Alan said:

> Dee and I argued about this probably more than anything.  She just says,
> "No".  She says there is no point in putting the bees through it.

The point would be to support the specific claims being made.

This seems to be nothing more than a funding question.
If funds were available, the study would be under way.
As it is, the employees of the nearest research facility
(Carl Hayden Bee Lab) are not sure if they will even have jobs
next year, which puts a real cramp in one's project planning.

> Although I believe in the need for controlled experiments, I can see her
> point.  What they are doing works and she doesn't feel a need to do things
> anybody's way but her own.  She is sharing the methods and stock and
> anyone who cares to can do controlled experiments on their own time.

OK, but how does one isolate the two factors otherwise?
What is "working" here?

  a) Nothing more than reduced cell size?

  b) Nothing more than the simple fact that the
      survivors of the process are mite resistant
      bees, since mites kill off the rest?

> Frankly, I have to admit that admire that attitude.  She knows what
> she wants to know, and figures the proof is someone else's problem.

The traditional burden of proof has been on the parties
making claims, not on everyone else.

> Meantime people are following her ideas and they will either succeed or
> fail.  If enough succeed for long enough, the demand for proof will fall
> off.  If not, the idea will just go away over time.

Even with additional anecdotal reports, the central issue will remain
fuzzy without a clear protocol to attempt to isolate "the bees" from
"the cell size".  While I agree that anecdotal reports can have an
impact, they will be described as apocryphal unless the reports
are consistent, widespread, and positive.

If the anecdotal evidence piles up (and I must note that the "pile",
while currently small, does exist), this will prompt funding for a study.
Kinda sad that funding is so limited, but this is a prime example of
how every beekeeper on the planet is participating in "an experiment",
like it or not.  In regard to 4.9, I guess my colonies are "controls".

One might hope that profits from sales of "4.9" wax and plastic could
fund studies, but the expense of tooling up to make these products
means that profits simply cannot yet exist, and may never appear.
(Note that 4.9 wax and plastic sales both slightly reduce sales of
the more profitable "standard" wax and plastic, and have a higher
cost basis due to capital investment and small quantities.)

Long ago, "expert" beekeepers thought that wax moths could kill
colonies.  Various approaches to keeping wax moths out of hives
were developed and sold.  In that case, the apparent solution to the
problem diverted time, money, and attention away from finding the
actual root problem.

> I wasn't going to mention this, but I actually did see aliens near Lusbys'
> beehives...  They were hiking the miles north to their (illegal) jobs in the USA.

Funny how a Canadian, waved into the US with nary a question,
sees a few people walking north, and instantly jumps to conclusions
about their legal status and intentions.

Perhaps they were INS agents, and they were watching your group.  :)
Perhaps they were heading for the same NHPA meeting you were.
Perhaps they were US citizens, walking home from jobs at the
plants across the border in Mexico.

I should buy some land down near the Mexican border, and name it
the Bar-None Ranch!

        jim