Finding the root cause is certainly interesting, but finding intermediary steps on the road to finding a root cause is also important. The press is notorious for being unable to represent scientific findings in a proper light. I don't know how many times I've read about 'possible cures for cancer' HIV and a whole series of other diseases simply because the press tends to hype things in order to get more eyeballs.
"minor link in bee mystery found" makes for less user engagement than "Possible Cause of Bee Die-Off Is Found".
The effect of the pairing of the two pathogens being more sever than either one on their own is also not novel (usually if you suffer from two diseases at the same time you feel a bit worse than if you had only one), but the magnitude of the effect is.
So possibly that's where they key to all this lies.
Even if the effect is real though, I'm not quite sure what can be done other than monitoring the bee populations for any strain of bee that is resistant to this combination.
If it turns out that Bayer funded this research in order to squash the idea that their chemicals are the root cause here then there will be(e) a lot of explaining to do.
Scientific research and 'big business' go hand in hand, Bayer, Monsanto and many other companies have used their money and lobbying muscle in the past to manipulate the scientific community and the press to their advantage, so it would not come as a total shock if they've done it again. However, I think it is a little early to shoot this research down, that should only come after a competing lab has tried to verify their findings and they turn out to be un-reproducible.
Not disclosing funding would be a problem if Bayer funds were used for this particular research, but if it wasn't then I don't have a problem with that, and even if the truth will come out eventually.
Just as some of us are annoyed by the scientist for not talking about the funding, we also have to remember that newspapers have funding too. Advertisers and eyeballs.
The linkbait-y headlines are all about helping the newspapers make money.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1767170
Finding the root cause is certainly interesting, but finding intermediary steps on the road to finding a root cause is also important. The press is notorious for being unable to represent scientific findings in a proper light. I don't know how many times I've read about 'possible cures for cancer' HIV and a whole series of other diseases simply because the press tends to hype things in order to get more eyeballs.
"minor link in bee mystery found" makes for less user engagement than "Possible Cause of Bee Die-Off Is Found".
The effect of the pairing of the two pathogens being more sever than either one on their own is also not novel (usually if you suffer from two diseases at the same time you feel a bit worse than if you had only one), but the magnitude of the effect is.
So possibly that's where they key to all this lies.
Even if the effect is real though, I'm not quite sure what can be done other than monitoring the bee populations for any strain of bee that is resistant to this combination.
If it turns out that Bayer funded this research in order to squash the idea that their chemicals are the root cause here then there will be(e) a lot of explaining to do.
Scientific research and 'big business' go hand in hand, Bayer, Monsanto and many other companies have used their money and lobbying muscle in the past to manipulate the scientific community and the press to their advantage, so it would not come as a total shock if they've done it again. However, I think it is a little early to shoot this research down, that should only come after a competing lab has tried to verify their findings and they turn out to be un-reproducible.
Not disclosing funding would be a problem if Bayer funds were used for this particular research, but if it wasn't then I don't have a problem with that, and even if the truth will come out eventually.