|
My Thoughts...
Dec 21, 2000
As I build this site, I am trying to reconcile some mutually
incompatible ideas. This site is a reflection of my attempts to get a
grip on this slippery subject. What is causing me grief is this:
- Scientists, whom I normally respect, have apparently
investigated imidacloprid to some extent and concluded that it does not
have damaging effects on honeybees -- if applied according to
recommendations.
- Beekeepers in Europe, whom I respect, are convinced that
imidacloprid is the cause of their recent catastrophic losses
There are several possible
explanations. An obvious one is that some are
lying, misrepresenting the facts or kidding themselves, but I find
this hard to believe -- and this way of thinking is not too useful
for conflict resolution.
Another, more reasonable explanation is that the two groups are not
experiencing the same phenomenon, placing the same importance on
the observations, or have different philosophies about the various
points of disagreement. |
Perhaps agreement on basic observations and facts can bring the
two sides closer to agreement, however, can they agree on risk assessment,
risk allocation, and philosophy? Perhaps more research can
decide some of the issues, but will beekeepers, naturalists and the public
ever accept the use of a systemic chemical in food crops -- a chemical
which routinely occurs in concentrations very close to harmful doses for
domestic bees and which may thus have unknowable environmental impacts on
natural pollinators and wildlife?
- The beekeepers say that they have seen big losses and
that these losses seem to be closely related to locations where
imidacloprid has been used.
- Moreover, they believe that a chemical should not be used
unless it is well proven that it does not have adverse effects
on their livestock.
- They also maintain that the margin of safety between the levels
where effects on bees are observable and the concentrations observed
in plants after normal application is by far too small .
|
- The chemical companies and many farmers think that
if no significant ill effects can be proven, they should be
permitted to go ahead and spread the chemical throughout the
environment, and that the benefits of using of this chemical far
outweigh whatever adverse effects might occur.
|
Scientists would normally be the natural arbiters of such a
conflict since they are expected to be detached and fact-oriented.
However, scientists working on such projects are usually nowadays --
correct me if I am wrong -- financed by the very companies wishing to
get or maintain approval. The researchers face no personal risk from
the application of pesticides, but face being passed over for funding if
they do not provide the kind of results that their employers wish to see.
Public funding and beekeeper funding is available at only very low levels
these days.
It is possible, even likely, that most scientists' integrity will
prevent dishonest science from occurring, however, recently, in
Canada, one very nasty case became public when a university researcher
released results unfavorable to her employer and was subjected to
considerable torment -- including dismissal. I'm sure that lesson has
not been lost on many career researchers -- or the public.
- Beekeepers are the ones facing the obvious risks -- with
no benefit.
- The chemical companies and sunflower farmers receive only
benefits and see no risk to themselves.
|
How can this difference of philosophy and self-interest be
reconciled?
allen |