# USDA Researcher punished for his work showing negative impacts of pesticides on bees



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ul-effects-of-pesticides-on-bees-butterflies/

Politics and science at odds makes it difficult to get quality research on certain topics.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Just from reading the link, I got the impression the named scientist was more so interested in activism than his work. 

Let the work speak for itself, and if it's substantial it will be heard.


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

Ian said:


> Just from reading the link, I got the impression the named scientist was more so interested in activism than his work.
> 
> Let the work speak for itself, and if it's substantial it will be heard.


Problem is with the required agency policy review of all science products. If the work reflects poorly on a major contributor to politicians (like chemical and oil companies), agency policy will water down the work or not allow the scientist to submit it for publication. I recently retired from a federal research career and I've voluntarily removed my name from several publications over the year so it didn't stifle the work. When politics interferes with the scientific process, it's a waste of tax payer dollars and it doesn't accomplish what science is intended to do: report an unbiased evaluation of a topic. I don't know how you get the influence of politicians out of federal research, from budgets to science products, but doing so would be a good service to everyone.

I don 't personally know the scientist but have likely met him at the bee lab when I was working on a collaborative project with Jeff Pettis but I doubt he was an activist type. It looked like the issue raised it's ugly head when the author or a paper he declined to coauthor provided an explanation in the published manuscript. I doubt he did that as he would have known the repercussions but I've been wrong before.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Yet here he is yelling from the tree tops,?
Back to work, get those projects done and stop complaining. He's got to work in the channel he's got, otherwise his option IS to work for an activist group...


----------



## Michael B (Feb 6, 2010)

"Increased resistance creates a need for stronger pesticides, bringing potential harm to bees."

False.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Chip Euliss said:


> Problem is with the required agency policy review of all science products. If the work reflects poorly on a major contributor to politicians (like chemical and oil companies), agency policy will water down the work or not allow the scientist to submit it for publication.


Thank you for your input.

There are times when yelling from the tree tops is the only way to be heard.
Could be an agenda or could be out of desperation. Either way it seems the status quo is
being challenged. 
I say good it is.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Then his option should be to use his own money for his projects. Public money should not be used for activism


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

Just a few observations from the comments thus far:

1. When you disagree with an administrative decision within the federal government, the only legal option you have is to file a complaint within the federal system. That's what this guy did. The Washington Post is yelling from the tree tops--that's what sells newspapers. Don't know how they found out but federal information is readily available and given that DC has a large population of federal employees, the topic was ripe for the Washington Post's audience. I'd guess that they have their ears to the ground for potential news articles.
2. Scientific peer review for all scientists, except federal employees, is conducted by anonymous reviews that the journal editor(s) select from prominent scientists with expertise in the subject matter contained in the paper being considered for publication. Review hits the science, statistical methods, conclusions---everything... to detect any weakness in the work that would cause them to reject the paper. In our top journals, far more papers are rejected than accepted. In the federal system, agencies have a parallel review process and that includes an extra policy review so the paper doesn't reflect poorly on agency policy. Why have the federal review when the journal reviews do the same thing but no policy review. It would be like Harvard or some other institution stopping a publication because it conflicted with internal policy or made one of their financial contributors look bad. Science should inform policy decisions; policy that keeps papers from being evaluated by scientific journals is poor policy. Papers should be judged on their scientific merit and credibility, not policy. If peer reviews of potential papers by the editor(s) at scientific journals is good enough for scientists at universities, why spend the time and money for internal review?
3. Using your own funds to conduct research will never work nor will it provide the answers decision makers soon enough to make sound policy decisions. Work as described in the article would cost 2-3 times the salary that fellow makes per year and his pay should be roughly equivalent to that of a university professor. That would be out of the realm of possibilities of all the scientists I know! Just getting a paper published can be expensive, some journals are free but most charge a hundred or more dollars per page.
4. The only way for his work to be heard and considered credible is to be accepted after thorough peer-review. Agency policy should not impede the scientific process or the information it provides for us to make informed decisions.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Ian said:


> Then his option should be to use his own money for his projects. Public money should not be used for activism


Nor should it be wasted stifling/censoring results to fit a certain political mandate. Reminds me this story on an unpopular issue with the oil, gas and coal lobby of 10 years ago 

"Climate Expert Says NASA tried to Silence Him"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=0


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Hard to know the full story here.

I will say that I don't rely on peer review as being 'good enough' for anything.....if it were, published science would be robust and not full of false assumptions and false conclusions.

I could point to any one of a number of peer reviewed published studies that are so lacking in merrit due to poor peer review that they aren't worth considering.

If someone worked for me, I would never make 'peer reviewed' as the litmus test to decide if a paper is worth publishing or has fatal flaws that make it a poor reflection of the work I'm supposed to be supervising.


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

I've seen my share of poor and just plain useless papers too but I'd wager there would be far more without peer review! Have any ideas to improve the system?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

1. I wouldn't make statements like:


> f peer reviews of potential papers by the editor(s) at scientific journals is good enough for scientists at universities, why spend the time and money for internal review?


...you spend money on internal and/or independent reviews because being peer review can be a productive high hurdle or it can be a farce.

2. There needs to me some kind of mechanism that allows researchers to update/ammend/annotate theor work after the fact...something well short of retraction and much much more than ignoring legitimate critique because it can affect job/funding /etc.

3. Non scientists have to read this stuff and be willing to question it when there are problems.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Chip I bow to you experience on this issue. I'm an outsider looking in, who has money in this game so I take it seriously.
There is not a lot of info to work on here, but the way the info we have is presented by the media along with the tone of the article screams activism to me. 
That's just the opinion I formed from reading the article.


----------



## babybee (Mar 23, 2012)

I have seen him at many bee meetings. I am a huge fan. Period. I hope he keeps his research going!!!


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

deknow said:


> 1. I wouldn't make statements like:
> 
> ...you spend money on internal and/or independent reviews because being peer review can be a productive high hurdle or it can be a farce.
> 
> ...


I don't mind making statements like this because the peer review system we use today has generated much of the knowledge in science and technology we use today. Is it perfect? Nope, but is there a better way? I would argue that most internal reviewers of manuscripts are not as qualified as those who review the paper for a prestigious journal. Every scientist who publishes is expected to provide peer review of other papers and most do. Journal editors, especially the associate editors that contact potential reviewers, are knowledgeable within specific areas and they handle review of papers within their specialty. They generally have a higher success rate in getting the most qualified folks to agree to review a particular paper. While it is true that any review can be a farce, it is the associate and editor-in-chief's job to pick them out and get additional reviews if needed. They also tend to get extra reviews if there is great disparity in the reviews. I've served as associate editor for journals in the past and that's the way we handled the review. My point is why do this twice? Doesn't make dollars or sense!

There is a mechanism that allows researchers update/amend etc. their work and I've seen it done a few times. More often, a poor result is challenged by another scientist who published his/her paper that refutes or refines the work of another under the careful scrutiny of peer review. Throughout the history of science, it hasn't always been the flawless papers that have advanced the field; many times, it's the follow-up papers that challenge the conclusion from flawed papers by interpreting the findings in a different way that really advance the field. Point being is that even papers with flaws (not caught in peer review) can have great value because someone's feathers got ruffled up enough initiate a study to look at things a little differently or in light of some new information that became available. Those are the papers that really advance the field. True, it's not a perfect process but it's the way we learn and push the ball forward. If there is a better way, I wouldn't be the only one interesting in hearing about it. Debate has been at the core of science since the very beginning.

Indeed, non-scientists need to be able to understand what is being said and then question things that don't make sense--some of the very best critique comes from the folks using the information to make a living. Many scientists provide very complex answers to simple questions which doesn't improve communication one bit. If a scientist can't explain what he or she did in a way everyone can understand, it may just be that they don't understand what they did very well. Everyone should be critical of new information--challenging scientific findings is an important part of the process for scientists and non-scientists alike. Muffling science because it doesn't fit a policy paradigm is not.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

The enforced drinking age keeps most minors out of most bars most of the time. It is pretty effective overall and it surely prevents many bad situations and deaths every year.
With all that said, do I trust it as a qualifier for me to assume that any particular person in a bar is over 21? Not on your life.
Merely being peer reviewed does not make me assume that it is good science, and often it is not.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Peer review? Perfect? Nope. But...in my opinion, it beats the daylights out of the anecdotal 'facts' routinely passed around here.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Well, Chip argued that peer review was good enough and that there is no reason for an 'internal review' to determine if there is something that shouldn't be published even though it has passed peer review.

If the organization cares about the quality of the science they publish, then of course their will be an internal review of some kind.

When I was doing some research a few years ago, I was reading some of the Wikipedia back end (the editors discussing what should be added, taken out, changed, updared, etc). It was an interesting window into the process.

On the topic of Dr. Lu's first study, there was a great back and forth between editors.

The study had been cited as having replicated CCD. One of the editors noted that the symptoms Lu described as having caused didn't meet the definition of CCD as the authors had claimed (which is ironic because Lu claimed that the Wikipedia definition of CCD was the 'gold standard').

The conclusion (at the time) was that because it had been published, and because it had not been disproven or retracted in a peer reviewed setting , that the article would not be changed, and should not be changed until one of those things happened. ...everyone agreed on the problem, but published trumped actually reading the words and comparing them to the symptoms described elsewhere at wikipedia.

Peer review isn't a bad thing...but it can't really be used as a test to determine the quality of the work. Each individual study must be looked at closely in order to qualify it.. .that is true if you are a beekeeper or an administrator at a USDA lab.

Peer review is 'good'...but it's certainly not 'good enough'.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

deknow>>
It's hard for me to believe you are mentioning the wikipedia process in the same breath as the fluid scientific peer review process.
Scientific peer review does just what you claim it doesn't do: it determines the quality of the work sometimes quickly, sometimes not..
But maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, and if that's the case I'm willing to be educated.

I'm also begining to lose focus on what your point is here. I get you're not pleased with the current state of reviewing scientific papers, and some of the cracks in the process have been mentioned, but what is your solution?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Well, the first part of the solution is, as the USDA has been criticized for doing, internal reviews to determine the quality of the work.

My point with the Wikipedia anecdote is that even outside of science literature, that plain as day contradictions and falsehoods that have been 'peer reviewed' are hard to shake.


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

My argument had to do with removing politics from the scientific review process and the need to remove redundancy from the peer process. Having a paper reviewed twice by a blind set of 2, 3 independent reviewers, a policy review, plus the review of the associate editor and the editor-in-chief is more than a bit much--its a waste of resources and time. If a Harvard professor had to follow the same process, it wouldn't change a single thing other than his or her level of frustration. There are great editors at the top journals and I would stack the quality of their reviews right up there at the very top. Why waste everyone's time and money. We have limited dollars for research and we should use it wisely in my opinion. ARS bee research has benefited beekeepers for many many years and I have yet to meet one of their scientists who wasn't sincere about their work and who wasn't well qualified. Never met one that even close to being an activist but I've been wrong before--usually activism will get you booted from the agency LOTS sooner than the scientist in question. From the article, he appeared to be a seasoned scientist whose work had earned him considerable respect from his peers. 

I'm all ears if you have a better system than we currently have and I wish you luck. Peer review insures an objective process, time weeds out the slop that manages to get into the system, just like in the CCD example you provided. I certainly wouldn't put much stock in wikipedia or other wiki sites.


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

Ian said:


> Chip I bow to you experience on this issue. I'm an outsider looking in, who has money in this game so I take it seriously.
> There is not a lot of info to work on here, but the way the info we have is presented by the media along with the tone of the article screams activism to me.
> That's just the opinion I formed from reading the article.


Yep, it's hard to know with certainty Ian, especially with all the media hype. I was in the federal research system for 32 years and had over 130 papers go through the review process. Never saw a useful change on a single paper other than a typo or something that the journal review caught anyway. It did slow the publication process down considerably and it didn't change the message in a single paper I published. A waste of money in my opinion. I guess it did show that the agency was concerned about the quality of their publications but I don't believe federal publications in journals are of any higher quality than those of scientists at universities, etc. Over the years, I did take my name off a few publications that agency policy review would have weakened the findings just to avoid stepping on someone's toes.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Quite simply, most of the Federal Agencies have rules regarding getting research published. You break those rules then you broke the rules. If they do not agree with the results, there are avenues you can take without breaking rules. And if that doesn't work, call PEER from a friend's cell phone, tell them about the data, and they can file a FOIA request. That starts making supervisions get worried.

The article said he broke the rule and sorry, those rules are there for reasons. And ways around it.

Secondly it said he broke travel rules. Well those folks in Congress can get away with it but the trench folks cannot. Apparently he is trench person. 

If you are going to fight the system, the rest of your actions must be above and beyond the required standards. If you are going to be a whistleblower, I am fine with that, but you better be on a that narrow line of no mistakes. NONE. Otherwise, sadly they will try to get you it seems. 

Then you get lawyers.


----------



## Chip Euliss (Sep 2, 2010)

Actually, I suspect all of them have rules regarding publications. My issue is that science should feed policy, policy should not constrain science. I'm sure you're right--lawyers will get involved. And a jury trial is just like peer review but it is only done twice on very rare occasions, as it should. That's my opinion.


----------



## dadux (Feb 23, 2012)

I have 2 questions.
Nicotine based insecticides target insects right?
Honey bees are insects right?
Therefore Nicotine based insecticides target Honey bees.

Peer reviews will be accepted.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

dadux said:


> I have 2 questions.
> Nicotine based insecticides target insects right?
> Honey bees are insects right?
> Therefore Nicotine based insecticides target Honey bees.
> ...


We'll sort of. Systemic insecticides target only insects that consume the plant.


----------



## dadux (Feb 23, 2012)

Hmmm. 
OK.
Does that includes consumption of pollen & nectar?
Is consumption the only mode? i.e. what about physical contact?
D


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Don't forget guttation(sp?).

Crazy Roland


----------



## dadux (Feb 23, 2012)

Fascinating. Never heard of Guttation. Thanks for that.

From Wikipedia: Guttation is the exudation of drops of xylem sap on the tips or edges of leaves of some vascular plants, such as grasses. Guttation is not to be confused with dew, which condenses from the atmosphere onto the plant surface.

From Beesuite.com: On dry days, bees of many species can be seen drinking guttation droplets. Unfortunately, some research has shown that bees drinking the xylem sap of plants treated with systemic insecticides can be poisoned by the liquid. Guttation occurs in many grass-family plants, including maize and other grains that are commonly treated with systemic insecticides.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

dadux said:


> Hmmm.
> OK.
> Does that includes consumption of pollen & nectar?
> Is consumption the only mode? i.e. what about physical contact?
> D


Well you can peruse this 2011 APHIS survey (99 samples) to see for yourself what was detected and tell us what really jumps out at you. FYI my hives were among the samples, they are in an area of heavy use of systemic seed coatings and my results were negative including beekeeper applied miticides. 
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_he...ees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf

Yes, neonics are highly toxic to honeybees (as are most insecticides) if there is physical contact with honeybees they will die. This has happened on occasion through planter dust drift when planting fields in which bees are actively working. When it does there is little debate about the cause but this is not a common occurrence and supposedly has been addressed and remedied. At least I don't recall hearing of any confirmed kills in the past couple of years.


----------



## dadux (Feb 23, 2012)

Very cool I will have a look. Thanks so much! 
The area of heavy use... Was that corn & soybeans? Or Sunflower & Milo, etc? I am surrounded by corn & soybeans.
D


----------



## dadux (Feb 23, 2012)

Well that will take some time to look over. Very interesting Pesticide analysis on pg 16.

Are there more recent surveys available?
Do the more recent surveys include Oxalic Acid?
Since OA was just approved this year perhaps the question should be: Will future surveys include OA?
D


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

dadux said:


> Well that will take some time to look over. Very interesting Pesticide analysis on pg 16.
> 
> Are there more recent surveys available?
> Do the more recent surveys include Oxalic Acid?
> ...


 The survey only shows positive readings, many more compounds were tested for, wish they had included the negatives, no idea if OA is one of them. 
I know additional testing has been done but I don't know the scope or when results might be released.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

dadux said:


> Very cool I will have a look. Thanks so much!
> The area of heavy use... Was that corn & soybeans? Or Sunflower & Milo, etc? I am surrounded by corn & soybeans.
> D


Primarily corn and soybeans though I doubt we have the concentrations that you have.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

dadux said:


> I have 2 questions.
> Nicotine based insecticides target insects right?
> Honey bees are insects right?
> Therefore Nicotine based insecticides target Honey bees.
> ...


I'm usually more of a stalker in the commercial forum as I'm not commercial (but their conversations are much more interesting).

The argument above is a bit of a straw man. It's too simplistic, and if we want to use that reasoning, *ALL* insecticides "target" honey bees, not just neonics. There's no good reason to single them out as different.

There are a number of points I'd like to make just so they're out there. These are nothing original, I'm just restating what smarter people have said many times before.

Always remember, always, the dose makes the poison. Pouring salt on a slug kills the slug, therefore it's a pesticide. It's even made of chemicals (because everything on earth is made of chemicals). You can die from ingesting too much of it, but I put some on my dinner last night.

Pesticides are expensive, and no farmer wants to use more than will produce positive gains. Think of using miticides. I don't enjoying buying them and applying them, but when needed, they absolutely increase the survival rate of my hives, so I spend the money, because they're cheaper than lost hives. And I'm not even dependent upon my hive costs to pay other bills. If my outlay in bees directly affected paying my mortgage or electric bill, I'd be even more budget-minded in every cent spent.

Studies have been done to evaluate the amount of various systemic pesticides in pollen and nectar. When reading those results, don't jump to the conclusion that anything above 0 clearly means terribleness. We now have such sensitive detection equipment that we can find some amount of almost anything you'd like to test for in everything. Ok, that's a bit hyperbolic, but you get the idea. Just remember when reading detected levels of anything in anything, the dose makes the poison.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

The comment was made that neonics target bees, It misses the point and is actually quite false. 
Neonics were developed to be a systemic pesticide, meaning as pointed out that only pest that feed on the plants are targeted. as mentioned it includesd pollen and nectar, but whats missed is the tiny amount that remain in pollen and nectar and the factor of how little these row crops in generaly provide to bees.

The option prior to systemics was a 3 timers a season foliar spray which covered everything in the field, even the non target plants that were blooming such as Dandelions (list is pretty long really)

So while Neonics are in fact very deadly pesticides, the goal was targeted pest control that reduced the total amount used, has less soil residues and after life and reduced the pathways to no target species.

personally I think they have done very well at that. one problem keeps poping up is foliar sprays of neonics..... in that application the increased toxicity may make them worse than parethyroids.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Lazybhoney - all true, but how do you explain the ISCIRA tests of my honey that show significant amounts of C4 pollen protein(corn) in the honey? 

Crazy Roland


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

University of Oh shows very clearly bees do feed on corn pollen(and I agree) but its around 10% of the intake for roughly 2 weeks so not exactly a huge issue. Two other things to consider, the amount of Neonics left at that point in the plants life is usually tiny (not detectable in my hives and its been tested) and these are summer bees, Pollen is consumed rapidly and even if you had a loss of summer bees it seems to be a none issue.

You can add to that Canola, extremely covered, and yet a huge honey /pollen crop that we have a decade or better of history thats showing no issues with residuals, or hive contamination. When bees are on Canola they are ON canola. huge amounts.

Not trying to argue for or against in this discussion, just look at the whole picture.... and the options.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Well balanced perspective lazybee. Do bees work corn? I rarely see it but clearly it happens on occasion. However the time frame is a narrow one and occurs early in the summer when there are usually lots of other pollen sources available. My opinion is if there are bee problems in row crop country that soybean aphid spray and fungicides are a much more likely culprit.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Lazyb, Jim, points taken. 

We all need to keep our eyes and ears open to find more clues.

Crazy Roland


----------

