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:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:35:30 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
I know Joe Ayers from our DARPA work.  His work on lobsters, their  
biomechanics, and neural systems has contributed greatly to both the  understanding 
of these organisms and to the development of robotics.
 
A couple of years ago, he started working with bees in some of his classes, 
 and from what I gather, he got hooked on bees.  He talked to me about how  
to do some of the things they were attempting, since we know each other 
from the  Biomimetics work at DARPA.
 
Note to Bob - this is an NSF project, at the basic science level.  NSF  
seldom funds applied research and from my experience is even more reluctant  to 
fund applied honey bee studies - since this is applied research, honey  
bees are an introduced species, and there are five Federal Bee Labs who do bee  
research.  
 
One question NSF often asks itself (I've been on their review panels)  - is 
there anyone else who might fund this?  If so, NSF is reluctant to  spend 
its money on the project.  That's not to say NSF doesn't fund bee  research - 
like mapping a genome, but in general, NSF funded bee research  will 
parallel this Harvard study, where the organism mainly serves as a  model or test 
system, rather than any interest in honey bees per se.  (This  is just my 
opinion, but I've had this discussion with a variety of NSF  program officers, 
and they usually say the same).
 
So, if you look at the Harvard project (follow the link from Peter), you  
will find this is not a bee study, its advanced computation, artificial  
intelligence, group interactions and communications, robotics, etc.  But,  the 
bee serves as a model of reference.  Ideas and knowledge gleaned from  bees 
will be used to help develop and guide the work.
 
DARPA has used this approach to develop advanced avionics - miniature  
flying robots that simulate the flight of flies, robots that scramble across  
rough terrain using principals of locomotion based on lobsters and 
cockroaches,  and one of the most interesting (in my mind) areas of work is done in 
Australia  where the investigators asked - why do insects and bees have those 
large  compound eyes, and how do they fly at high speed through vegetation 
without  crashing into things?  From this, they came up with a concept of 
navigation  and vision that is vastly different from the mammalian eye, one that 
is much  simpler, yet extremely efficient and much easier to use in robots 
that find  their own way through obstacle courses, through buildings, etc.  
They were  even working on a 3-D version for helicopters.
 
Again, they learned a lot about how bees see and use that sense, and they  
then engineered improved optical guidance systems for use  in advanced 
robots and other needs for 'artificial vision'.
 
From my perspective, no money was Taken from Beekeepers or Bee Researchers  
by the Harvard Project, since it was funded by NSF.  It is tax payer  
dollars, just as all federally funded science is tax payer dollars.  But  NSF 
money would never be used to bail out/pay damages to beekeepers.
 
NSF mainly funds basic research, NIH funds health research, USDA  
agricultural, DOE energy-related, etc.  Each federal agency has its  own budget.  
From all appearances, the Harvard project was a competitively  won project - 
NSF awards a limited number of these large, multi-disciplinary  projects.  
This is not likely to be a Congressional Plus Up.  So, the  research team had 
to work hard and compete against other groups, ideas; and in  the end, they 
got the nod.  One way or another, NSF would have made an  award - in this 
case we got lucky that it had something to do with bees, even if  tangentially.
 
I'd say that the bee industry hasn't lost anything, and with this type of  
innovative, never attempted research, the outcomes can be surprising. We may 
yet  see knowledge about bees that could well serve the bee industry - 
although  that's not the central purpose of the program.
 
Jerry

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L

ATOM RSS1 RSS2