>> if we are going to put off cutting it up until then, can we then assume that we should hold off on giving it accolades
>
> The presentation was made public by the authors, and I ]see no reason not to discuss its face value. I was there and I will answer any questions about what I saw.

I agree, Peter, but it seems that the beekeepers involved are not
happy with the face of the report, and are concerned about things
which are not mentioned or which did not show up.

They did not have any arguement with the report itself, but with what
they observed vs. what the researchers observed and what it meant to
them.

The devil is in the details and we are not privy to the details at this point.

Let me mention only a few of the things which bother me and stick to
the things which are obvious:

This is one study.  It has not been replicated. What kind of
confidence can we attribute to it, even if it were designed and
executed perfectly?  Keep reading.

The hives were also quite sick IMO.

The number of hives was also quite small, particularly as the test progressed.

Only two locations, which were assumed to be comparable were used.

The data provided are charts which show results, but not the
underlying assumptions, errors, and methods.

The raw data are not provided or discussed.

There was a great deal of mortality and variability.  Did the
mortality mask anything?  It certainly could IMO.

We are not told how the mortality was handled statistically, and if
there were detailed post-mortems and if the results of post mortems
was included or excluded, or if the dead hives were included in the
averages and if so, how.

Hives subjected to some influences may diverge widely in strength
afterwards, and although the averages may not show that, the
usefulness to the beekeeper of two groups with similar averages may be
very different.

There are also some things one hates to bring up, so I won't, but
being on the ground here, listening to various people, from the
beekeepers involved to scientists, I have to say that I am not
particularly convinced by this one study.

I am not saying that it did not reach the correct conclusion -- there
is not way IMO of knowing -- but that I do not believe that it is
anywhere near definitive.

It is probably as good as the 'experiments' most beekeepers do to make
major decision in their own outfits, but as science, I consider it to
be just a beginning.

Would I be out of line if I were to suggest it is better PR than science?

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