BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert Mann <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:31:10 +1200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
Bob H wrote (inter alia):
>I agree with Barry that Dee & Ed Lusby's project of the last ten years needs
>to be documented for all to see.  Has Dee kept records of the whole project?
>I for one would love to look at her methods.  I believe one of the bee mags
>(possibly Bee Culture) would run a series of articles about the things she
>did and the results she got over the last ten years.  *If* the articles made
>*no claims* and stated the things the Lusbys did and the results they saw
>then they *might* get by without censorship.  The bee magazines always check
>theories expressed as fact with researchers before publishing.



        As a scientist I naturally endorse the desirability of scientific
varroa research.  I am distressed at the lack of it, in most if not all
parts of the overdeveloped world where it could be easily afforded.  But at
the same time, I am also sure that practical research not meeting the full
requirements of academic journals can be very useful.  It would hardly be
surprising if a beekeeper not trained in any discipline of science had
nevertheless some success in exploring varroa control methods.  I
tentatively think this is what has happened with the '4.9 cell' hypothesis.
        May I remind Yanks that their mighty plant-breeder Luther Burbank
was widely mocked & ignored because he didn't work to exact standards of
record-keeping; but many of his achievements are still with us, and most
welcome.

        I find it almost embarrassing to spell out the following vague
sketch, because it is so obvious.  Unfortunately the idiotic 'market
forces' chants of the past 15y tend to prevent the needed official planning
and actions.  Planning within democracy has become disreputable, as if
corporate profits will be sufficient motive to bring about the needed
public-service science and wider encouragement of experimentation &
reporting.
        What is needed is  BOTH  reinforced public-service science   -
not only Save The Tucson Lab but also strengthen it, and found new labs
elsewhere  -   AND  a new order of communication & cooperation between the
scientists and the less formal workers such as Lusbys,  AND  more
'extension' workers employed to facilitate that cooperation and the
conveying of its results between beekeepers and others affected.  To fail
to invest sufficient public resources in these activities is wilfully
short-sighted  -  not just pathetic but criminal.

        As a scientific sidelight, I wonder whether anyone has examined the
'smaller brood cells' theory with respect to the issue of Darwinism v.
Lamarckism as a theory of evolution.  Lamarck was not entirely wrong; I
cannot understand those who take the fashionable extreme position that his
model of evolution isn't part of the picture.


R

ATOM RSS1 RSS2