# Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

It turns out that the latest 'we know what caused CCD' research was bought and paid for by the people who don't want you to think their products might be to blame.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I posted this on Bee-L and Jerry posted a concise and thorough reply. I suggest going there to read it.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Barry said:


> Cam -
> 
> Post a direct link to the post.


I wonder if this will do.

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1010&L=BEE-L&F=&S=&P=75585

Herb


----------



## brac (Sep 30, 2009)

Clear as MUD!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Yep, impenetrable.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

All the postings on Bee-L defend Jerry Bromenshenk against accusations of bias.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I have read Jerry's posting for a couple of years on Bee-L. He comes across as pretty straightforward. He has a lot of knowledge about bees and their diseases. I know he was in the Almonds this spring testing hives... gave his cell phone # to several beeks so they could contact him if their bees were sick. He is well respected by many commercial beeks.

I am satisfied by his explanations so far. He has continued to say his study was only the start... and there is a long way to go. But this does give us some ideas how to combat CCD. It also may explain why there is no CCD in Canada and it is rare among stationary beeks.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

PLOSone has certain requirements for authors publishing papers.

Jerry, et. al., didn't identify the Bayer funding as a competing interest, and he also didn't make the data available.

When a journalist breaks the news that you weren't forthright about your competing interests, that is bad news.

When a honeybee research scientist, like Jay Evans, is told to call back in 2 months by the army to see if the data is approved for release, that's even worse news for the publication of Jerry's paper.

You have to declare ALL competing interests, and you have to make data AVAILABLE to publish a paper on PLOSone.

If PLOSone does pull Jerry's paper, and that seems likely, then both Jerry and the other authors can kiss their scientific credebility goodbye. Let's face it, PLOSone is a last resort for publishing scientific papers. If you can no longer publish there because someone broke the agreement with PLOSone, then there's no place left to publish a scientific paper.

I've heard some good things about Jerry. If he really is a 'good guy', he should retract the paper himself until the above issues are resolved. There's no reason to drag down a dozen other investigators because of the above issues.


----------



## Myron Denny (Sep 27, 2009)

Imidacloprid effects on bee population
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search 

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)


Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide produced by the chemical firm Bayer AG. In France it was sold under the name Gaucho and its use is highly controversial as it is believed to be responsible for high losses in bees. According to the National Union of French Beekeepers (UNAF), the number of hives in France has plummeted to one million in 2003, from 1.45 million in 1996. Between 1995 and 2001, the average production of honey went from 75 kg/hive down to 30 kg/hive. The AFFSA (equivalent of the US FDA) indicate the national production went down from 40,000 tons to 25,000 tons per year.

French beekeepers claim that Imidacloprid, as a seed treatment for sunflowers, has killed many bees and caused a significant drop in honey production. Some requested that systemic insecticide use be withdrawn from crops where bees might be affected, while others called for a complete ban on its


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

A similar message discrediting the Bromenshank study was posted by an officer of my state association on Facebook in which he wrote "Wow... and the truth comes out"

My biggest gripe is the polarizing responses to the study. Titles, like the one of this thread hurt beekeepers more than help.

We just look like fools when we repeat this garbage.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I believe that they found IIV/IIV6 in US honeybees.

However, it's what PLOSone and Jerry, et al., do about the above issues that matters.

It goes to show why doing 'science by newspaper' is often a bad idea.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> It goes to show why doing 'science by newspaper' is often a bad idea.


I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the above? Surely the work should be judged on the plos one paper, and not the NYT piece.

WLC, as far as my reading goes, we have some accusations about Jerry and some refutations by him. I've not seen any evidence to support either side in the matter....just claims by two sides of an issue. Is there something that has convinced to believe one side over the other?

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

deknow said:


> I've not seen any evidence to support either side in the matter....just claims by two sides of an issue. Is there something that has convinced to believe one side over the other?
> 
> deknow


I agree. Jerry states that he did not receive any funding from Bayer.... is there evidence to the contrary? I also understand that PLOSone published the article without supporting data? Am I correct about that?

BEE-L is certainly full of "Jerry" supporters, most of the negativism seems to be coming from BEESOURCE - just trying to understand what to believe.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

deknow:

Why is 'science by newspaper' often a bad idea?

Do you remember cold fusion? Pons/Fleischman?

That was another NYT exclusive.

The NYT piece put a spotlight on Jerry's publication, and as a result, some journalist pointed out the Bayer funding issue. That created one controversy, disclosure.

On PLOSone, Jay Evans pointed out that the army had told him to 'call back in two months' to see if the data release was approved.

You do know who he is, right?

What is funny here, is that a paper Evans co-authored was cited in the Introduction. 

But guess what? It appears that someone didn't read the paper! The moral of the story is, don't cite a reference in a published paper and appear as if you didn't read the whole enchilada, including the annotated image of the microarray in the supplement. 

The many flaws in the paper are one issue.

The articles concerning Bayer funding are serious allegations. That's for PLOSone and Jerry, et al., to figure out. However, you can bet that some journalist is about to give Jerry a 'proctological demonstration'.

After reading through it, and seeing the flaws, I got the feeling that the research findings alone didn't warrant a paper (only a short communication), but that the data was manipulated in such a way to make it appear that there was something worth publishing.

So if you take the above into account, I would say that there is cause for review based on the paper itself and the army withholding the data.

My opinion about Jerry hasn't changed since the publication of his research.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

WLC said:


> If PLOSone does pull Jerry's paper, *and that seems likely*...


Source?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Source?"

That would be the PLoSone agreement.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

I see. I was just curious as to whether anyone from PloSone had actually said anything about the issue.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I doubt that PLoSone would make an internal review public.

I also doubt that the U.S. Army would announce the same.

Maybe Jerry will keep us updated? 

Unfortunately for those involved, the Katherine Eban piece has gone viral on the WWW.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

WLC said:


> I doubt that PLoSone would make an internal review public.


They would make the _result_ of an internal review public, however, yes?


----------



## dthompson (Feb 10, 2008)

>It also may explain why there is no CCD in Canada 
??? I am in Ontario
My poor bees seem to have ccd since mid '06
It is quite a "Pain"
While I dislike chemical companies quite a bit, in
this case (ccd) I don't think they are at fault
I wonder how many of the posters have bees
that HAVE ccd
And BTW there are 3 things that you can do
if your bees have ccd
1st VD as low as possable (always)
2nd Nosema test and control
3rd VC (vitamin C) (Treatment NOT cure-- forever)
All of above required

dave


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

No, the paper would vanish. However, there's the very real possibility that Jerry, et al., wouldn't be allowed to publish for a period of time.

Only those directly involved would be notified. For example, if Jay Evans issued a formal protest to PLoSone, he would be informed.


----------



## dthompson (Feb 10, 2008)

From a post by PLB

>13.) This is in line with the findings published by Johnson, Berenbaum et al. (2009): in a study investigating gene expression in the guts of bees of CCD colonies in comparison to healthy colonies, they found no elevated expression of pesticide response genes, but unusual ribosomal RNA fragments that were conspicuously more abundant in the guts of CCD bees. The presence of these fragments is interpreted as a possible consequence of infections with viruses that affect translation processes

dave


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I remember that post by PLB.

That very paper was the one that Evans co-authored and Jerry, et al. misunderstood (or didn't read completely).


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I just wanted to say something about the title of this Thread.

Who else has the funds to do a study like this? Who else would spend the money to develope somerthing from this research? I imagine that there are folks amongst beesource members who might be able to evaluate the findings critically, but really. Who else? Who would satisfy you? Who wouldn't someone be critical of?


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

WLC said:


> No, the paper would vanish. However, there's the very real possibility that Jerry, et al., wouldn't be allowed to publish for a period of time.
> 
> Only those directly involved would be notified. For example, if Jay Evans issued a formal protest to PLoSone, he would be informed.


Notified _directly_. We, as the viewing public, will be able to deduce the result of the internal review by whether the paper stays or whether it disappears. i.e., if the paper disappears, we'll know the review found it to be lacking; if it remains, we'll know PloSone decided there were no faults.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Right. No withdrawal means no fault.

Or, it means that PLoSone is just another paper mill. 

Of course, you know that if it is in fact withdrawn, then it will be in the news again (they love dirty laundry).


----------

