideas out of a discussion and leave the emotive stuff on the floor. 
People have their moods.  Whatever.

> Beekeepers are hungry for accurate, objective information. It's not about the 
> person, it's about the credibility of the information.

And we discover that by testing it against other information and our real-world 
experience.

> I hope you have a great Christmas, Bob!  I know that everything that you do 
> is with the best of intentions for the beekeeping community!

Merry Christmas and Season's greetings to all!

allen

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm