3 ms·
This is mostly hyperbolic and wrong. You're right that bees are great, we should all care, and it would suck if they all died. You are wrong that we know what's
by Blahah 13y ago
This is mostly hyperbolic and wrong. You're right that bees are great, we should all care, and it would suck if they all died. You are wrong that we know what's causing it or that it's some nefarious scheme.
Firstly, nobody is turning a blind eye out of scientific ignorance, and to suggest bribery is involved is just ridiculous. Every time an industry has a problem that's being investigated by scientists, people start making bribery claims. It's absolute nonsense, especially in this case where there is a very active debate in the literature and many hundreds of labs working independently. Newsflash: agricultural corporations have almost no impact on research outputs. They fund a small amount of research, and often the results that get published are not what they wanted. They have no say on what gets published, except in perhaps a handful of cases where they illegally exert pressure, but I've never seen such a case. As a plant scientist, I find the idea of any company using money to influence the results of academic research completely laughable. They might use money to influence the research question, but not the answer.
Secondly, we really are not almost sure why the bees are dying. The evidence is very strong that there are many causes contributing to CCD, and it keeps getting more complex with time. What's clear is that it's not a single cause, and will not be simple to fix, and is not just about the insecticides.
- anon1385 13y agoI don't think the issue is that scientists are being lobbied or directly influenced by the chemical or agricultural industries. They don't need to do that since politicians (and farmers and the public) are quite happy to ignore published science. >nobody is turning a blind eye out of scientific ignorance Well the UK government demonstrated scientific incompetence, if I'm begin charitable[1]. I find it hard to believe that the highly experienced senior government scientists involved in promoting this study didn't recognise how flawed it was. Of course we have an Environment minister who denies climate change so it's hard to say what his crazy motivations are on this issue; it may just be personal bias due to his background as an extremely wealthy land owner and farmer. >Secondly, we really are not almost sure why the bees are dying. The evidence is very strong that there are many causes contributing to CCD, and it keeps getting more complex with time. What's clear is that it's not a single cause, and will not be simple to fix, and is not just about the insecticides. This is all true, but it's not a reason to ignore the effects of pesticides that have been measured. It also needs to be remembered that this isn't just about honey bees and CCD or even just bees. Pollinators of all types are in huge decline. The media and campaigners seem to concentrate on bees a lot because they have a group of humans (bee keepers) that will lobby for them. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jun/05/bees-neonicotinoids-pesticides http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog...
- ScottBurson 13y ago> it's not a single cause, and will not be simple to fix, and is not just about the insecticides. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence indicating the insecticides as a substantial contributing factor that banning them seems a reasonable precaution. Once we do that, we can see how well the bees recover. It's certainly possible that banning neonicotinoids will not be sufficient, but the odds seem pretty good that it will be necessary -- perhaps one step of several. In short: don't confuse a scientific question with a public policy question. Sometimes the risk of not taking action outweighs the risk of acting on incomplete science.