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.

Click here to listen to a CBC Radio MP3  from the CBC Radio programme "Quirks & Quarks" about conflict of interest in university medical and biotech research.  Could these concerns apply here?  Or visit the  Jan 20/01 Q&Q page

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