# Transgenic bees



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

I have been keeping bees for about 10 years now as a hobbyist and can't help but notice how the global economy, for better or for worse, has been directly responsible for the import of honey bee pests. You hear the lament of those that began before the onslaught of plagues that now visit upon most who keep bees. So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?

What if there were no hypothetical question?

This is the same as "would you give up your freedom if it would make your country safer". Well, since I don't believe it would, I'll say no, but that's not really the question. The question is hypothetical. The question comes with an assumption that I don't believe is possible.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

What if there were no hypothetical question?

This is the same as "would you give up your freedom if it would make your country safer". Well, since I don't believe it would, I'll say no, but that's not really the question. The question is hypothetical. The question comes with an assumption that I don't believe is possible.

I really didn't anticipate that response. I am a molecular biologist and don't see this argument as a matter of possibility. I think cloning miticide resistance genes (or others) into the honey bee is a likely extension of the honey bee genome project, honey bee virology and honey bee cell culture technology. It is some time off in the future (maybe 10 years) because honey bee sciences are so poorly funded which has had the predictable outcome of setting honey bees behind other organisms where genetic engineering is a simple proposition. Cloning the glyphosate resistance gene into agricultural crops to make them resistant to Round-up is a good example. Being a hobby beekeeper I personally am not sure where I stand on this issue. There are always unintended consequences when playing God but I am not very happy with all of our imported pests and diseases either. Classical breeding programs are well intended, and I have the utmost respect for people like Sue Cobey, but a positive outcome may not be in the cards. Stealing genes from other organisms and placing them into the honey bee is going to be the faster approach. Sue has an older paper on sperm mediated transfer of DNA into the honey bee and another paper recently published a method of growing embryonic bee cells in vitro. The only missing tool in the genetic engineers tool chest is a nice bee virus to shuttle recombinant DNA into honey bee eggs and integrate into the bee genome. So, you see, it is really more a matter of time than possibility. 
This is an area that should be considered because once these bees are for sale, they will have an opportunity to supplant feral colonies and of course mate with our bees. Genes that could be targets for improvement include all those that readily come to mind and many more. Is any of this a good idea?


----------



## Dinor (Mar 6, 2007)

I don't know why man thinks he can do better than nature. Invariably they make it worse not better. Unforseen circumstances abound! I would much prefer to utilize the genetic influence of feral survivors than go meddling with the gene structure.


----------



## riverrat (Jun 3, 2006)

I am not a fan of anything that has had its genetics altered. There has been some theories about ccd being caused by pollen produced by genetically altered plants. Although the cause of CCD has not yet been pinpointed. When they go to talking Geneticaly altered anything I try to run the other way.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*GM bees*



HVH said:


> This is an area that should be considered because once these bees are for sale, they will have an opportunity to supplant feral colonies and of course mate with our bees. Genes that could be targets for improvement include all those that readily come to mind and many more. Is any of this a good idea?


NO, NO, NO and a thousand times NO! Not since those greedy, blinkered morons at Monsanto tried to plant their GM crap all over England have I come across an idea so wrong-headed, so appallingly lacking in the most basic forms of (un)common sense.

BIODIVERSITY is the key to the success of all extant species on Earth. That means - for those of you with your heads stuck in a microscope - that VARIETY is the most important factor in the survival of a species - the More the BETTER. If you read Darwin, you cannot help but take away this basic, underlying principle: bees - along with every other successful (i.e. existing) species have adapted themselves to a huge variety of climates and conditions right across the globe - THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL HERE. As soon as there is a 'Roundup Resistant Superbee', a bunch of profit-motivated idiot bee-breeders will be peddling it around the globe and before you can say 'biodiversity', they will oust all other honeybees, because Monsanto (or whichever Frankenstein factory produces them) will make sure that they are heavily promoted and at the same time a 'mystery virus' will conveniently wipe out all other genotypes.

They will thrive for a while - maybe a few years - maybe decades - in their pristine genetic purity until one day, some beekeeper finds that all his colonies have died out. More follow, until a team of researchers discover that there was a fatal flaw built into the GM bee - unsuspected by its inventors - but unfortunately incurable.

OK, I'm obviously a paranoid, lefty lunatic who hates Monsanto and their spawn. And who knows, I may be wrong - but do you really want to take the risk?

What do you trust - millions of years of evolution, or a profit-driven agrichemical company?


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

> ....because Monsanto (or whichever Frankenstein factory
> produces them) will make sure that they are heavily
> promoted and at the same time a 'mystery virus' will
> conveniently wipe out all other genotypes.

Reverse the sequence here and you have the basis for a conspiracy novel.

Today plus five years: A profit-driven agrichemical company has announced the successful development of a genetically modified bee that is resistant to varroa, CCD, etc. Availability is limited to those who sign an agreement not to breed their own queens or do for sale through approved retailers.

> What do you trust - millions of years of evolution,
> or a profit-driven agrichemical company?

How soon would GMO bees be approved by governments and embraced by beekeepers?


Trust is not a financial incentive and we all know the answer to both your question and mine.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Biologists know just enough about genes to screw everything up. As a scientist you should be responsible enough to look at the long term picture and stop trying the quick fixes.


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

HVH said:


> the global economy, for better or for worse, has been directly responsible for the import of honey bee pests.


I'm not sure the "global economy" can be blamed, since both types of mites were illegally imported.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Biologists know just enough about genes to screw everything up. As a scientist you should be responsible enough to look at the long term picture and stop trying the quick fixes.

Can you cite a case where scientists screwed up everything due to their lack of knowledge of a particular gene? I can think of some fopahs that followed money, but I would submit that this wasn't a bunch of shallow thinking scientists as much as CEO's and share holders looking to make a buck.

I understand the fear that some have regarding transgenics and being in this field I think caution is needed. On the other hand I can't cite a single Frankenstein story based on facts. Sure, people have blamed GM plants for every bad thing that defies explanation, but this is no different than blaming Zeus when facts are lacking. I have been a scientist for 30 years and would be the first to admit that we often times forge ahead blindly because we have a very simple picture of a problem in our heads and are unwilling (unable) to take in the "long term picture" (or money is involved). Should we throw away computers, stop space travel, give up on curing cancer because there will be unintended consequences. Consider the nuclear bomb. Was it a good idea to develop and use the bomb? Now we have to live with the fear of a nuclear holocaust. On the other hand, the fear of the holocaust may have already prevented numerous wars and deaths of millions. So, unintended consequences may be great or horrible.
If one of our kids was deathly ill and the doctor said there is a new gene therapy that can cure their condition how many of us would decline. So in the end it boils down to 'cost-benefit-analysis'. Ok, we haven't lost all of our bees yet, and it may never get that bad, but is it 25% as moral to use genetic engineering to remediate 25% losses? Is it morally superior to use chemicals to solve our problems?
It may sound like I am advocating transgenics, but I am not. I much prefer to play it safe. But just like antibiotics, I like the idea of having a plan B. The problem with researching for plan B is that it will become plan A as soon as it is developed.

I'm not sure the "global economy" can be blamed, since both types of mites were illegally imported.

There is an illegal and a legal global economy. I was simply suggesting that our pests (and bees for that matter) were from foreign soil. Trading with foreign nations is almost as old as man, but the speed of exchange of species and their pests is breakneck. Instead of new pests being introduces once a century we are seeing them hitting us hard fast and repeatedly. Expect more to come. In fact, count the ones we don't have currently and add them to the list of likely pests that you will have soon (relative term).


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

HVH is more likely right than wrong about where the future lies, and the implications are very uncomfortable.

Less than a century ago Luther Burbank was vilified for messing with mother nature through hybridizing. The varieties he developed and the industry that has flourished since then still provides most of what we eat today. However, GMO is the new frontier with one big difference. The products are patented and companies reap huge financial rewards from a successful introduction e.g. Canola.

Would a new strain of bee which resisted varroa, tracheal mites, CCD, AFB, etc developed under the following scenarios be lauded or vilified by beekeepers?

A) UC Davis using Sue Colby's Instrumentally Inseminated techniques with breeder queens sold for $100 each.

B) UC Davis using Sue Colby's bee virus to shuttle recombinant DNA into honey bee eggs with breeder queens sold for $125 each.

C) GMOflectics Inc with breeder queens sold for $250 each.

D) GMOgrabit Inc with breeder queens sold for $100 each, availability limited through authorized breeders and restricted licensing fees for usage (supercedure queens breach the license).

E) GMOgrabit Inc with breeder queens sold for $500 each, availability limited through authorized breeders and restricted licensing fees for usage (supercedure queens breach the license).

If a poll were taken I suspect the results would be:

A) $100 Lauded
B) $125 Lauded with some reservations
C) $250 Lauded with many reservations
D) $100 Vilified
E) $500 Vilified

When the structure and licensing is offensive, the entry cost becomes a secondary factor.

Even supporters of GMO technology who believe in patent protection dislike the exclusionary business policies and aggressive enforcement.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I'll be the first to admit I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but I have a few thoughts and a few questions
It seems to me that the folks who develop the GM organisms, plants/bees whatever, have a doomed business plan
start with corn
they sell GM corn to farmer A
he signs on the dotted line that he won't save any seed corn and will buy new seed from the "EVIL CORPORATE ENTITY" next year
but his corn pollinates farmer B's corn who didn't sign the contract
over time the "EVIL CORPORATE ENTITY's" secret is going to spread into neighboring fields (I realize this is the nightmare scenario everyone worries about, it's not what I' talking about here)
how can they legally tell farmer B he doesn't have the rights to his own seed corn?
he didn't sign a piece of paper
jump to bees
I buy a $500 breeder queen
I sign a piece of paper that says I'll pay for every queen I raise from her 
what if she swarms
what if I encourage her to swarm
what if after 5 years her genetics are spread all over my local area
(I swear I didn't encourage this to happen) 
I just don't see how this is much of a business plan for the "EVIL CORPORATE ENTITY's"
I understand the issues with some kind of unintended problem occurring and what I'm mentioning here is just an example of how that is bound to happen, but it seem inevitable
I don't know, just rambling here
the world is getting to be a scary place

Dave


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

If the argument ends up coming down to transgenic bees being inevitable, then we should support the Sue Cobey labs of the world and hope Darth Vader and his evil minions don't get the patents first. Personally I don't see corporate America as evil for making a profit. You either have the private sector driving a free market economy, or you have government forced egalitarianism or worse. If a transgenic bee, resistant to miticides is developed, I would hope that those involved would test it first in a closed system for a few years and see if the gene can hop to mites and see what effect it has on feral populations near the transgenics.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

Hi Dave,

> It seems to me that the folks who develop the GM organisms, plants/bees
> whatever, have a doomed business plan
> start with corn
> they sell GM corn to farmer A
> he signs on the dotted line that he won't save any seed corn and
> will buy new seed from the "EVIL CORPORATE ENTITY" next year
> but his corn pollinates farmer B's corn who didn't sign the contract
> over time the "EVIL CORPORATE ENTITY's" secret is going to spread into
> neighboring fields (I realize this is the nightmare scenario everyone
> worries about, it's not what I' talking about here)
> how can they legally tell farmer B he doesn't have the rights to his own seed corn?
> he didn't sign a piece of paper

Au contraire...Google will turn up situations where Monsanto has been bringing (and winning) lawsuits against next door neighbors for stealing the patented corn. The rights and wrongs are less clear than the apparent vindictiveness with which Monsanto pursues lawsuits. The supposed strategy is to target individuals and destroy the owner's livelihood in order to spread fear and encourage compliance.

> I understand the issues with some kind of unintended problem occurring
> and what I'm mentioning here is just an example of how that is bound to
> happen, but it seem inevitable

Yes it does seeem inevitable, and yes that's the way things work in the real world but not in the court of law where because Monsanto has been winning.

You read more about such lawsuits overseas. One headline declared that Monsanto was suing the Danish importer of grain grown in Argentina because the GMO patents are valid in Europe. GMO seeds are sold in Argentina even though the law there prevents Monsanto from registering its patents. 

The hour-long Christian Jentsch documentary called "Patent for a Pig" made a strong impression because it was 60-Minutes style and very believable. It covered Monsanto's effort to patent the genes for boosting meat production in Germany. The claims are so broad that heritage German pigs which are grass-raised and never been fed GMO crops show three of the genes Monsanto claims to have created in the lab.

> the world is getting to be a scary place

Yes indeed....


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

YIKES!!

you're scaring me!
you mean because you're activities have polluted my "stuff" it's MY fault?
that's just WRONG!

Dave


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

drobbins,

> how can they legally tell farmer B he doesn't have the rights
> to his own seed corn?
> he didn't sign a piece of paper

> you mean because you're activities have polluted my "stuff" it's MY fault?

Though my tongue is firmly planted in cheek, it is conceivable that an article such as the following could appear in the Raleigh Gazette some day.

In April 2008 drobbins was called to collect a swarm on the
other side of town. It was thought to be a feral swarm from a
giant poplar tree that had been damaged in the March storms.

The queen proved productive. Neither she nor her daughters
suffered heavy winter losses and within three years all his
hives were descendants of that first swarm. drobbins became
the toast of the NCSBA Wake County chapter after he provided
supercedure and swarm cells to his friends in the club.

The president of the club lauded the quality of the bees and
thanked drobbins for his generosity at the August meeting.
The secretary posted it on the club website where it
attracted the attention of a GMOgrabit employee.

GMOgrabit bought a hive from an unnamed club member and has
since filed suit against drobbins after finding evidence that
gobblyanto genes were present in the bees. The suit claims
that "drobbins either knew or ought to have known that bees
which are varroa and CCD tolerant bear the patented genetic
strain developed by GMOgrabit".

It is now believed that the 2008 swarm may have issued from
the staging site of a commercial beekeeper.

In case you think this is too much of an exaggeration, what I did was translate into bee speak the content of a real article at http://westernfarmpress.com/news/7-6-04-column-Monsanto/

For over forty years Schmeiser has grown and bred his own
variety of canola. In 1997, he found evidence of glyphosate
tolerant (Roundup Ready) canola in his fields. He did nothing
about it and saved seed from one of his fields for use in 1998.

Farmers who purchase glyphosate tolerant canola have to sign
a license agreement agreeing not to save seed from one year
to the next. Schmeiser, however, has never purchased canola
requiring such an agreement so he was unconcerned about
saving seed from his own field.

In 1998, Monsanto found evidence of their patented glyphosate
tolerant genetic material in Schmeiser's canola and ended up
suing him in court. The Canadian court found Schmeiser guilty
of "selling or otherwise depriving the plaintiffs [Monsanto]
of their exclusive right to use plants which the defendants
[Schmeiser] know or ought to know are Roundup tolerant, or
using the seeds from such plants." The court held that
Monsanto had the right to retrieve their patented genetic
material in Schmeiser's canola even though they could not
prove how it got there. In addition, Schmeiser was ordered to
pay Monsanto $140,000 in damages and legal costs.

Schmeiser did not distribute his seeds to anybody else, so the costs were limited.

In the bee speak scenario could the penalties go beyond civil court into the crimimal domain because dastardly villain drobbins actively distributed a patented and restricted material that was the sole property of GMOgrabit? Sure hope the warden lets you keep bees in jail.....

The sad part here is that no one can really be sure whether the above is merely a lame attempt at humor or a prediction.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

" Personally I don't see corporate America as evil " no, they are not all bad but try to remember ENRON, THE CABLE BROTHERS, AND LEONA HELMSLY(may she rest in peace). capitalists are not evil but the potential for abuse is always there so many will always be cautious.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"In the bee speak scenario could the penalties go beyond civil court into the crimimal domain because dastardly villain drobbins actively distributed a patented and restricted material that was the sole property of GMOgrabit? Sure hope the warden lets you keep bees in jail....."
you don't have to go to jail to have all you worked for taken away by predatory lawsuits that deep pocket companies may bring against you if you are the unlucky one used as an example.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

note to self:

when self goes and collects a swarm of "magic bees" and decides to donate some queens from them to NCSBA, tell said recipient that my name is Alfred E. Newman and wipe queen cages down for prints

Dave

ps:sorry Al


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

By the same arguments used by the seed companies and reversed, would a person who found their seed crop "contaminated" by genes from transgenic crops be likely to win a suit against a seed company?

What about the person who faces greater weed control costs because genes for GM plants have "jumped" into "weed" species? Could/would that person be likely to win a suit against the seed companies?


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

Michael Bush said:


> The question comes with an assumption that I don't believe is possible.


I think Michael may be on to something (but not assuming we are fully aligned in our points of view ) with the first reply to this thread. I was reminded of a bumper sticker I saw a couple days ago - not a new one, but for some reason it stuck in my mind: "Secure our borders now!" The poor driver of that van will probably never live in a secure world because of his/her big assumption.

The more we assume our empirical experts (scientists), policy experts (politicians) and economic experts (corporate middle men) can work to fix a broken system, the more we invest in their expert abstractions. Suddenly something as simple and experiential as eating honey becomes specialized weights and measures, laws and policies, and a commodity to be traded like baseball cards.

How removed and abstract does our food really need to be? Do we really need science, law, and the profit motive to feed ourselves? How food-stupid have we become? How convoluted will the system become before we either create Eden-in-vitro or die of starvation? The reason I took up beekeeping is I realized the the ability to feed people is a sacred skill, and it's time for a paradigm shift in our foodways...a new way of looking at food that doesn't involve anxiety-driven abstracts and assumptions.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>How removed and abstract does our food really need to be? Do we really need science, law, and the profit motive to feed ourselves? How food-stupid have we become? How convoluted will the system become before we either create Eden-in-vitro or die of starvation? The reason I took up beekeeping is I realized the the ability to feed people is a sacred skill, and it's time for a paradigm shift in our foodways...a new way of looking at food that doesn't involve anxiety-driven abstracts and assumptions.


Get growing that garden!! Fence off your lawn, and graze that cow, make room in your house for your laying chicken,
Take time off work and fill your cellar with winter food!
I agree, the only way people are going to understand what it actually means to grow food is by doing it themselves!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

HVH said:


> Ican't help but notice how the global economy, for better or for worse, has been directly responsible for the import of honey bee pests.


...according to most sources, the "global economy" is responsible for honeybees being here in the first place....and could easily be considered a pest wrt native pollinators.

deknow


----------



## Black Creek (May 19, 2006)

*Just Say NO to GMO*

I tend to look down on GMO for feeding the masses. From what I've read, seems that generally speaking as increased pest resistance and productivity goes up, flavor and nutritional value go down. And when(not if) the next disease or bug attacts a crop, the lack of genetic diversity would lead to total crop failure. That seems more than a little bit dangerous to me. And seems to me it wasnt that long ago that they found that some strain of GMO corn that killed giant flocks of migrating Monarch butterflies when their toxic pollen was released.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> And seems to me it wasnt that long ago that they found that some strain of GMO corn that killed giant flocks of migrating Monarch butterflies when their toxic pollen was released. -newbeematt


No. That story has been hyped and exaggerated and retold countless times, but it simply isn't true.

Some researchers discovered that if monarch caterpillars (not "migrating monarchs") were force fed pollen from corn that had a transgene ("GM") in it to control European corn borers, those caterpillars died. What gets left out of the story is that monarch caterpillars force fed conventional corn pollen died, too. Corn pollen simply isn't a suitable diet for monarch caterpillars. Milkweed leaves make up a suitable diet for monarch caterpillars.

And the results of that single, now-infamous study have never been replicated. No one else has come up with the same results.

Add to that, the transgenic corn used in the study is no longer grown (was removed from the market by the EPA for other reasons).

What does kill giant flocks of migrating monarchs is destruction of resources, both in the loss of milkweed plants through spraying regimens (milkweeds are often classified "noxioux weeds") and in the logging/deforestation of the overwintering habitat in Mexico of the monarch butterflies. Habitat loss may be rapidly pushing monarchs toward extinction. But that isn't the fault of GM corn.

Ironically, the same toxic proteins that have been accused of killing monarch caterpillars are used directly (the plants do not produce them) in orchards, and a slightly different form if used by some beekeepers to control wax moths.


----------



## Black Creek (May 19, 2006)

ok, I'll take that.

But how about the extremely low level of biodiveristy that we will be left with when we decide that the world is better off with only one type of dent corn, one type of rye, one type of wheat or one type of bee and something new in the way of pests of diseases hit the stage? Havock. That's what will happen. Food shortages in developed countries and famine in lesser ones. Heck, they constantly find that there is a new and improved strain of influenza. Good thing there is more than one type of human.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

You guys are great. This really is a good forum and my hats off to those that make it possible.

Regarding losing genetic diversity: Let's hope that the first transgenic bee will arrive without all the breeding restrictions. Who knows, if this industry continues to have horribly underfunded research labs, then it may be another 20 to 50 years before we get the "Super Bee". Since the honey bee genome has been sequenced and genetic engineering tools are becoming more affordable and more powerful, though, it may be sooner than later.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...lets hope later than sooner. time and time again, what proves to be valuable is a diverse gene pool, not a "perfect" one.

deknow


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

drobbins said:


> I'll be the first to admit I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, but I have a few thoughts and a few questions
> It seems to me that the folks who develop the GM organisms, plants/bees whatever, have a doomed business plan
> start with corn
> they sell GM corn to farmer A
> ...


Just to add an extra layer of fright, it is now possible (I've done it many times in my lab) to clone inducible genes. It is possible with what is commercially available today, to clone a resistance gene into an organism that is turned on only in the presence of a drug. In this case a miticide resistance gene could be cloned under the control of tetracycline responsive elements. Give your Super Bees tetracycline and the miticide resistance gene is turned on at the same time you are treating for foulbrood. The patent holders at this point won't care about uncontrolled swarming and mating because they are selling the drug that turns on the gene. The drug could be made specifically for this application and patented.


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

HVH said:


> Just to add an extra layer of fright, it is now possible (I've done it many times in my lab) to clone inducible genes. It is possible with what is commercially available today, to clone a resistance gene into an organism that is turned on only in the presence of a drug.


I understand there are those also working on "suicide" genes. In this case your crop (or bees) become infertile after a season so you are forced to buy more seed/breeding stock, which will likely have other genetic strings attached. 

Irregardless of health concerns about GMO's, the real issue is control...who controls the genes, the seeds, our food, etc. Both the suicide and inducible gene would effectively eliminate the "competition." Imagine what would happen if corporations, and not consumer demand, controlled the food supply.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

There are probably many other approaches that none of us can foresee.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>ok, I'll take that.

>>But how about the extremely low level of biodiveristy that we will be left with when we decide that the world is better off with only one type of dent corn, one type of rye, one type of wheat 


Funny how this hype just keeps on spinning round and round,
there isnt an extreemly low level of biodiversity in our grain cropping practices. Take a good look at you local extentions office variety listings. There is soo much time and effort in breeding and developing lines and improving performances.
World wide, there is such a difference in climate, and so much research and development on those crops in response to thier climate, the diversity is endless.
Even the differences in crops and developments in crops between the southern US and here in Southern Canada.
Kinda the same argument that is made in regards to bee breeding. There is a huge influence made by the larger breeders, yet regional breeding efforts are still well and alive


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

Ian said:


> Funny how this hype just keeps on spinning round and round, there isnt an extreemly low level of biodiversity...


There is certainly _less_ biodiversity since the industrialization of agriculture. Are we _extremely low_ on biodiversity? Perhaps not yet. The point is this: let's say Monsanto engineers the "Uberbee." This bee comes stock with a gene that requires you to feed your queens Monsanto's latest miticide before she'll become fertile. She's also equipped with a gene that turns off her egg production after the first winter so you have to requeen with the latest model next season.

Now let's say Uberbee is perfectly capable of breeding with feral and non-GMO bees, and is able pass along the genes for infertility. Poof goes all bees but Monsantos. Now Monsanto not only OWNS all honeybees, but controls pollinator-dependant crops.

I find it funny how consumers are buying the hype about how boitechnology is going to make our world better. It's just the latest apparel for the rat race.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Before this goes any further, let's try to straighten out a few terms:

First, "biodiversity" is a measure of the number of species living in an area. Whether you plant a field that contains six hybrids of conventional corn, or a field that contains a single hybrid of transgenic corn, the value that the corn adds to "biodiversity" is that of a single species.

(What, really, is being discussed here is the potential loss of genetic diversity. Loss of biodiversity is important, too, but is equally important in discussing conversion of acres of prairie to crop land, for example.)

Secondly, transgenic events do not remove genes -- they add genes. So, transgenic organisms actually _increase_ the genetic diversity of the species. Whether or not that addition is desirable, from a human standpoint, is debatable.


----------



## Black Creek (May 19, 2006)

"Whether or not that addition is desirable, from a human standpoint, is debatable"

that's why crops in particular should be of an open pollinated variety. all those f1 hybrids that people plant in their gardens... try keeping the seed from that and planting it again next year. those genetics are all but worthless. which keeps you tied to the seed producer by having to repurchase new seed each year.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>let's say
>>Now let's say 

Hummm, I just love these kind of discussions 

>>I find it funny how consumers are buying the hype about how boitechnology is going to make our world better

Cheaper food, better qualities, healthier soils, a tool against disease 
and dont forget the huge amount of work being done besides GM technologies. 
Drought resistances, insect resistance, disease resistance, yeild responses....

Its not hard to buy into crop research and development,


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

Ian said:


> Cheaper food...


Maybe, but is that such a good thing?



Ian said:


> ...better qualities, healthier soils, a tool against disease...drought resistances, insect resistance, disease resistance, yeild responses....


It is not likely (really very doubtful) that biotechnology will really solve any of these problems, and it hasn't proven to yet. This is the BIG ASSUMPTION. The only people who are making your above claims for biotech are:

A) The corporations who stand to make a lot of money
B) The politicians who are bought and paid for by the corporations
C) The academic institutions who are increasingly practicing thin science to the tune of corporate sponsorship
D) The people who can't see through the smokescreen of "end world hunger" media

Why would you choose to believe the people to stand to profit vs. the people who are watching out for others for no profit?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> This is the BIG ASSUMPTION. The only people who are making your above claims for biotech are. . . . -Tim Hall


The assumption that you make in this, Tim, is that farmers can't evaluate their own costs and expenses to determine whether the biotech makes them greater or lesser profit than "non-biotech" crops.

I don't rely on agricultural production for my living. I believe, if I did, that I could determine pretty quickly whether the additional costs of biotech crops paid off at harvest with greater net profits.

Now, whether or not individual profit by farmers is "good" or not is a matter for Tailgater, in my opinion.


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

Oh I'm quite sure the corporations, politicians and other institutions will be happy to explain to the farmers how their profits will be boosted. By the time they are able to make that good judgment for themselves they may already be violating patent laws.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>This is the BIG ASSUMPTION. 

This isnt a big ASSUMPYION, Tim. 
This is opinon is from ACTUAL experiece with working with biotech cropping practices. I farm for a living, I put in thousands of acres, and I use some GM cropping technologies as a part of my cropping rotations.

I listed these characteristics, >>Drought resistances, insect resistance, disease resistance, yeild responses....<< aside from biotech, these acheivements are being made along side the Biotech industry. There is alot of work being done out there, not all of it is biotech. Get a grip on the industry a bit before your start broadcasting your limited opinion on agriculture. 

>>quickly whether the additional costs of biotech crops paid off at harvest 

There arnt any additional cost to using this technology, when worked out, the seed sells for about the same as conventional seed costs, and the herbicides in many cases are much cheaper and give alot more flexability in its use. The GM cropping practice has allowed us to limit our use of tillage, and there for has saved us at least 10$ fuel costs, right off the top. In every case, limited tillage practices will result in longterm heathier soils, AS WHAT I AM SEEING IN MY OPERATION.

Right now wheat breeders have developed a midge resistance wheat. This isnt a Biotech crop. This crop is huge news for the beekeeping industry. Less insecticide used on regular wheat cropping practices in areas midge is a problem. This proves the strong point that insect tolerant plants, or what ever you want to call this, is possible in canola and sunflower plants also. We are looking at maybe haveing a better choice in insect control by mearly the variety we choose!

By hindering the research and technology into these crops and by slandering thier work will hurt beekeepers in the long term. Some of the possible developments many prove very benifetial to the beekeeping community. After all we do make our living off thier cropping practices, our interests are directly related to theie sucessful cropping practices.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Schmeiser, however, has never purchased canola
requiring such an agreement so he was unconcerned about
saving seed from his own field.

Yet he used roundup in his incropping weed control practices, NOT knowing it was Roundup tolerant?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?

IF they could present us with this type of bee, lets say they were able to enhance the bees grooming behaviour, or , something, I dont know, but if they were able to get us this type of technology, then yes I would. I do think we are comming close to that achievement anyway with our regular breeding efforts so a transgenetic bees might not offer us anything more than what we already have, by the time GM bees could be developed.

Would I rather raise a bee tolerant of disease, or continue with my regular disease watch and control? I would lean towards the option that saves me the treatments costs and pest losses.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> >>So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?
> 
> IF they could present us with this type of bee, lets say they were able to enhance the bees grooming behaviour, or , something, I dont know, but if they were able to get us this type of technology, then yes I would. I do think we are comming close to that achievement anyway with our regular breeding efforts so a transgenetic bees might not offer us anything more than what we already have, by the time GM bees could be developed.
> 
> Would I rather raise a bee tolerant of disease, or continue with my regular disease watch and control? I would lean towards the option that saves me the treatments costs and pest losses.


Ian,

I think about 90% of what has been posted on this thread, so far, regarding transgenic bees is based on fear of the unknown. I posted the question originally to see if the fear among beekeepers is in line with the rest of the public, I would submit that it is. Perception I think is more important than science when it comes to policy. I think this would be a fun project but I wouldn't want to produce a bee that nobody wants. I really do wonder, though, if it was announced today that a transgenic bee was available that was "immune" to varroa mites and tracheal mites, would all of those that cited evil intentions and worse place their orders immediately. Maybe you and I would purchase ours, and then be vilified at our local club meetings. I would probably buy one of these guys if we could legally and successfully cross them with our own stock. If it was established in a closed system that the genes couldn't be transfered to the pests, I would be thrilled to have the transgenic bees escape and breed into the feral population. By the same token, I would like to see these genes incorporated into as many commercial breeding programs as possible. A genetic engineering strategy that would allow for more than one resistance gene would allow for a backup in case mites become drug resistant.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I hear what your saying HVH. 
Its funny how a tough questions is avoided by so many beekeepers.

>>Perception I think is more important than science when it comes to policy.

I dont agree with that statement at all. There is a big impression against agriculture in terms to it contribution to pollution of the environment. Here ag policy is being made to satisfy that preception. And its hurting our farming operations. The perception is not backed up, not can they explain the policy they put into place. Yet it stand strong amongst the urban vote becasue it seems to be a solution to a problem that is presisting.
We, as in agriculture, have lobbied against this, with actual science brought upon from independent studies. It is being ignored regardless of its merit and substantial evidence.

We have got to follow science if we are to make a true clear path for our industry. Science if followed principally, will prove an un biased opinion, and should always be herd.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

HVH said:


> Ian,
> I think about 90% of what has been posted on this thread, so far, regarding transgenic bees is based on fear of the unknown.


Yes, it is, to a large extent, fear of the unknown. But we should be - at the very least - wary of the unknown, particularly when dealing with a potentially disastrous imposition of a hitherto unknown, untested, un-evolved and brand new species onto a natural ecosystem that is already under severe strain from the massive doses of chemicals dumped onto it every day of the year.

Yes, we should be afraid of profit-motivated corporations who care not a jot for the welfare of the planet, beyond the bounds of that which will line their pockets. Remember how they told us that DDT was harmless to humans? Remember Thalidomide? (For those of you too young to remember, from 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy). Aspartame? These and other disasters were brought to you by those same companies who want you to buy their GM products because they say they are safe.

When Monsanto says, 'trust us', be afraid. Be very afraid.



> I think this would be a fun project but I wouldn't want to produce a bee that nobody wants.


Well, that's mighty good of you. I'm pleased to hear that you would refrain from releasing into the wild a novel species with unknown side effects on the rest of nature. Would that others were as responsible.



> I really do wonder, though, if it was announced today that a transgenic bee was available that was "immune" to varroa mites and tracheal mites, would all of those that cited evil intentions and worse place their orders immediately.


Not while there is breath in my body. Not until you can prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that your GM bees will do no damage to anything else, will not wipe out other species, will not have any unpredictable effects whatsoever. In other words, never. 



> I would probably buy one of these guys if we could legally and successfully cross them with our own stock.


Like they would ever allow you to do that. See the Percy Schmeisser story: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/supreme_court_schmeiser.cfm



> If it was established in a closed system that the genes couldn't be transfered to the pests, I would be thrilled to have the transgenic bees escape and breed into the feral population.


Exactly the kind of idiotic, irresponsible behaviour we don't want.



> A genetic engineering strategy that would allow for more than one resistance gene would allow for a backup in case mites become drug resistant.


Which they inevitably will. See Darwin.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Wow! buckbee

Nothing like some strong opinions. 

If you really want to fill up your shorts just consider that genetic engineering is very simple to do and as evil as some might think Monsanto to be, they pale in comparison to the little lab dedicated to weaponizing smallpox with the same technology. Perhaps this is a tu quoque fallacy but the technology is just as unstoppable as weapons proliferation. We are not going to be able to stop it. We can either recognize that this is part of our future and try to steer it in the right direction or we can just leave it in the hands of the Monsantos of the world.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Since I have a few more minutes, I would like to address some of buckbees points a little further.



buckbee said:


> Yes, it is, to a large extent, fear of the unknown. But we should be - at the very least - wary of the unknown, particularly when dealing with a potentially disastrous imposition of a hitherto unknown, untested, un-evolved and brand new species onto a natural ecosystem that is already under severe strain from the massive doses of chemicals dumped onto it every day of the year.


It is possible to design compounds (high throughput drug screen) that are not toxic (low LD50) to humans but attack a unique biochemical pathway in mites. Bees would then be genetically engineered with an enzyme already found in nature that would render the compound harmless to the bees. Currently we have manmade chemicals that are more toxic to humans than the ones that could be designed. Chances are the transgene would come from a bacteria or fungi and would be integrated into the bee genome with a virus that has been neutralized. Transferring genes into human cells with an inactivated HIV virus is routine all over the world and is similar to what I have described above. 
Genetic engineering was so feared by some that a moratorium was called and a conference at Asilomar (1975) regarding the subject of safety was organized. Since 1975 the fears that people had regarding safety were never realized.




buckbee said:


> Yes, we should be afraid of profit-motivated corporations who care not a jot for the welfare of the planet, beyond the bounds of that which will line their pockets. Remember how they told us that DDT was harmless to humans? Remember Thalidomide? (For those of you too young to remember, from 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy). Aspartame? These and other disasters were brought to you by those same companies who want you to buy their GM products because they say they are safe.


Your examples of catastrophic human interventions are good examples about how perspective plays a role. DDT is a very controversial subject. Many have argued that it is not toxic to either human or birds for that matter and the pulling of this chemical was politically motivated. I would cite books, papers, and links, but the web has them everywhere you look. The argument is often followed by the proposition that even if DDT is toxic that a look at cost benefit analysis places millions of human lives on the benefit side and completely unknown costs on the other. 
Thalidomide is again another example of perspective. Thalidomide was not approved in the USA (thank God) and was a horrible terratogen unleashed upon parts of Europe. Babies were born without arms and legs. Thalidomide does, however, reduce the symptoms of nausea (women took it for morning sickness). If I were chronically nauseous and nothing better was available, I would consider using thalidomide. As a side note, you brought up Darwin, but it was because of the almost universal acceptance of Darwinian evolution that thalidomide was tested on rodents and subsequently assumed to be safe for humans (oops!)
And, lastly, aspartame is really rather innocuous unless you have phenoketonuria. If you have a choice between being morbidly obese or eating low fat sweets with aspartame, I think the aspartame might be the right choice. Aspartame was a good choice for diabetics as well.



buckbee said:


> Well, that's mighty good of you. I'm pleased to hear that you would refrain from releasing into the wild a novel species with unknown side effects on the rest of nature. Would that others were as responsible.


Not even close to being a new species. You, nor anyone else, would ever be able to tell your bees were transgenic except when it survived through winter while the rest of the apiary died. Could the mites acquire the transgene and become miticide resitant? Yes, it is possible under certain circumstance





buckbee said:


> Like they would ever allow you to do that. See the Percy Schmeisser story: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/supreme_court_schmeiser.cfm


If the transgene allowed the inventor to sell a patented miticide why not encourage everyone to breed the transbee?



buckbee said:


> Exactly the kind of idiotic, irresponsible behaviour we don't want.


Maybe you should consider taking an inventory of every technology that you are currently enjoying, that was ever controversial, and throw it in the trash. As an example, the next time you need an antibiotic for a nasty infection, maybe it is time to let nature take its course. 



buckbee said:


> Which they inevitably will. See Darwin.


I have read "The Origin of Species..." many times and can't recall any mention of genetic engineering.

It is really difficult to convey disposition, tone, and body language in a post, so let me say that I have no axe to grind and don't have a malicious bone in my body. I argue with my friends all the time and never get offended. So no offense intended either.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

HVH said:


> I argue with my friends all the time and never get offended. So no offense intended either.


None taken and none intended. I appreciate the time you have taken to answer my points, but I still think this whole approach to nature is wrong-headed.

All my colonies have come through winter (in some cases, their third winter) with no treatment other than the occasional puff of powdered sugar. I have no use for genetic engineering - and while I acknowledge that it may have medical applications that - who knows - I or my loved ones may one day benefit from, I neither want nor need it in my food or in my bees. 

The bees have been here a great deal longer than we have - at least ten times longer, maybe much more. But is not in our nature to be content with what we have. We see a creature that has evolved over countless millennia to thrive in a range of climates from tropical Africa to the Siberian tundra, so subtly adaptable that it can develop multiple, local ecotypes within a country as small as England, so flexible that it can live contentedly within a hollow log, a chimney or a gap in a wall and we want to impose our criteria on it: to make it behave as we desire and to produce food not only for itself but for us as well. 

That is where the bees' problems lay - in 'modern' beekeeping methods. And it is in correct husbandry where we will find the answers, not in some genetically engineered silver bullet.

In the context of evolution and the life of this planet, we are still infants playing with dangerous toys. The sooner we recognize this and put our faith in the processes and cycles of nature, rather than the pet theories of scientists, the sooner we will be able to get on with the real work of creating a new relationship with the natural world, based on respect and appreciation rather than casual disregard and exploitation.

That is, if it is not already too late.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

buckbee said:


> None taken and none intended. I appreciate the time you have taken to answer my points, but I still think this whole approach to nature is wrong-headed.
> 
> All my colonies have come through winter (in some cases, their third winter) with no treatment other than the occasional puff of powdered sugar. I have no use for genetic engineering - and while I acknowledge that it may have medical applications that - who knows - I or my loved ones may one day benefit from, I neither want nor need it in my food or in my bees.
> 
> ...


I think on balance I would tend to be in your camp, but the other side of nature can also lead to extinction. If we could go back 20 or 30 years ago before the stuff hit the fan, this would all be moot. I fully expect every bee pest in the world to be with us in the relatively near future because of the speed at which our global economy brings goods and pests. Maybe if nature had been left to her own devices the balances you hope for would not have been tipped. I suspect we could have been a lot smarter and not imported varroa and hive beetles and such. 
On this forum there is a video link for these Japanese hornets from Hell. Every bee in the hive gets cut literally into pieces in about two hours by these hornets and then used as food to feed their young. As I mentioned in an earlier post I would like to have the technology for when we need it (maybe clone in the genes that give Japanese honey bees a defense against the hornets). The only problem is that once we have it, it will be implemented immediately. And I have to admit that it would be tempting to purchase a bee truly immune to mites.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

HVH said:


> I think on balance I would tend to be in your camp, but the other side of nature can also lead to extinction. If we could go back 20 or 30 years ago before the stuff hit the fan, this would all be moot.


I would go back rather further - to the 1850s at least, when Langstroth popularized the concept of movable frames, which made it easy for beekeepers to interfere with the brood nest with almost no understanding of what they were doing. Even after 150 years, many beekeepers really don't understand the stresses they cause to colonies by opening them unnecessarily, moving frames around and moving hives across the country; not to mention the imposition of single-size foundation and the thermodynamic inefficiency of the whole framed hive concept.

Yes, globalization is greatly to blame, as is the greed and irresponsibility of some beekeepers who imported stock which should not have been imported. But ultimately, I still believe it is down to our relationship with nature: we are only just emerging from the Genesis/Victorian attitude that we should have dominion over the birds and the beasts.




> On this forum there is a video link for these Japanese hornets from Hell. Every bee in the hive gets cut literally into pieces in about two hours by these hornets and then used as food to feed their young. ... I would like to have the technology for when we need it (maybe clone in the genes that give Japanese honey bees a defense against the hornets).


The native bees in Japan learned how to 'cook' hornets without our help. I have seen bees doing the same thing to a queen, when it was badly handled by a clumsy beekeeper, making it smell wrong. They already know how to do this and it won't take many reminders for them to recover the knowledge, I imagine. In any case, is there a gene for this behaviour?



> And I have to admit that it would be tempting to purchase a bee truly immune to mites.


There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. You may as well try to breed sheep that are 'immune' to wolves. Immunity to bacteria, yes, but that is a different matter altogether.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. 

Dogs have immunity to mites. Dogs that don't have this get mange. I often wonder if bees CAN have immunity to mites and this might be part of the whole SMR genetics is that the mites can't reproduce because of an immune response by the larvae.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

buckbee,

"I would go back rather further - to the 1850s at least, when Langstroth popularized the concept of movable frames, which made it easy for beekeepers to interfere with the brood nest with almost no understanding of what they were doing. Even after 150 years, many beekeepers really don't understand the stresses they cause to colonies by opening them unnecessarily, moving frames around and moving hives across the country; not to mention the imposition of single-size foundation and the thermodynamic inefficiency of the whole framed hive concept.
Yes, globalization is greatly to blame, as is the greed and irresponsibility of some beekeepers who imported stock which should not have been imported. But ultimately, I still believe it is down to our relationship with nature: we are only just emerging from the Genesis/Victorian attitude that we should have dominion over the birds and the beasts."

It may very well be that we are stressing our bees to death but its a difficult hypothesis to test empirically because everything could be called a stress. If you consider man made devices and interventions the stresses that kill bees, the null hypothesis would be that bees untouched by man will be healthy. The feral colonies in this country have been killed off at an alarming rate. I can't imagine that formic acid, fluvalinate, organophosphates, menthol, paradichlorobenzene, tetracycline, etc, are good for the bees but they might be better than varroa, foulbrood, moths, and tracheal mites. Nature is not concerned about the survival of the honey bee. Nature has no compassion. If the bee goes extinct and man with it then so be it. 

"The native bees in Japan learned how to 'cook' hornets without our help. I have seen bees doing the same thing to a queen, when it was badly handled by a clumsy beekeeper, making it smell wrong. They already know how to do this and it won't take many reminders for them to recover the knowledge, I imagine. In any case, is there a gene for this behaviour?"

It is true that the Japanese honey bee is not likely to have a single gene responsible for its defensive response to the hornets.

There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. You may as well try to breed sheep that are 'immune' to wolves. Immunity to bacteria, yes, but that is a different matter altogether.

I also don't agree with your statement. Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say that mites require enzyme-X that bees don't need. A bee is then engineered to express an abundance of enzyme-X antagonist. The mite then starts to feed on the bee and subsequently dies after its first meal. If you want to argue that in this example the act of the mite feeding means that the bee is not immune, I would submit that our flu vaccines don't prevent the initial infection either yet we are said to be immune. The virus infects some cells in the sinuses where they are then met by T-cells, macrophages and antibodies. The initial infection is contained and the immunization is considered effective.

Thanks everyone for the exchanges. Iron sharpens iron.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*GM vs natural methods of beekeeping*



> It may very well be that we are stressing our bees to death but its a difficult hypothesis to test empirically because everything could be called a stress. If you consider man made devices and interventions the stresses that kill bees, the null hypothesis would be that bees untouched by man will be healthy. The feral colonies in this country have been killed off at an alarming rate.


However, those feral bees are far from being untouched by man insofar as - in the USA at least - all of those feral colonies originated from hived colonies, as the honeybee is not native to North America. There are those who question the observation that ferals have, in fact, disappeared. They certainly haven't from my patch.



> I can't imagine that formic acid, fluvalinate, organophosphates, menthol, paradichlorobenzene, tetracycline, etc, are good for the bees but they might be better than varroa, foulbrood, moths, and tracheal mites. Nature is not concerned about the survival of the honey bee. Nature has no compassion. If the bee goes extinct and man with it then so be it.


Agreed - but we have some say in the matter as things stand and our next move may prove critical.



> (buckbee) There is no such thing as 'immunity' to mites. You may as well try to breed sheep that are 'immune' to wolves. Immunity to bacteria, yes, but that is a different matter altogether.





> I also don't agree with your statement. Let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say that mites require enzyme-X that bees don't need. A bee is then engineered to express an abundance of enzyme-X antagonist. The mite then starts to feed on the bee and subsequently dies after its first meal. If you want to argue that in this example the act of the mite feeding means that the bee is not immune, I would submit that our flu vaccines don't prevent the initial infection either yet we are said to be immune. The virus infects some cells in the sinuses where they are then met by T-cells, macrophages and antibodies. The initial infection is contained and the immunization is considered effective.


So the wolves die after savaging the sheep... OK, I see your point, but then there is always the danger of that same enzyme having unforeseen side effects. For example, it may interfere with the production of wax; it may trigger some response in wax moth that cause them to become immune to bee venom; it may do something unpleasant to honey... and this is exactly the danger of using a crude and poorly-understood instrument like GM to make apparently innocent changes to one organism and then, ten years down the line, discover that you have accidentally wrecked an entire ecosystem because of some unpredictable mutation or unexpected side-effect. That is why I am wary - yes, fearful even - of people driven by the profit motive - which notoriously blinds people to possible dangers - being allowed, or worse still, encouraged to develop pet projects like 'mite-immune bees' _until this science has been around for much longer, has reached a degree of maturity and all the possible dangers are fully understood. 

_Before we go down that road, let's fully investigate other ways that bees may be kept that provide the conditions in which they can thrive and be naturally healthy. I suggest that these ways may be cheap, safe and effective and are likely to focus not around new ideas, but concepts that have been circulating for a number of years already. Key to this is looking at the thermodynamics of the hive: varroa cannot reproduce in temperatures in excess of about 96 deg F and high humidity (see http://www.biobees.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=247). This simply requires a different type of hive and greatly reduced interference (aka 'management') of the hive.

I think it would be very easy to perform a comparative study with Langstroth, horizontal TBHs and Warré hives side-by-side, using the management methods appropriate for each. 

Cheaper than GM, I would think, and a whole lot safer.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

buckbee said:


> However, those feral bees are far from being untouched by man insofar as - in the USA at least - all of those feral colonies originated from hived colonies, as the honeybee is not native to North America. There are those who question the observation that ferals have, in fact, disappeared. They certainly haven't from my patch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I basically agree with you that the technology and the biology of both mite and bee should be much better understood before any gene is introduced. But there is no such thing as fully understood. There will always be some risk. If we knew that, because of common usage of antibiotics, super bugs would be the result, would we have stopped their development, or should we have stopped? I don't think I would be alive today if it weren't for 20th century medical advances. Maybe someone could have bled me, but I doubt that it would have helped. A lot of spooky research went into the medical advances and I am sure there were detractors. A little wisdom is needed, but we shouldn't stop in our tracks either because we are fearful.
Also, I think you may be a little overly optimistic about pest remediation by more conventional means. I do, however, hope that you are right.


----------



## Dinor (Mar 6, 2007)

HVH said:


> I basically agree with you that the technology and the biology of both mite and bee should be much better understood before any gene is introduced.


And what makes you think you have the right to do so when so many of us non scientists without any job that needs this research for their living are against it???



HVH said:


> Also, I think you may be a little overly optimistic about pest remediation by more conventional means. I do, however, hope that you are right.


Or maybe you are being a little overly pessimistic! 

Science is too important to be left to the scientists!


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Haven´t we learned anything about messing with Mother Nature. If we breed chickens for larger breasts they die because thier hearts and feet cannot keep up. Then we panic about global warming and low and behold after Gore wins the Nobel award for championing the cause we discover that the global temps are dropping and the pölar caps are growing again. Nature will balence herself out it will just take her longer if we keep throwing boulders in her way!

If you think man can fix a preceived problem nature has, you have too much faith in man, and you will only be dissappointed!

Leave it alone!


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>we discover that the global temps are dropping and the pölar caps are growing again

I'm curious where you obtained this piece of trivia
a source perhaps??

Dave


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Dinor said:


> And what makes you think you have the right to do so when so many of us non scientists without any job that needs this research for their living are against it???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've really tried to be balanced in my position here and am hoping that others can be a little more philosophical. I don't have any more trust in scientists than anyone else does on this thread and I am one (it's not just scientists as much as mankind in general). But let's not travel the same road as the PETA activist donned in glasses, leather shoes, and cosmetics. As I have stated before, if science has been your enemy, I challenge you to throw away everything you owe to science. Do any of you take any medications, have you ever had any surgeries or seen a doctor for anything? Any electronics equipment in the house? Actually, you don't need to throw the electronics equipment (stove, oven, microwave, stereo, refrigerator, freezer, TV, telephone, computer, lights, etc.........) away because you couldn't power them without the wiring. No sense in pulling the wires out of your walls either, because you wouldn't have a house. So, it's time to strip nude, and head for the hills (no car, buddy, you're going to have to walk). Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.
I don't normally respond so forcefully, but I really don't understand some of the posts I have been reading. I completely anticipated the resistance that some would offer up and think that is part of a good dialectic. But I have been a little surprised by the ad hominem attack against science and technology. I hope some of you that think all of science is bad and that scientists are responsible for screwing up our planet will take a little inventory of what science has done to make your life better. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.


----------



## Dinor (Mar 6, 2007)

HVH said:


> I've really tried to be balanced in my position here...................


In your own biased way IMO.



HVH said:


> ...... I don't have any more trust in scientists than anyone else does on this thread and I am one.............


Enough said then! At least that is honest.



HVH said:


> ....I challenge you to throw away everything you owe to science. Do any of you take any medications, have you ever had any surgeries or seen a doctor for anything? Any electronics equipment in the house? Actually, you don't need to throw the electronics equipment (stove, oven, microwave, stereo, refrigerator, freezer, TV, telephone, computer, lights, etc.........) away because you couldn't power them without the wiring. No sense in pulling the wires out of your walls either, because you wouldn't have a house. So, it's time to strip nude, and head for the hills (no car, buddy, you're going to have to walk). Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.


That's nonsense and you know it! To equate changing the gene structure of a species that has taken nature over a million years to perfect with simple invention and discovery is just you trying to justify your position.



HVH said:


> I hope some of you that think all of science is bad and that scientists are responsible for screwing up our planet will take a little inventory of what science has done to make your life better. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.


Maybe not, but scientists have played their part. And as for biting the hand that feeds me, huh! Get over yourself! You think you are so important but the world would do just OK without the likes of you or me for that matter. 

Why not leave this to those beekeepers who are looking for a natural solution to this problem! (Is there a smilie for rhetorical, maybe this one )


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.

Your assumptions of lack of sophistication in primitive living show that you obviously know nothing of "primitive" cultures or "primitive" life...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>But I have been a little surprised by the ad hominem attack against science and technology. I hope some of you that think all of science is bad and that scientists are responsible for screwing up our planet will take a little inventory of what science has done to make your life better. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.


Well said!
We take so much for granted. Especially the abundance and quality and price of our foods! It can only be related directly back to the work being done in ag related science and technology.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Ian said:


> We take so much for granted. Especially the abundance and quality and price of our foods! It can only be related directly back to the work being done in ag related science and technology.


And look at the result of plentiful, cheap food - obesity is the biggest health threat in the developed world! 

Thank you, Monsanto.

_(And - BTW - there is no such thing as an 'ad hominem attack on science and technology' ad hominem means 'against a man', not an abstract construct. If I was attacking you personally - which I wasn't - it would be 'ad hominem'. As it happens, neither was I attacking science and technology - only aspects of some of their applications.)

_


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

this is all dependent on cheap energy to transport centrally produced (and processed) foods. cheap energy does not exist except in the "bank account" of fossil fuels...which will bottom out at some point. how cheap do you think california produce would be on the east coast if gas were $100/gallon, even if it was grown for free?

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

HVH said:


> I really do wonder, though, if it was announced today that a transgenic bee was available that was "immune" to varroa mites and tracheal mites, would all of those that cited evil intentions and worse place their orders immediately.


I'm not really seeing a majority of beekeepers aggressively seeking out the bees that have been developed for might resistance. Shipping date, available quantity, and price seems to be the biggest concern on most beekeepers mind. 

I've never heard of any GM insect or even attempts at a GM insect. Any examples?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>And look at the result of plentiful, cheap food - obesity is the biggest health threat in the developed world! 

>>Thank you, Monsanto.


Give me a break! Cant blame Mansanto for the obesity problem. They have provided farmer with a cropping tool that aids in their farming practice. The canola industry was well established before Monsanto stepped in. Buckbee, what about the whole rest of the sector involved with the breeding and development of food grown crops? 
Wow, cant believe I read that statment. What next, Monsanto is to blame for the ice caps melting, and the polar bears dieing???


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

buckbee said:


> And look at the result of plentiful, cheap food - obesity is the biggest health threat in the developed world!
> 
> Thank you, Monsanto.[/I]


I think this is a red herring argument (Ignoratio elenchi) unless you are implying that the consumption of transgenic bees will lead to greater obesity than the consumption of non-transgenic bees. In that case, I have not given entomophagy much consideration but perhaps in some countries this could be a problem.



buckbee said:


> _(And - BTW - there is no such thing as an 'ad hominem attack on science and technology' ad hominem means 'against a man', not an abstract construct. If I was attacking you personally - which I wasn't - ir would be ad hominem. As it happens, neither was I attacking science and technology - only aspects of some of their applications.)
> _


Syllogistically it follows,

Scientists are bad
HVH is a scientist
Therefore HVH is bad

ad hominem by implication

It's not personal with me either. I get a bit testy, though, when I think someone is trying to have it both ways.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Michael Bush said:


> >Take a nice rock along to sharpen your sticks because you are going to need them.
> 
> Your assumptions of lack of sophistication in primitive living show that you obviously know nothing of "primitive" cultures or "primitive" life...



Michael,

I really never planned on applying reductio ab absurdum in the earlier post but felt compelled to contrast the absurd suggestion that somehow we are worse off because of science. Arguably some things are worse, but on balance things are much better. In fact, most of us older than 35 would probably be dead if it weren't for science. Maybe that is an anthropocentric viewpoint but being a human I think it is justified.
Someone in an earlier post suggested that I get over myself. None of this has anything to do with me. I would be very thankful of scientific achievements in general regardless of my vocation. I'll take gardening and working with my bees over cloning any day.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> ...the absurd suggestion that somehow we are worse off because of science. Arguably some things are worse, but on balance things are much better. In fact, most of us older than 35 would probably be dead if it weren't for science.


well, are we better off? i suspect that the gene pool was "stronger" before modern medicine. whether genetic engineering or other technology will be able to compensate for this, i don't know.

deknow


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

deknow said:


> well, are we better off? i suspect that the gene pool was "stronger" before modern medicine. whether genetic engineering or other technology will be able to compensate for this, i don't know.
> 
> deknow


I already conceded that some things are worse. But who's genes should have been selected against, yours or mine (don't answer? From a strictly biological point of view, you are right of course, but taken to extremes, it would be tolerable for man to go extinct. Some people will read this and say "right on". If they really think man is so horrible and the planet would be better off without him, then why don't they sacrifice themselves. They could start a movement and truly benefit the planet. Or, as I mentioned in a previous post, why don't people that feel very strongly about this refuse medical care for their children or themselves. All I want here is some honesty.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...actually, i know someone that started such a thing..."the church of euthanasia". he made a fortune on bumper stickers that said "save the planet, kill yourself." i know this reads like a flippant response, but it's true. 


who's gene's should be saved? well, probably those of people that can reproduce and produce healthy offspring without artificial intervention. and perhaps the offspring of those that live to a ripe old age (hard to wait until they get old to breed them).

i'm not condmeming any particular practice...we just aren't ready to really confront these kinds of issues as a society. i know you conceded that some things are worse....but unless one has faith that science will be able to "cure everyone of everything", this kind of weakening of the gene pool could (from a human perspective) be the worst thing possible..and result in the greatest number suffering.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> i suspect that the gene pool was "stronger" before modern medicine. -deknow


Could you elaborate, please?

Do you mean, "Humans no longer have to fight off small pox and polio and typhus and other diseases as frequently as they did in the past," or do you mean, "Humans that would not have survived to reproduction in the past are surviving long enough to reproduce now?"

The way I see it, humans that would not have survived long enough to reproduce or may not have been able to reproduce for some reason now can. That expands the diversity of genes getting into future generations. While some of those genes may be "weak," (i. e., they may not be genes that would survive bubonic plague) they may offer some other advantage in the future (i. e., they may be better suited to an atmosphere with a greater concentration of carbon dioxide).

Keep in mind that, after reproducing, longevity does not confer "fitness." If you live to 125, but leave no children, you would be less fit than if you lived to 35 but left four children.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Intergrating a GM queen into your operations would mean a yearly queen replacement schedule. Just by the very nature of dirersity within the breeding of replacement queens, the GM characteristics would fade if the drone mating population wasnt carrying the same genetics.

Probably after it was all considered, using a GM genetics wouldnt present much more of an advantage than the already mite tolerant lines being developed.

Work in New Zealand right now is building a queen rearing business, on an island, enabling them to produce large numbers of specifically mated queen, to allow them to supply a larger market, priced accordingly. Targeting a yearly queen replacement business modle.

Would the investment into a GM bee actually pay off when there are other compeditive options, that are working off a much smaller overhead?


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> Intergrating a GM queen into your operations would mean a yearly queen replacement schedule. Just by the very nature of dirersity within the breeding of replacement queens, the GM characteristics would fade if the drone mating population wasnt carrying the same genetics.
> 
> Probably after it was all considered, using a GM genetics wouldnt present much more of an advantage than the already mite tolerant lines being developed.
> 
> ...


Ian,

I like your calm and measured approach to this topic.

In my humble, yet apparently biased opinion, classical breeding cannot be competitive with transgenics. This is where I think many people on this thread don't understand the difference between classical approaches and genetic engineering. It is extremely unlikely that honey bees will ever reach a level of mite resistance that would make all of us happy. They may get better at grooming and consequently mite removal, but classical approaches are limited to the genes that bees currently possess. You are not going to get any new genes. So if there are bees that can groom to the level where mites are a non-issue great, but don't hold your breath. With genetic engineering you can steal genes from any organism on earth, modify that gene if needed, and give it to the honey bee. This is not saying that we should do this, only that it could be done. If we could clone a gene into the honey bee that codes for an enzyme that basically shuts down a critical mite biosynthetic pathway, the bees would be truly immune to mites. Since it is likely that mites are vectors for viral diseases, having zero mites is a key difference. If grooming could get the mite level down to one mite for every 1000 bees, then viral infection of the whole colony is still possible. It would take some time, though, even with transgenesis, before the mite populations would dye back to the point where bees are no longer pierced and therefore viruses could not be spread.
Since this kind of gene would be dominant, only one allele would be needed to confir resistance. So any breeding programs would strive at retaining this gene, maybe as a homozygous trait in their queens, and have drones positive for the trait as well. You don't need to test for mite resistance (after it is verified to work) in a breeding program because it is simpler to verify that the gene is present with the polymerase chain reaction. So instead of screening for mite resistance, breeders could actually track the gene. Combined with instrumental insemination, one would be able to test sperm for the mite resistance gene before inseminating the queen.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> If we could clone a gene into the honey bee that codes for an enzyme that basically shuts down a critical mite biosynthetic pathway, the bees would be truly immune to mites. -HVH


While this may be theoretically possible, I suspect this would be exceedingly difficult. Mites and insects are both arthropods, and are very, very similar physiologically. The same enzyme that would affect mites would likely affect honey bees.



> It would take some time, though, even with transgenesis, before the mite populations would dye back to the point where bees are no longer pierced and therefore viruses could not be spread. -HVH


And, of course, if the selective pressure place on the mites by these transgenic bees would be great, natural selection would likely quickly drive the mites to overcome the resistance. (Multiple genes for different traits may be key, here, in slowing that evolution of the mites, but, again, if the selective pressure is great enough, the mites will likely overcome all traits.)



> Since this kind of gene would be dominant, only one allele would be needed to confir resistance. -HVH


This kind of gene is necessarily dominant? How do you figure?

While a gene that shows simple complete dominance might be ideal, I doubt that any such gene would necessarily become "dominant" simply because we might wish it to be so.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Kieck said:


> While this may be theoretically possible, I suspect this would be exceedingly difficult. Mites and insects are both arthropods, and are very, very similar physiologically. The same enzyme that would affect mites would likely affect honey bees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great response, thanks.

I agree that more than one trait would be ideal and that making a transbee of this kind would not be a slam dunk. Even if mites and bees shared a common biosynthetic pathway, however, they would likely have enough differences in enzymatic binding (or active) sites to be exploited. Also, many cell surface receptors may be similar but again have enough differences to be targeted. Cell surface receptors are very common targets for high throughput drug screens because both agonists and antagonists can be very specific.
A gene that expresses an enzyme that is new to the bee would be dominant in that it would always be expressed (unless designed otherwise) and would therefore always affect the mites when present. When first introduced, the gene would be single copy. Bees could then be crossed to make homozygous transbees. If the gene targeted a crucial pathway, mites may or may not be able to adapt.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Could you elaborate, please?
> 
> Do you mean, "Humans no longer have to fight off small pox and polio and typhus and other diseases as frequently as they did in the past," or do you mean, "Humans that would not have survived to reproduction in the past are surviving long enough to reproduce now?"


...the latter, not the former.



> The way I see it, humans that would not have survived long enough to reproduce or may not have been able to reproduce for some reason now can. That expands the diversity of genes getting into future generations.


diversity isn't always a good thing. yes, we need a diverse gene pool, but some mutations are harmful. think specifically of reproductive medicine. someone (or a couple) who can't get pregnant can have the nucleus of a lab fertilized egg (from both parents that can't produce a child) into a viable egg from a donor, and carry it to term. there are genes in there that do not permit natural reproduction that otherwise would not be passed on to the next generation. ...so you now have these diverse genes staying in the gene pool which require medical intervention in order to reproduce. i'm not sure this is a good road to go down...i can imagine a time down this road when medical assistance is required to reproduce....think brave new world.

i expect, if one could find the data, that before c-sections was used, that there were less people that required them (as those that did tended not to be born alive and/or died in childbirth).

we see a similar thing in some domestic animals...where we breed for dogs who's heads are too big to exit via the birth canal. i'm not suggesting that we should breed humans like cattle, but we should be able to discuss what the impact of what we do has on the gene pool.

we do inhabit these "monkey bodies", and our physical health greatly influences our quality of life. i think being able to reproduce without intervention is an important set of traits to "select for".




> While some of those genes may be "weak," (i. e., they may not be genes that would survive bubonic plague) they may offer some other advantage in the future (i. e., they may be better suited to an atmosphere with a greater concentration of carbon dioxide).


well, diversity in a gene pool is not "every possible gene" for a good reason. there is a trade off between the benefits of "randomizing" and "continuing with what works"...and i expect nature has done a decent job of figuring out what that balance should be. 



> Keep in mind that, after reproducing, longevity does not confer "fitness." If you live to 125, but leave no children, you would be less fit than if you lived to 35 but left four children.


yes, but i expect that humans, given the chance, will try to select for long life. humans also have culture to take into consideration....how long do you think it will be before the words of martin luther king jr. cease to have a significant impact on the world? what he contributed to society is much greater (imho) than what he contributed to the gene pool by reproducing.

deknow


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

HVH, welcome to our bee discussions fourm. It is real refreshing hearing from someone holding your views! I look forward to future conversations!

Got a name?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> Would the investment into a GM bee actually pay off when there are other competitive options, that are working off a much smaller overhead?


No way no how. However, it might be easier to get funding to do
some fancy GM work as opposed to good old fashioned breeding.
Someone could play up the 'new and upcoming techniques' that will save
the world in a grant proposal, instead of relying on tried and true.
You can guess which way I would lean.



> we do inhabit these "monkey bodies", and our physical health greatly influences our quality of life. i think being able to reproduce without intervention is an important set of traits to "select for".


I disagree. I don't want my children to be selected against since you 
included C-sections in your class of un-natural. But this is getting too
Anthropomorphic. Sometimes bees and humans can be compared,
other times it dosen't work to good. On the humans though, a group
of people not considered 'fit' can contribute greatly to the 'fitness' of
the society as a whole. Thats always been a benefit of societies and tribes. 
Just like a doctor without kids that performs C-sections. Of course, in humans 
fitness has become a non-issue. The more 'fit' we
are individually, the more overpopulation becomes a concern for the fitness of future generations.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>It is extremely unlikely that honey bees will ever reach a level of mite resistance that would make all of us happy. They may get better at grooming and consequently mite removal, but classical approaches are limited to the genes that bees currently possess. You are not going to get any new genes. So if there are bees that can groom to the level where mites are a non-issue great, but don't hold your breath. With genetic engineering you can steal genes 

What would you expect the price paid per GM queen would have to be to manage the capital investment into its development, and continued maitenence of the stock purity?

One very important factor with GM crops, is its HUGE payoff. The reason for soo much research and development into cropping agriculture is because of the HUGE spin off. I dont see that kind of pay off in the beekeeping industry. It is the reason why there hasnt been much private investment into research and development, and probably the reason why there is such a disconect between beekeepers across the country.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

IMO once you start invoking eugenics, the argument has gone way off track.

The reason that GM is even being suggested as an option is that we have an apparent problem, which was caused by stupidity, greed and exploitative management. The underlying problem is that most beekeepers - especially the commercial men - farm bees as if they were machines, taking no account of their nature and their needs. GM is just a continuation of this same 'quick-fix' attitude.

IMO we should not interfere with bee genetics while there is an a relatively unexplored, natural alternative: working more closely with the bees' needs. Most especially, they need a better environment than the Langstroth hive - designed 160 years ago, when we had little understanding of bees' nature, but blindly used ever since - and less dependence on synthetic inputs.

On this 'biological' forum, I expect to see forward-thinking beekeepers investigating natural, chemical-free protocols, that will support the natural cycle of bees' life, not mechanics who think that tightening a bolt here or there will somehow make right all that we have done so wrong.

Look at the real cause of the problem: it is the beekeeper, not the bee, who is at fault.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>On this 'biological' forum, I expect to see forward-thinking beekeepers investigating natural, chemical-free protocols, that will support the natural cycle of bees' life, not mechanics who think that tightening a bolt here or there will somehow make right all that we have done so wrong.


In other words you prefer to have a onesided conversation on an issue,where you can slang and slander all the big corperations without any challange, and get issues spinning in circles to where the opinions are no longer based on facts but rather hype,


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> If the gene targeted a crucial pathway, mites may or may not be able to adapt. -HVH


While I believe your statement is accurate (organisms have repeatedly demonstrated that, confronted with extreme selective pressures, they either adapt or become extinct), I doubt that extinction of _Varroa_ through transgenic bees is very likely at all. So far, we (humans) have proven ourselves very poor at "eradicating" the pests we've attempted to eliminate. Take primary screwworm flies as an example: efforts over the last 50 years have "eradicated" the flies, yet massive numbers of sterile males must be released annually to ensure that screwworms do not "recur." (Which begs the question, "If they are truly eradicated, how could they recur?") More recently, studies have demonstrated that female screwworms are employing different mating strategies that may be difficult to overcome (the reason that sterile male releases worked so well with screwworm was that females mate only once in their lives); some females now mate multiply, rather than singly, and some evidence suggests that females can now somehow evaluate potential mates to determine whether or not the males are sterile.

I think time and money is better spent on efforts to manage pests.



> ...the latter, not the former. -deknow


The age to potential reproduction in humans is much lower than many people wish to acknowledge. Humans can and do reproduce successfully by the time they are in their mid teens, if not before. Do you mean to suggest that the average longevity of humans in times past was less than 20, or that a significantly greater percentage of the population is living to, say, 25 than were in the past?



> so you now have these diverse genes staying in the gene pool which require medical intervention in order to reproduce. i'm not sure this is a good road to go down... -deknow


Without getting into the morals and ethics of such a thing, "fitness" cares not "how" but "if." So long as an individual passes genes into future generations, that individual's fitness increases. When you get into the "how," you open up a realm of hypotheticals. (For instance, "That deer that just gave birth to twins was only able to do so because some human behind the wheel of a car had fast enough reflexes to avoid hitting her four months ago on the highway." That doesn't change the fact that she just passed genes into the next generation; whether or not she "deserved" to reproduce is a question of morals and ethics and judgement, while the twins standing next to her are evidence of her evolutionary fitness.)



> i expect, if one could find the data, that before c-sections was used, that there were less people that required them (as those that did tended not to be born alive and/or died in childbirth). -deknow


Interesting trivia: the first account of a "c-section" was recorded by Pliny the Elder in the first century A. D., supposedly documenting the birth of one of the Caesars (which is perhaps where the term "caesarean section," shortened to "c-section," originated). Of course, back in those days, the mothers didn't typically survive such practices.



> well, diversity in a gene pool is not "every possible gene" for a good reason. -deknow


Well, pretty much it is. "Diversity" is measured by the differences. The more possibilities in the genes, the greater the diversity. Now, whether or not that diversity is desireable is a different question.



> how long do you think it will be before the words of martin luther king jr. cease to have a significant impact on the world? what he contributed to society is much greater (imho) than what he contributed to the gene pool by reproducing. -deknow


Maybe so, but his evolutionary fitness is measured in terms of how many progeny he left here on earth, not what he may have accomplished to advance human culture.

Think about it in terms of a different species -- honey bees. You have a queen bee that communicates well with other bees, and rails against what bees "see" as injustice in foraging, but lays very few eggs. Is her fitness greater or lesser than a queen that does nothing but lay massive amounts of eggs?

Let's go a step further and talk longevity of honey bee queens. A queen that lays a few thousand eggs over the course of four years ends up dying without casting any swarms. A queen that lives one year lays tens of thousands of eggs and produces four swarms, three of which produce swarms in the next year. Leaving the drones out of the equation at this stage, which has greater evolutionary fitness?

Organisms that are living tend to want to keep living, but that doesn't mean that organisms that live longer have greater fitness than those that live for shorter spans.



> No way no how. However, it might be easier to get funding to do
> some fancy GM work as opposed to good old fashioned breeding. -MichealW


I suspect that this is about right, although the speed and deliberate addition of selected genes might offset the "low-tech" methods, economically.



> On the humans though, a group
> of people not considered 'fit' can contribute greatly to the 'fitness' of
> the society as a whole. Thats always been a benefit of societies and tribes. -MichaelW


This tends to be true to honey bees as well. Think of the average worker: her direct fitness is likely zero, or very, very close to it (unless she's a drone layer). Her "inclusive fitness" (the fitness gained by caring for closely-related individuals that share genes that might be passed into future generations) is much greater. The same can work in humans.

The problem, again, lies in a confusion of "fitness," a measure of evolutionary prowess.



> IMO we should not interfere with bee genetics while there is an a relatively unexplored, natural alternative: working more closely with the bees' needs. Most especially, they need a better environment than the Langstroth hive - designed 160 years ago, when we had little understanding of bees' nature, but blindly used ever since - and less dependence on synthetic inputs. -buckbee


I was under the impression that _Varroa_ made the host shift in an area where North American Langstroth hives were seldom, if ever, used. Do you have any documentation to support the hypothesis that simply altering the design of the hive will reduce pest problems from _Varroa_?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> One very important factor with GM crops, is its HUGE payoff. The reason for soo much research and development into cropping agriculture is because of the HUGE spin off. I dont see that kind of pay off in the beekeeping industry. - Ian


Thats a good point. Look at BT cotton. Its had near total acceptance by cotton growers. BT corn is spreading fast as well. But making queens is a lot more expensive than making seeds. 

There would be massive opposition to transgenic bees (my opinion) which also cuts down on the economics. Then add in that many beekeepers aren't proactive in getting the resistant bees that are available right now to begin with and I just don't see the economics working in favor of transgenic bees, even if it was possible for it to be beneficial, which I question. Its not like you could make 'Coumafos Ready' bees or FABees (Formic Acid Bees) or have it produce some other chemical that is going to kill the pest or keep a chemical from killing it. Your talking about a whole new set of GMO strategies that have not even be developed yet, working it into one of the most vulnerable sectors of agriculture with an enormous cost risk if something goes wrong. Every beekeeper probably has AHB in mind when thinking about breeding super bees with unconventional techniques. We all know how well that worked, even if it wasn't the sole cause of the present problem.

Also consider that the Transgenic crops that are successful are not really all that successful. BT crops are temporary. Its only a matter of time before BT resistance takes hold. The same thing would happen if they used real BT instead. Round-up ready is suspected to have problems as well. 

Bugs, yes true bugs, that where not a problem in Cotton are now a problem in BTCotton due to the reduced pesticides. No matter what your agriculture sector, something is going to try and kill it and you have to constantly come up with new strategies ideally incorporating least toxic and least damaging for the long term situation, such as avoiding the 'chemical treadmill' that eventually wares out. Any transgenic work on the bees is not taking into consideration the risk of negative long term consequences since there is so much unknown. Beekeeping is too vulnerable to risk that.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> HVH, welcome to our bee discussions fourm. It is real refreshing hearing from someone holding your views! I look forward to future conversations!
> 
> Got a name?


Thanks Ian. You just made my day.
I knew when I started this post some would automatically think I was preaching and write me off as an AH 'south end of a north facing donkey'. I really don't have all the answers and hope others on this thread will realize that this is a very real and important topic that we will have to face in the real world eventually and the discussion is not about people, evil corporations or such. We can demogog all we want, call Monsanto names, and throw fuel on the flames, but it won't change the outcome. What we really need is a vigorous discussion, and even perhaps a dialog about what we can do to affect the outcome. If people really don't want a transbee, how can they help in the more conventional arena (I will start another thread with a proposal after this thread dries up a bit). For those interested in a transbee, how can we get more research money to labs that we 'trust'. Again, I plan on starting yet another thread about how to get more research dollars to bee labs (not just molecular). I really do believe that a forum of this type can pull resources and make a change for the better.

I work in the field of human telomere biology so there is no conflict in my suggestions.

Chris


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> >>It is extremely unlikely that honey bees will ever reach a level of mite resistance that would make all of us happy. They may get better at grooming and consequently mite removal, but classical approaches are limited to the genes that bees currently possess. You are not going to get any new genes. So if there are bees that can groom to the level where mites are a non-issue great, but don't hold your breath. With genetic engineering you can steal genes
> 
> What would you expect the price paid per GM queen would have to be to manage the capital investment into its development, and continued maitenence of the stock purity?
> 
> One very important factor with GM crops, is its HUGE payoff. The reason for soo much research and development into cropping agriculture is because of the HUGE spin off. I dont see that kind of pay off in the beekeeping industry. It is the reason why there hasnt been much private investment into research and development, and probably the reason why there is such a disconect between beekeepers across the country.


Hey Ian,

I would like to see academics get the work done on public funds and everyone benefit. I am a staunch capitalist and see this position as bordering on hypocracy, but a constitutional role for goverment, in my view, includes insuring that our country is always on the leading edge when it comes to technology (including military: big time). Some might say that is because I am a scientist. Nope - just sound economics. On the other hand, I am only talking about applied research. It bugs me when labs get handouts for pet projects that have no stated practical goals. 
I agree that the bee industry is not the best target industry to make a buck, but an academic lab might be able to provide what is needed without all the strings.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*GM bees*

I am just astonished by the arrogance and pseudo-scientific pontification in this thread. How can any of you - in the face of millions of years of evolution - dare to suggest that mere 'scientists' - mere dabblers in comparison with the forces of nature - can 'create' some kind of 'superbee' by fiddling with genes - and seriously imagine that there would be no repercussions or unpredictable side-effects in the wider ecology?

You are not discussing some little electronic gadget that can be played with in the confines of your laboratories - you are talking about a sentient life-form that interacts in complex ways - many of which are not fully understood - with other life forms, some of which are our food crops. Can you guarantee to contain your Frankenstein bee, and prevent it planting its genes outside your county? No, of course you can't - any more than the AHB could be contained - and can you guarantee that you will not accidentally create something even more monstrous than the AHB? Of course you cannot.

You - we - are children playing with expensive toys, when it comes to manipulating genes. Scientists cannot be trusted to produce a benign result and corporations cannot be trusted to do anything except line their own pockets.

And yes - we are experimenting with some very promising natural beekeeping protocols: I have colonies that have survived three years with no synthetic treatments for mites, nosema or anything else. I have no use for GM bees and I hope never to see them, nor the need for them.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>could make 'Coumafos Ready' bees or FABees (Formic Acid Bees)

Ha ha ha, couldnt help but smile at that comment 


>>get the work done on public funds and everyone benefit.

I dont believe the government would venture into such a politically sensitive situation. Nor would I want them to. There just isnt enough money that would come from the government that would complete and maintain a project of this magnitude. It most definately would be a project that would have to be accomplished by private funding. 
Right now the beekeeping industry is soo under funded, its hardly laughable. Just as an egample, It took over a year of lobbying to the government and to beekeepers themselves to scrape up needed investment to provide the needed studdy work that would satisfy Government standards for the registration of Oxalic Acid treatment to Canadian beekeepers hives. I forget the cost of the project, but it wasnt but a few tens of thousands of $$. Just imagine trying to lobby the government and beekeepers to raise enough capital investment for a massive GM bee development project.

But I totally understand what your saying, "We should benifet from our own work" type of thinking. It is a business modle that require a deep pocket supporter.

>>I am a staunch capitalist 
>>includes insuring that our country is always on the leading edge when it comes to technology (including military: big time).


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

buckbee said:


> I am just astonished by the arrogance and pseudo-scientific pontification in this thread. How can any of you - in the face of millions of years of evolution - dare to suggest that mere 'scientists' - mere dabblers in comparison with the forces of nature - can 'create' some kind of 'superbee' by fiddling with genes - and seriously imagine that there would be no repercussions or unpredictable side-effects in the wider ecology?
> 
> You are not discussing some little electronic gadget that can be played with in the confines of your laboratories - you are talking about a sentient life-form that interacts in complex ways - many of which are not fully understood - with other life forms, some of which are our food crops. Can you guarantee to contain your Frankenstein bee, and prevent it planting its genes outside your county? No, of course you can't - any more than the AHB could be contained - and can you guarantee that you will not accidentally create something even more monstrous than the AHB? Of course you cannot.
> 
> ...


I think it is fair to say that people bring to every argument their own world view. You might be correct and the superbee may destroy the world, but from my vantage point we had this argument already back in the 1970's and the fears that people had then were not realized. We aren't talking about major changes to the bee's genome. I add genes to human cells all the time, using the same technology, and have yet to have one jump out of the flask and attack me. In recent publications, the authors described how the addition of four human genes into human skin cells resulted in reprogramming back into stem cells. Do you have any idea of what that could mean for humans in the future. This technology has the potential of replacing worn out or damaged parts. I know some will say "never". These are the same people that take antibiotics when they get an infected tooth.

I'll be honest with all of you, I have serious reservations about the theory of evolution (see the thread http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215999) and see it as more of a religion than a science. So my world view doesn't recognize, as fact, that we evolved from a common ancestor. Let me be clear; I think belief in "macroevolution" requires faith due to a lack of evidence. If it requires faith then it is a religion. This doesn't make the theory wrong, though, but rather tentative. Same goes for manmade global warming. I know there are those on this thread that will label me as a heretic, but they will be hard pressed to prove me wrong. If this turns into another rabbit trail of a debate please don't cite anecdotal evidence to prove me wrong or theories as to how evolution 'could' have occured. 
Nothing like opening a bees nest


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> >>could make 'Coumafos Ready' bees or FABees (Formic Acid Bees)
> 
> Ha ha ha, couldnt help but smile at that comment
> 
> ...


Ian,

What would happen if every beek that is into pollination went on strike for a full year? I wonder who would listen then. Would hundreds of millions of lost dollars in the AG economy create a stir? I understand that this is a naive suggestion, but still it is fun to look at the extremes.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Exactly why/how is this thread supporting the focus of this forum?


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Barry said:


> Exactly why/how is this thread supporting the focus of this forum?


My apologies if I have broken any rules. I just recently started this thread and am not aware of any forum focus. Please let me know where this info resides.

Respectfully,

HVH


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

"Ishi looked on us as sophisticated children. Smart, but not wise" -- Ishi the Last Yahi by Robert F. Heizer


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

If it needs to be moved, then why not move it?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>What would happen if every beek that is into pollination went on strike for a full year? I wonder who would listen then. Would hundreds of millions of lost dollars in the AG economy create a stir? 

I understand your point. We as beekeepers realize the importance of our services, but I would have to say the rest of the world dosent.

But let us sit and think for just a moment, if we could actually get our industry to do just that. That industry, or others just like ours. Just imagine the back lash that would come upon us for "starving" the people, becasue we so carlessly and selfishly pulled back our services to prove a point. I dont know if it would ultimatly work out as most in our industry invisions it.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> >>What would happen if every beek that is into pollination went on strike for a full year? I wonder who would listen then. Would hundreds of millions of lost dollars in the AG economy create a stir?
> 
> I understand your point. We as beekeepers realize the importance of our services, but I would have to say the rest of the world dosent.
> 
> But let us sit and think for just a moment, if we could actually get our industry to do just that. That industry, or others just like ours. Just imagine the back lash that would come upon us for "starving" the people, becasue we so carlessly and selfishly pulled back our services to prove a point. I dont know if it would ultimatly work out as most in our industry invisions it.


I admitted it was naive. Still, I wonder if it could be done if beeks, in one loud voice, determined that the risks of pest contamination were too high to justify sharing acreage with other beeks, and thus decided to wait until the CCD epidemic was ironed out. Clearly this would be good justification to shift to honey production until researchers could characterize the CCD problem. Beeks would finally be taken seriously and our fabulous leaders would be placed in the position of having to address the poor funding of bee research labs. If beeks waited for the CCD answer and refused to enter into pollination contracts until the problem was resolved, money would begin to flow into bee labs again. The problem I see is getting everyone on board. If supply and demand sent the pollination fees to $300.00 per hive, it's likely that some of the big boys couldn't resist the temptation and it would completely nullify the intended effect. Since I am not a lawyer I am not even sure if this kind of thinking is considered collusion (the illegal kind - not the kind signed into law). Plus, you could never get the beekeepers organized. 
Of course I'm off topic. Maybe the subject should be about making transgenic politicians. We could insert genes that (fill in the blanks).


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

After careful reading, I see little in this thread other than conjecture, presumption, and speculation. My experience with molecular biology is that it rarely works to produce new knowledge and will most likely not translated into useful honeybees yet alone dangerous ones.


----------



## jjgbee (Oct 12, 2006)

I only read the starting thread and lightly browsed in between.Gets kind of deep in what if. I have a nice hive of AHB hybrids that make considerable amount of honey. Have not treated for anything going on 3 yrs. I do not see the swarming tendency the original AHB had and the original AHB made no honey. They are mean but workable in a single hive setting. About as mean as black Germans of 30 yrs ago. Make these bees more gentle and you would have a great bee. I put them on previously made large cell comb and they are happy with it. Have not torn it down to rebuild small cell.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Aspera said:


> After careful reading, I see little in this thread other than conjecture, presumption, and speculation. My experience with molecular biology is that it rarely works to produce new knowledge and will most likely not translated into useful honeybees yet alone dangerous ones.


It looks like we are back on topic. 
I can tell you that I (and others) have cloned the human telomerase gene into normal human cells (MRC5 fibroblasts) that do not express telomerase and the result is cells that are immortal. MRC5 cells will normally double every 30 hours or so and double about 50-70 times before they die. We have MRC5 cells with telomerase where the cells have already doubled over 300 times with no end in sight (they are not cancer). If you think this through, it has vast implications. This is just one example from my small little world - just think what others might be up to.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

HVH said:


> We have MRC5 cells with telomerase where the cells have already doubled over 300 times with no end in sight (they are not cancer). If you think this through, it has vast implications. This is just one example from my small little world - just think what others might be up to.


I really dread to think. Let's hope none of them have delusions of being able to solve the world's problems.


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

HVH said:


> ...a constitutional role for goverment, in my view, includes insuring that our country is always on the leading edge when it comes to technology (including military: big time).


I find it interesting, but not at all surprising, that you should bring up weapons along side a discussion about transgenics. I also wasn’t surprised when you finally played the “fear” card, which I predicted by trying to make it clear in an earlier post that my point of view was conscientiously NOT motivated by anxiety. Incidentally “anxiety” (as in I’m uneasy about the uncertain future) is the word your looking for rather than “fear” (as in this rabid dog is about to bite my face off).

The reason this is an interesting coincidence is the trend in transgenics and weapons amassing/manufacture stem from the same fundamental place deep in the dark human psyche. One industry seemingly supports life, while the other takes it away. The reality is they both seek to do _exactly the same thing_ – commodify and therefore control life. As I said much earlier the real issue here, regardless of how you want to rationalize it, is about CONTROL.

The desire to be on the “leading edge” and maintaining economic superiority is also about control – controlling one’s _apparent, abstract_ position in this world. The abstractions (science, law, economics) we make about this world are also an attempt at control – to control the world in our minds by conceptualization.

Why so obliviously obsessed with control? Because we are by nature anxious about the uncertain future. We crave security. This is a very anxious time we live in, and so people more than ever are grasping for control, security, their comforting piece of the pie they're so entitled to. _Transgenics is a product of anxiety._ And if one thing is certain about the future, engineering life is simply more of the same. On with the rat race!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> The desire to be on the “leading edge” and maintaining economic superiority is also about control – controlling one’s apparent, abstract position in this world. The abstractions (science, law, economics) we make about this world are also an attempt at control – to control the world in our minds by conceptualization.


one's position in the world isn't always abstract. if you lived in tibet, for instance, you might wish that your country was more in control of it's position in the world.

deknow


----------



## Tim Hall (Sep 14, 2007)

I have been among the Tibetan diaspora in northern India. Certainly there are those that seek control, and even by militant means, but the basic philosophy is that control is illusion. While exiled they at least survive peaceably. 

The Chinese seek much greater control - control of the land and control of a people who curiously don't need control. Control is the very reason for the situation.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Tim Hall said:


> I find it interesting, but not at all surprising, that you should bring up weapons along side a discussion about transgenics. I also wasn’t surprised when you finally played the “fear” card, which I predicted by trying to make it clear in an earlier post that my point of view was conscientiously NOT motivated by anxiety. Incidentally “anxiety” (as in I’m uneasy about the uncertain future) is the word your looking for rather than “fear” (as in this rabid dog is about to bite my face off).
> 
> The reason this is an interesting coincidence is the trend in transgenics and weapons amassing/manufacture stem from the same fundamental place deep in the dark human psyche. One industry seemingly supports life, while the other takes it away. The reality is they both seek to do _exactly the same thing_ – commodify and therefore control life. As I said much earlier the real issue here, regardless of how you want to rationalize it, is about CONTROL.
> 
> ...


I agree with much of what you are saying but the reality is that there are bad people out there that hate us and would like nothing more than to kill us and take our land and our goods. Unfortunately this darker side of man (man the animal, as Allen Bloom described in the Closing of the American Mind) pops his ugly head up throughout history and is alive and well today. And as we have all heard, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one. Once we all become like Christ, I will give up on this silly notion of national security and economic superiority. If this all boils down to control then I am guilty as charged.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Transgenics is a product of anxiety. And if one thing is certain about the future, engineering life is simply more of the same. -Tim Hall


I personally know several people who create transgenic organisms, and some were in on some of the earliest successful transgenic events. To a person, when I asked some of them about your statement, they denied that "transgenics are products of anxiety."

They did admit that at first transgenics were as much about curiosity as anything. "Could I take a trait out of one organism and put in into a different organism and have it do what it was doing that attracted my attention in the first place?"

And many of them were and are breeders, working on crops. They view transgenic events as more rapid, more deliberate methods of incorporating genes into breeding lines that they wish. No "anxiety," but perhaps some "control." Rather than breed specific lines for years to attain a particular goal, that goal can be reached rapidly by inserting the genes directly.

Also, several of them noted that "transgenesis" occurs naturally, to some greater or lesser extent. Viruses pick up bits of DNA or RNA and move those pieces from one organism to the next. Who's to say that the virus that caused the flu you had in the past didn't also incorporate a fragment of someone (or some other animal's) else's DNA into your cells when the virus inserted its own DNA or RNA into your cell? One of the concerns with certain GM crops is that viruses can move those genes to unintended, unrelated species in the field -- in other words, the same events that are happening under controlled, lab conditions are also occuring in "nature."

One of the experts noted that, in essence, vaccines are "transgenic," since genes from a different organism are inserted into a human to achieve a specific goal.

Besides that, other "unnatural" events seem to be overlooked in this discussion. Honey bees are not native to North or South America. Their introduction and spread displaced native pollinators, and likely caused ecological disruptions that we likely will never fully comprehend. Too late to do much about it now, but what about stopping movements of other organisms as much as possible?

And honey bee breeders, such as Brother Adam, deliberately crossed races or subspecies of honey bees that would otherwise never have interbred. Talk about "unnatural!" If we wish to do away with all "unnatural" events or organisms, should we destroy all Buckfast bees (and all other hybrids that would otherwise not exist)? Should we simply destroy all forms of life whenever possible that did not exist in a location before deliberate or inadvertent transport by human activities? (No wheat in the Americas, for example, and no corn or potatoes in Eurasia; no cattle or swine or sheep or horses in North America, and no pheasants in North America. No tobacco in Europe or Asia or Africa. And no honey bees in North America or South America.)


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Tim Hall said:


> I have been among the Tibetan diaspora in northern India. Certainly there are those that seek control, and even by militant means, but the basic philosophy is that control is illusion. While exiled they at least survive peaceably.
> The Chinese seek much greater control - control of the land and control of a people who curiously don't need control. Control is the very reason for the situation.


...i'm only guessing here, but i expect that those living in exile in india are afforded much more in the way of freedoms than those still in tibet under chinese occupation. it is my contention that this population would be better of (and would prefer) to have more control rather than to be controlled. i can't say that i would blame them, and i can't imagine being of the opinion that they are better off being controlled than being in control.

deknow


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Transgenics is a product of anxiety. And if one thing is certain about the future, engineering life is simply more of the same

I dont agree. Transgenics is just ONE more tool farmers are able to use within thier own cropping rotations. It is working along side of all the rest of the resarch and development that has been vested into the industry. A heck of alot more of the work vested into the ag industry isnt transgenic related. 
GM crops, dont control farmer practices any more than non GM cropping practices do. GM crops provide farmers with alternative options to conventional farming practices, options that farmers are encouraging.

Your response to Chris, is unfair. He said nor implyed no such thing. Your tieing transgenics and weapons for what reason? Trying to relate them as they both "stem from the same fundamental place deep in the dark human psyche"??? 

Now Tim, who is propagating fear and anxiety here?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I liked Tim's bit of psychological analysis, that kind of thing is
healthy from time to time.

Question:
HVH, or someone else, how, specifically could a transgenic bee
be developed in a way that would be beneficial to beekeeping?
With economics and PR issues aside, how or in what way biologically,
could a transgenic bee be beneficial? Not generally, but specifically
to address what disease and in what way?

I ask this question because I don't think you can answer that.
HVH, or anyone else, doesn't know enough about honey bees and 
their disease interactions to be able to answer that question.

Buckbee I enjoyed your post #86 as well. Although I don't agree
that the langstroth hive is a problem I do appreciate what you
say about the arrogance of science. I study science, and it can
be quite arrogant at times. Its not the standard, but it does
exist. And this comes from someone whom is pro BT cotton.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Besides that, other "unnatural" events seem to be overlooked in this discussion. Honey bees are not native to North or South America. Their introduction and spread displaced native pollinators, and likely caused ecological disruptions that we likely will never fully comprehend.

Good point Kieck. I understand what your saying.
I would like to comment on that point of topic.
Our country needs to support itself, and the vast resource we have ( I am including US in this comment along with Canada) allows us to establish a massive agriculture industry that does sustain our countries needs. This has created huge ecological disruptions within our country, but sacrificed for the needs of human establishment and growth. We brought in the crops, livestock, and insects to mantain our basic hunger and we have totally changed the ecological habits of the country. If we want to bring this country back to what it was before we settled and established here, we are going to have to change our own habits and practices before we start changing the industry that feeds us. It all starts back at square one. The problem cant be fixed from the top down. Transgenics is mearly a use of technology to grow a food crop the public demands. More food, better food, cheap food, always avaliable. If that is what the public needs , thats what they will get. The shift in food production practices have to initiated by the publics demand. And that ultimately is measued with thier spending habits.

A GM bee, enabling us to raise production and pollination bees without all the preasures of mite controls ect, would prove as a huge benifet to our opertions. Mites are truely the most devestating factor in colony losses in this country. They weaken the system of the bees, allow infections to get in. They are the root cause of many secondary diease infections and hive losses. If a GM bee would avoid alot of that, I think we could beekeep with a big advantage
But as I said earlier, I dont believe the economics are there to enable the reaserch and development into such a program. I wouldnt get into too much of a tizzy, this program would be a long and complicated one. It ultimately needs a pay off to attract funding!!


----------



## John Gesner (Dec 17, 2005)

HVH said:


> how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?


Wow. Took quite a while to slog thru this thread. Now that I have, I'd like to exercise my privilege of posting on this site by responding to your original question and my reason why not.

No. I would not be willing to use genetically modified honey bees. As a matter of fact, if GM bees were released into the populace to breed freely with mine or any other bees, I'd probably quit beekeeping. 

I started this "hobby" because it feels good to produce a product that is as free of human tampering as it gets. Sure, we force the bee into an environment that we create and "manage" them to produce the best and most abundant crop. But I can put on my label that there is nothing artificial, chemical or un-natural in my honey. Just pure honey. That's what my customers want and expect. If I thought that "my" bees had been influenced by GM bees, I don't think I could honestly portray my product as "Pure, All Natural Honey".

There. I think that answers your question without speculation or conjecture. No what-ifs or how abouts. And as far as I'm concerned, Barry can move this thread into the Tailgater where most of it belongs anyway.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

MichaelW said:


> I liked Tim's bit of psychological analysis, that kind of thing is
> healthy from time to time.
> 
> Question:
> ...


Michael,

I would be the first to admit that making a transbee would not happen overnight. But keep in mind that genetic engineering is advancing quickly like the power of computers. 
One possible approach that comes to mind (maybe the easiest place to start but not ideal), is to identify the least toxic pesticides that are effective against the mite (and bee for that matter) and test bacteria (unless some organisms are already known to be naturally immune to mites through biochemical means or an enzyme is already characterized that is efficient at catabolizing a known pesticide) from all over the world for the ability to survive high doses of the pesticide. Current batch sequencing approaches, old fashion subtractive hybridization, or DNA array analysis could determine the genes responsible for tolerance in bacteria. The pesticide tolerance gene would then be introduced into bee cells grown in vitro. The pesticide would then be added to the growth media in normal cells and transbee cells. If the transbee cells showed resistance and the normal cells did not, the transgene would be delivered through sperm mediated transgenesis. The resulting queens and offspring from several clones would then bee tested for miticide resistance. This is an oversimplification.
This kind of transbee would benefit beekeepers and consumers of honey by allowing for the eradication of mites with the least toxic pesticides. The goal would be to use pesticides with a low LD50 for mites that had a very short half life in the hive. So instead of applying Apistan strips, the beek could gas the hive from the entrance and kill all adult mites and then repeat once or twice to get the newly hatched mites. 
Ultimately, it would be better, and also more difficult, to clone a gene into bees that would kill mites when they fed upon the bee.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

HVH said:


> This kind of transbee would benefit beekeepers and consumers of honey by allowing for the eradication of mites with the least toxic pesticides.


Thanks for staking a stab at it but, this scenario would be unnecessary. Thymol and Formic Acid already work fine and the bee is not susceptible to significant problems from its use. Oxalic Acid dribbling is also proven to work well with little side effect, but is still not approved in US due to ???? red tape?. The problems in beekeeping are much more complex than this scenario you laid out.

try again?

-------------
Where am I? Oh, the bee forum. Very good on the thread move!


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

John Gesner said:


> Wow. Took quite a while to slog thru this thread. Now that I have, I'd like to exercise my privilege of posting on this site by responding to your original question and my reason why not.
> 
> No. I would not be willing to use genetically modified honey bees. As a matter of fact, if GM bees were released into the populace to breed freely with mine or any other bees, I'd probably quit beekeeping.
> 
> ...


Wow! I was a bit slow in the head and completely missed the insult behind moving the thread. Now that you have weighed in, I guess there is nothing else left to say. I am OK with discontinuing this thread. I think the feedback that I have received so far is probably fairly representative and has certainly met my objective. 
Also, I had no idea how much of my time it would take to stay current.


----------



## John Gesner (Dec 17, 2005)

HVH said:


> Wow! I was a bit slow in the head and completely missed the insult behind moving the thread.


Insult? What insult? You, my friend, are reading far too much into what I said. Or is this just a maneuver to draw attention away from what I said? I thought I was pretty straight forward in my statements. I made no assumptions and made no "hypothetical" statements. Did you not want a straight answer to your original question or has this whole thread been just a trolling maneuver?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>There. I think that answers your question without speculation or conjecture. No what-ifs or how abouts. And as far as I'm concerned, Barry can move this thread into the Tailgater where most of it belongs anyway.
>>Insult? What insult?...Did you not want a straight answer to your original question or has this whole thread been just a trolling maneuver?

If it is just a trolling maneuver, you my friend have just got caught in it! John, Conterversial topics always draw heavey opinions , making for a very interesting and sometimes heated discussion. I would assume you would show the same respect towards the original question asked as many others here have. This tread had originally been started in Biological beekeeing fourm, to which the moderators felt it didnt suit the format or focus of the fourm, so it was sent here, to the general beekeeping fourm , where, well, more of a gereralized focus on beekeeping is discussed. 

Transgenics, wheather we like it or not is a huge part of todays beekeeping industry. Our industry is directly involved with GM cropping practices, our hives collect nectar and pollen from millions and millions of acres yearly, world wide. I make my living off of beekeeping, and also make my living off growing crops, having GM cropping practises mix into my rotation. The GM issue directly relates to my business operations. This question is simply expanding the question from a discussion of GM cropping practices to perhaps a GM bee managed practice. Because of the reality of genetic manipulation of crops, and it success in agricultural cropping practices, the reality of a GM bee isnt too far off our imagination. And I dont feel it is a question that should be discarded. 

>>As a matter of fact, if GM bees were released into the populace to breed freely with mine or any other bees, I'd probably quit beekeeping. 

I ask you John, knowing that your bees may be collecting thier nectar and pollen stores from crops that may have been influenced by GM technology, are you still able to portray your product as "Pure, All Natural Honey"? And perhaps, knowing that your hives are influenced by GM cropping practices, are you going to quit beekeeping?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>is to identify the least toxic pesticides that are effective against the mite ... ability to survive high doses of the pesticide.

I dont know Chris. I wouldnt favour a breeding and development plan that would involve building resistant or tolerance to heavey chemical treatments. My motivation in developing a GM mite tolerant or resistant bee would be to move totally away from any need of a chemical treatment. Thats getting away from the whole issue of developing a GM bee in the first place, and if you think there is resistance towards any mention of development of a GM bee within the industry, just wait until you tell them how you aim to proceed with that program! Youd be done before you got things started.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> >>is to identify the least toxic pesticides that are effective against the mite ... ability to survive high doses of the pesticide.
> 
> I dont know Chris. I wouldnt favour a breeding and development plan that would involve building resistant or tolerance to heavey chemical treatments. My motivation in developing a GM mite tolerant or resistant bee would be to move totally away from any need of a chemical treatment. Thats getting away from the whole issue of developing a GM bee in the first place, and if you think there is resistance towards any mention of development of a GM bee within the industry, just wait until you tell them how you aim to proceed with that program! Youd be done before you got things started.


Thanks Ian for making this discussion fun. I am going to bow out of this thread and probably get back to my shop. I hope you have a great year of beekeeping. At least now you know that if the planet is destroyed that I had something to do with it.

Chris Foster
[email protected]


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Just wanted to throw in that I was enjoying the discussion as well.
Hope nothing I said is taken too hard, I enjoy a debate from time
to time. My comrade students are going to debate the use of
transgenics at some entomology society meetings and I can't
participate due to time constraints, so I guess I'm getting my fill
online.

But again, I feel strongly that the honey bee is not the place to
work with transgenic technologies and can think of many many 
reasons why that we have not even discussed yet.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

MichaelW said:


> Just wanted to throw in that I was enjoying the discussion as well.
> Hope nothing I said is taken too hard, I enjoy a debate from time
> to time. My comrade students are going to debate the use of
> transgenics at some entomology society meetings and I can't
> ...


Feel free to contact me. I like a good spirited debate as well.
[email protected]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

With simple cross breeding we managed to "invent" the Africanized Honey Bees. Just IMAGINE what could we accomplish with gene splicing!!!


----------



## John Gesner (Dec 17, 2005)

Ian said:


> If it is just a trolling maneuver, you my friend have just got caught in it!


My apologies. My last comment was rather inflamatory, wasn't it? 



Ian said:


> I ask you John, knowing that your bees may be collecting thier nectar and pollen stores from crops that may have been influenced by GM technology, are you still able to portray your product as "Pure, All Natural Honey"? And perhaps, knowing that your hives are influenced by GM cropping practices, are you going to quit beekeeping?


Hm. Good point. But as far as I know (and I'm not a crop farmer) the only GM influenced crop in Ohio is corn. If I'm correct on that, then my honey and my pollen are not influenced.



HVH said:


> Now that you have weighed in, I guess there is nothing else left to say.


More apologies, I suppose... You certainly couldn't know that I've been reading along and felt myself more involved than it appeared. I certainly could have edited before I pressed "Submit"... It's an election year. Guess I'm just in the controversial head-butting mode.



HVH said:


> I am OK with discontinuing this thread.


I sincerely hope that your decision isn't based solely on what I've said. But I will stand by my answer to your original statement "No. I would not be willing to use genetically modified honey bees."



HVH said:


> ...the feedback that I have received so far is probably fairly representative...


I hope you're right. But I think if you're looking for an accurate representation, I don't believe you've gotten it thru this format. There's "lurkers" and "readers" whose opinion you'll never see. You'd really need to canvas a broader selection of the beekeeping populace. Perhaps spending time with formal beekeeping organizations? ABF? EAS? Submit an article to ABJ? Bee Culture? Good luck.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

John Gesner said:


> I hope you're right. But I think if you're looking for an accurate representation, I don't believe you've gotten it thru this format. There's "lurkers" and "readers" whose opinion you'll never see. You'd really need to canvas a broader selection of the beekeeping populace. Perhaps spending time with formal beekeeping organizations? ABF? EAS? Submit an article to ABJ? Bee Culture? Good luck.


And I would hope the beekeepers at those venues would speak up against exploring transgenics in bees, provided thats how they felt. Keeping quiet does not help. My gut feeling (and only that) and hope is that the bee labs would follow suit with the public opinion of beekeepers and vocally oppose transgenic work with honey bees. Especially with their understanding of what really needs to be explored with honey bees such as, what causes CCD, how N. cerana works, what challenge is next, etc. As for Molecular Biologists in other fields however,?????


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Hm. Good point. But as far as I know (and I'm not a crop farmer) the only GM influenced crop in Ohio is corn. If I'm correct on that, then my honey and my pollen are not influenced. -John Gesner


What?!? No soybeans grown around there? (Just to clarify, here, RoundUp-Ready crops are "GM" plants, and more than half of the soybeans grown in the U. S. now are "RR 'beans.")

And, maybe your bees don't, but I believe my bees collect pollen from corn. I work extensively in corn, and I frequently see bees collecting pollen from corn. I also see honey bees fumbling around in dry corn fields long after pollen is available; I'm not sure what they're after, but they seem attracted to the fields. Maybe they find some pollen? Maybe they're just investigating?

And, while we're on the "risks" and "unnatural" aspects of transgenics, how do all of you feel about grafting trees? "Unnatural" and "risky?" Or "acceptable?" All those almond trees that so many bees visit in California are grafted, of course, and many other fruit trees (apples, etc.) are grafted as well.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Hm. Good point. But as far as I know (and I'm not a crop farmer) the only GM influenced crop in Ohio is corn. If I'm correct on that, then my honey and my pollen are not influenced.

Oh ya, you have alot of corn if your from Ohio  And that crop doesnt seem to be rotated to often, as in wheat or canola crops. I am sure you have soybeans there, for at least my ag reps would tell me.

>>All those almond trees that so many bees visit in California are grafted, of course, and many other fruit trees (apples, etc.) are grafted as well.

Isnt that interesting.
I know alot of modern fruiting trees are grafted up here to make wintering possible. Just for interests sake, whats the advantage of grafting an almond tree for use in California?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I know alot of modern fruiting trees are grafted up here to make wintering possible. -Ian


Around here, many of the fruit trees are grafted to obtain other characteristics as well, such as physical growth or disease resistance or other traits. For example, certain apple cultivars are grafted onto "dwarf" rootstocks to produce trees that are not as tall (easier picking come harvest). Winter hardiness figures into it, but maybe not as much as some of the other traits. Besides that, grafting is a way of "cloning" plants or trees to produce many with identical traits from a single tree or plant.



> Just for interests sake, whats the advantage of grafting an almond tree for use in California? -Ian


I'm not really sure. I believe disease resistance is a big part of it. Many of the almonds are grafted onto rootstocks that are supposed to be resistant to numerous plant diseases. I would venture, too, that "uniformity" in getting high yields and desireable fruit (nuts) from the trees would make cloning (grafting) advantageous. I have read repeatedly that the almond trees in California are almost all grafted.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Regardless of technology, best intentions and know-how, most times things don't work out as we expect. Sometimes it's better. Sometimes it's worse.

Maybe it's time to bank bees and other kinds of life, much like we're doing with seeds in the arctic.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking a reverse gear is a good thing when traveling over new, uncharted ground.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Well written, Dennis.

In regards to transgenic ("GM") organisms, I take it that none of the pure opponents of transgenic organisms has insulin-dependent diabetes, or has a family member who has insulin-dependent diabetes.

While I'm not advocating inserting genes into bees through transgenic events, I don't feel that the knee-jerk reaction against GM is justified, either.


----------



## berkshire bee (Jan 28, 2007)

*would we be sued?*

So if transgenic bees were developed and someone had them in a nearby beeyard and your queen mated with them, would the company that developed them sue you because your bees had their patented genes?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I don't feel that the knee-jerk reaction against GM is justified, either

Its an easy opinion to hold. GM cropping practices have been used for over a dozen years now, and without any consequence.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

> So if transgenic bees were developed and someone had them 
> in a nearby beeyard and your queen mated with them, would 
> the company that developed them sue you because your bees 
> had their patented genes?

'would'? Company decision/choice. 

'could'? At this point in time, yes, as per discussion on p2 of this thread. 

Patent holders have used the legal system to punish individuals who inadvertently wound up with contamination by transgenic material. Whether this occurred by natural means or theft is irrelevant, you can be sued for making use of the benefits without having licensed them. 

The situation may change, there are many who believe the present status is not a sustainable long term legal premise.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Patent holders have used the legal system to punish individuals who inadvertently wound up with contamination by transgenic material. Whether this occurred by natural means or theft is irrelevant, you can be sued for making use of the benefits without having licensed them. 

They have the right to sue if thier technology and developments are being used without permission. Even the seed breeders out side of GM technology have this right, and have also persued these cases. The fact of the matter, and the bases of Monsantos case along with other cases with seed breeders, is that the technology was taken and used without permission of the company, and in many cases it also extends to profiting on the sale of brown bag seed.
There is much more to Monsantos case than the media leads to believe. They won in a cort of law, and they wouldnt of won if that particular farmers claims held reasonable truth.
As it relates breeding of bees, and to contoling the genes outside of thier breeding program, would be impossible nor would they have the legal ability to pursue that. With in a breeding program, they have the ability to sell thier produce, but outside the program they loose that right. It would follow the same principles as seed breeders follow now.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

If you disperse money on my property via wind or insects and I pick it up and put it in my pocket, I don't care if your name is written on it or not, I'm spending it.


----------



## HarovonMogel (Nov 13, 2007)

*Fascinating forum topic*

Hi folks,

I can't spend too much time on this forum topic right now, but I've read a few pages and I want to read more and be a part of this discussion. I just wanted to make a couple points.

Those who are saying that GE crops cause X health or environmental or butterfly-killing problem (or CCD) really need to spend some time looking up the facts on transgenic crops. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and I'll admit, it's really hard to find out reliable information without going directly to the scientific literature.

That being said, it brings up many many good things to talk about, such as who controls what, how do you ensure people's rights while providing an economic incentive for useful traits to be developed in bees? What about swarms and supercedures? These are good questions.

The strongest argument, put forward by HVH, is that if you're really concerned about someone 'controlling' the bees and having lawsuits over backyard swarms, then what you really want is publicly-funded research programs instead of private companies. I find it fascinating that the opposition to transgenic organisms in universities is pushing it more into the hands of private enterprise - exactly the folks that activists are afraid of.

More fascinating, though, is that whenever a discussion of genetic engineering comes up, people start talking about evolution as if it was a benevolent deity. I've noticed this elsewhere, but this sentiment has certainly been echoed here.
Dinor said:
"I don't know why man thinks he can do better than nature."
Honeybees are a partly domesticated species - the combination of nature and human intervention. So there's a dichotomy being drawn where there isn't one. The same thing goes for crops - nature didn't hand down apples and bananas, humans bred them from wild, seedy, and sometimes poisonous species.

buckbee said:
"In the context of evolution and the life of this planet, we are still infants playing with dangerous toys. The sooner we recognize this and put our faith in the processes and cycles of nature, rather than the pet theories of scientists, the sooner we will be able to get on with the real work of creating a new relationship with the natural world, based on respect and appreciation rather than casual disregard and exploitation."
and:
"What do you trust - millions of years of evolution, or a profit-driven agrichemical company?"

Evolution is not benevolent. It happens by tooth and claw and toxin - evolution actually makes far nastier toxins than humans have ever been able to come up with. I would rather be guided by scientific evidence than what is essentially a religious statement.

Genetic Engineering is no more a casual disregard than is breeding - both modify the genetics of an organism, albeit by different methods. It raises philosophical issues, but I would like to caution those who make blanket statements about its usefulness based on a philosophical predisposition rather than the state of the science.

I'm going to keep reading this discussion when I have more time. See y'all in a few days.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> The strongest argument, put forward by HVH, is that if you're really concerned about someone 'controlling' the bees and having lawsuits over backyard swarms, then what you really want is publicly-funded research programs instead of private companies. I find it fascinating that the opposition to transgenic organisms in universities is pushing it more into the hands of private enterprise - exactly the folks that activists are afraid of.


I would be shocked if the bee industry decided to put time, money, or
even inclination in making a transgenic bee. Monsanto and other such
corps don't have the expertise, nor the monetary motivation. So as long
as the publicly funded institutions stay out of it, we'll probably be pretty
safe from that one.


----------



## HarovonMogel (Nov 13, 2007)

*"Safe"?*

"So as long as the publicly funded institutions stay out of it, we'll probably be pretty safe from that one."

And we may be stuck on the same downward spiral of diseases and pests...

I'd like to mention that one of the things that genetic engineering does very well is make resistance to viral diseases. Imagine if you could eliminate those from the hive for starters..? The way you use "safe" above is very subjective.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Here's an older paper about transgenic bee research (not biology though). I wonder what else has been done in the last three years?

Apidologie 36 (2005) 293-299 
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2005003
A new method for rearing genetically manipulated honey bee workers

Anne Lene T.O. Aasea, Gro V. Amdama, b, Arne Hagena and Stig W. Omholta 

a Centre for Integrative Genetics and Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
b Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis 95 616, USA

(Received 4 June 2004 - Revised 4 September 2004 - Accepted 17 September 2004; Published online: 1 June 2005)
Abstract - Advanced functional genomic research on the honey bee (Apis mellifera) will require methods that allow researchers to work with bees derived from genetically manipulated embryos. In vitro rearing of honey bees is laborious, and it is often difficult to obtain individuals that span a normal phenotypic range. We present a technique that allows manipulated honey bee eggs to be introduced into hives so the larvae can be reared in a colony setting. Newly laid eggs on removable cell bases were injected with nuclease free H2O, double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), or left untreated. They were inserted into specially designed hives where they hatched. Colonies accepted a satisfactory proportion of eggs from all treatment groups (28-53%). Further, a set of physiological and morphological traits (i.e., total protein in the hemolymph, head width, antennal length, and the length of a compound vein) were compared between workers derived from untreated, incubated eggs, and bees that naturally emerged in the hives. No significant differences were found between the groups. Our method therefore overcomes the challenges associated with in vitro rearing.

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2005/03/M4062.pdf


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

HarovonMogel said:


> "So as long as the publicly funded institutions stay out of it, we'll probably be pretty safe from that one."
> 
> And we may be stuck on the same downward spiral of diseases and pests...
> 
> I'd like to mention that one of the things that genetic engineering does very well is make resistance to viral diseases. Imagine if you could eliminate those from the hive for starters..? The way you use "safe" above is very subjective.


Sure its subjective, but your making very broad assumptions. Have we had the time to see how viruses respond to genetic engineering? How do viruses respond to that kind of unprecedented selection pressure in species that sexually reproduce? Has genetically engineered viral diseases resistance been successfully used in any species that reproduces comparable to honey bees, or are you talking about plants or other species that are 'cloned' or otherwise not allowed to go through the diverse sexual reproduction that honey bees go through?

About those viruses, when we know the vector is Varroa and we have come so far in breeding and control measures to address Varroa, why create a genetic or other breeding program that concentrates on the virus instead of the vector? Your going to have to address the vector regardless of the viruses because the parasitism alone will kill colonies. And, just think about how many viruses and how much variation probably exists in each one of those viruses. To think that one could genetically engineer out even a significant proportion of those viruses is clearly wishful thinking, from my subjective point of view. AND, until you fully address the vector, any virus you eliminate can be easily replaced by yet another virus.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

We have about 14 pages on this thread with people weighing in with opinions about the good, the bad, and the ugly of transgenic bees, but not very much about what the beekeeping industry and hobbiests will do once they arrive. Some have argued that transgenic bees won't ever become a reality due to a lack of funding or interest (see my previous post). Let's assume for a minute that transgenic bees become a reality within 10-20 years. Will the bottom line dictate to the large commercial beeks whether to use transgenic bees? Once the bees are here, how will it affect the rest of us?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Yup, but I still dont see how the huge overhead costs of develping this transgenic bee will make this kind of a project feasable,

Just not enough payoff, and not enough control over its sales.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Ian said:


> Yup, but I still dont see how the huge overhead costs of develping this transgenic bee will make this kind of a project feasable,
> 
> Just not enough payoff, and not enough control over its sales.


Ian,

I understand your point but the costs in my field continue to drop. There is a collision course between lowering costs of genetic engineering and the transgenic bee. One of the stated goals in the genomics industry is to reduce the cost of sequencing a patient's entire genome to $1000.00. A lot of people are starting careers in bioinformatics because there is a lot of power in data mining through genomes. We don't need to know everything about a honey bee if we can steal the information from Drosophila. Of course it will take some effort, but perhaps less than one might think.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Once the bees are here, how will it affect the rest of us?

As Stephen in Braveheart says to William Wallace, "God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're..."


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

*Much Ado.....*

Transgenics is a research tool and little more, not a threat or a salvation. I trained at the school that invented the transgenic mouse back in the *70's*. Genes hunt in packs. Changing one gene amounts to little more than the death of an individual in a society of millions. For instance, the death of MLK was important because he was a great man, but it did not stop the civil rights movement. Likewise, a few genes altered, even very oddly, has limited potential for changing an organism. Maybe creating entire chromosomes *might* do something exceptional, but it is reductionistic drivel to say that altering anything less than a ecosystem is significant beyond the next generation. Save it for church or the R01 (depending on your bent).


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Aspera said:


> Transgenics is a research tool and little more, not a threat or a salvation. I trained at the school that invented the transgenic mouse back in the *70's*. Genes hunt in packs. Changing one gene amounts to little more than the death of an individual in a society of millions. For instance, the death of MLK was important because he was a great man, but it did not stop the civil rights movement. Likewise, a few genes altered, even very oddly, has limited potential for changing an organism. Maybe creating entire chromosomes *might* do something exceptional, but it is reductionistic drivel to say that altering anything less than a ecosystem is significant beyond the next generation. Save it for church or the R01 (depending on your bent).


You sound like one of the few on this thread that might even purchase a trangenic bee some day in the future. 

If the people in the USA and Europe are refractive, will the Chinese be glad to step in and make transgenic bees? Will we be less competitive if they do?


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

no. I would not...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

What I keep wondering is if/do beekeepers question or investigate the breeding techniques of the "races" or hybrids of bees that they purchase now? How would you know, for example, that "Futzenreuter-Dunkelkopf Super Survivor Honey Bees*" are not transgenic?

*Any similarity to any available bees from any breeding program(s) is purely coincidental.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Kieck said:


> What I keep wondering is if/do beekeepers question or investigate the breeding techniques of the "races" or hybrids of bees that they purchase now? How would you know, for example, that "Futzenreuter-Dunkelkopf Super Survivor Honey Bees*" are not transgenic?
> 
> *Any similarity to any available bees from any breeding program(s) is purely coincidental.


Kieck,

Interesting point. I guess that I have always imagined a full disclosure (probably the law) and then the predictable "Flavor Saver Tomato" outcry. China, on the other hand, probably would follow the stealth approach. It would be ironic if honey from China one day had less chemical residues because they used transbees.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Below is a link to another paper indicating that there is an academic interest in transgenic bees. Some on this thread have indicated a disbelief that we are anywhere near having the technology to make transgenic bees while others have indicated that there is no interest. This is the second paper I have referenced on this thread that supports the notion that there is an interest and that the technology is unfolding as we breath. 
In the tailgater section another heated thread about technology and transgenics in particular (more crop oriented) is being volleyed about under the title "Why".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1434730

BMC Developmental Biology
Methodology article Open Access
Long-term maintenance of in vitro cultured honeybee (Apis
mellifera) embryonic cells
Monica Bergem*, Kari Norberg and Randi M Aamodt


A quote from the paper above.
"Another application of cells in culture is as donors in cell
transplantations for cell-mediated gene transfer and production
of chimeras. Our group has recently successfully
produced chimeras by transplantation of cells between
embryos."


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

HVH said:


> how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?



Didn't they already try that in 1957 Brazil ??


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

HVH

Where does it end? How many things do we need to "modify" before we "modify" ourselves out of exsistance? This shouldn't even be considered....what next....Human's.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

peggjam said:


> HVH
> 
> Where does it end? How many things do we need to "modify" before we "modify" ourselves out of exsistance? This shouldn't even be considered....what next....Human's.


Hi Peggjam,

I can't believe I pulled you away from Kieck. It really isn't a laughing matter, but I don't feel as passionately as either of you do. I came home for lunch and figured while I was here I may as well take some drones to work with me and see if I can clone a gene that is likely to be highly expressed in sperm. It usually takes me about two days to clone a gene (took months back in the 80's). I think handling TNT would make me nervous at first, but once I carried it around for awhile and got comfortable with it, I would know its limitations. Of course, I might get careless and blow myself and everyone else around me up in a ball of flames. Either way, you can't stop the train. I would suggest that you read-up on the technology so you can be more focused on the best areas to be scared sh..less. Bioweapons (bad GMO's) scare me much more than good GMO's. One day something stupid will be done and there will be intended/unintended consequences. The question I will have at that time, if I am still around is - did the benefits outweigh the costs. We have paid a cost for the invention of antibiotics, but I think we are better off (for now).


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Bioweapons (bad GMO's) scare me much more than good GMO's."

Yes, good reason to be scared.

Well, I certainly won't support transgenic bees, in fact I will keep my soap water handy.....this is one of those trains that needs to be stopped, but then again, human's are hell bent on destroying themselves, who am I to stand in the way.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

peggjam said:


> "Bioweapons (bad GMO's) scare me much more than good GMO's."
> 
> Yes, good reason to be scared.
> 
> Well, I certainly won't support transgenic bees, in fact I will keep my soap water handy.....this is one of those trains that needs to be stopped, but then again, human's are hell bent on destroying themselves, who am I to stand in the way.


I am far too pragmatic to try and change your mind or convince you of anything (not that your point of view needs to be changed). Your perspective represents a slice of the pie that will persist, for better or for worse, for some time to come. Since I am not prescient I don't know how it will all turn out, but I do think the technology can be used for much good.


----------



## Galaxy (Jun 10, 2007)

Brent Bean said:


> Didn't they already try that in 1957 Brazil ??


Looks like we have an important controversy going on here. And since I have difficulty walking by silently on such a controversy, I'll put my 2 cents in even though I'm certainly not a microbiologist.

It seems we have two alternatives. First, is the old way of breeding many, many generations of an organism until we "engineer" the result we want. And this result will certainly have different genes that our original organisms. Over many, many generations, there would be a high probability of accidentally creating organisms that have very detrimental consequences. A prime example of this is the AHB breeding attempt in Brazil in 1957. But, I'm sure there are many other examples. When two organisms breed, man has very little control over the genetic roulette wheel.

The second alternative is modern genetic engineering. Here a skilled technician has a much higher probability of creating a beneficial organism and at much less cost than doing it by the traditional "genetic engineering" approach (selective breeding).

We should use every tool we have in our tool kit to make beneficial improvements in the organisms that we depend on. I believe to not use such tools is the same as advocating that no one should fly because aircraft accidents do happen.

So, I have no doubt that HVH is correct. Thankfully, it is impossible, in the long run, to stop progress.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"So, I have no doubt that HVH is correct. Thankfully, it is impossible, in the long run, to stop progress."

Well, at least we can all die knowing that you have convictions.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

peggjam said:


> "So, I have no doubt that HVH is correct. Thankfully, it is impossible, in the long run, to stop progress."
> 
> Well, at least we can all die knowing that you have convictions.


peggjam,

I can understand a persons convictions regarding many facets of technology but to reduce an argument to the worst possible outcome or conclusion is reductio ad absurdum. The worst outcome is of course within the realm of possibilities but in practical terms is an extreme outlier in the realm of probabilities. Historically, those with an emotional disposition and vitriolic rhetoric faded away as their fears were not realized. Do you really ascribe to a doomsday philosophy or is this an attempt to provide extreme contrast? If you are really that frightened by new technologies I sincerely wish I could assure you that there is nothing to fear - but of course I can't. Historically speaking, though, it is the deliberate exercise of malfeasance that brings catastrophe along with the "rare" accident.


----------



## Spike Silverback (Oct 18, 2007)

buckbee said:


> NO, NO, NO and a thousand times NO! Not since those greedy, blinkered morons at Monsanto tried to plant their GM crap all over England have I come across an idea so wrong-headed, so appallingly lacking in the most basic forms of (un)common sense.
> 
> BIODIVERSITY is the key to the success of all extant species on Earth. That means - for those of you with your heads stuck in a microscope - that VARIETY is the most important factor in the survival of a species - the More the BETTER. If you read Darwin, you cannot help but take away this basic, underlying principle: bees - along with every other successful (i.e. existing) species have adapted themselves to a huge variety of climates and conditions right across the globe - THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL HERE. As soon as there is a 'Roundup Resistant Superbee', a bunch of profit-motivated idiot bee-breeders will be peddling it around the globe and before you can say 'biodiversity', they will oust all other honeybees, because Monsanto (or whichever Frankenstein factory produces them) will make sure that they are heavily promoted and at the same time a 'mystery virus' will conveniently wipe out all other genotypes.
> 
> ...


Very interesting and timely topic. This from the UK & Germany Germany.http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6234

GM genes 'jump species barrier'

A leading zoologist has found evidence that genes used to modify crops can jump the
species barrier and cause bacteria to mutate, prompting fears that GM technology could
pose serious health risks.

A four-year study by Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a respected German zoologist, found
that the alien gene used to modify oilseed rape had transferred to bacteria living
inside the guts of honey bees.

The research - which has yet to be published and has not been reviewed by fellow
scientists - is highly significant because it suggests that all types of bacteria could
become contaminated by genes used in genetically modified technology, including those
that live inside the human digestive system.

If this happened, it could have an impact on the bacteria's vital role in helping the
human body fight disease, aid digestion and facilitate blood clotting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/may/28/gm.food

And if you have time, you might want to see why Monsanto is not your friend.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-842180934463681887&hl=en

Best.

Spike


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

" Do you really ascribe to a doomsday philosophy or is this an attempt to provide extreme contrast?"


Extreme contrast....I would like all of you who accept this path to stop and think for a moment...It was our Grandfathers and their Fathers that decieded to make oil our #1 fuel source...If you believe in the extremes of global warming, in hindsite was that such a good idea???

It *is not us who will live in the new world of transgenics, it is our children*. Do we really have the right to make these choices? Or to mess up *their* future? We've had our time, lets let our children have the same.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Spike Silverback said:


> Very interesting and timely topic. This from the UK & Germany Germany.http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6234
> 
> GM genes 'jump species barrier'
> 
> ...


In response to Spike and peggjam, I get the sense that our discussion is really more about your world views that underpin the discussion at hand. 

A couple of examples - 

Spike uses an article as evidence to support the claim that transgenes have crossed a species barrier. I read the link and no such claim is made. The article "speculates" that the intestines of bees "may" have been affected by high doses of Bt toxins, etc. Not a single piece of evidence is provided in this article. This has as much relevance as a politician stating that they are for change.

peggjam brought up global warming which is a Red Herring. 

I understand that many of you don't like the technology and would like to provide some facts to support your position, but you may have to patiently wait for the day when you can say "told you so" (if that day ever arrives). But for now, I think the positions that you hold are faith based and you will have a hard time making a truly substantive argument against transgenics.

p.s. Anthropogenic global warming is likely to be viewed in the future as a short lived religion that is yet another stain on the scientific community. 

How many Al Gores and Yasir Arafats are we going to send laughing to the bank with Peace Prize money?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"peggjam brought up global warming which is a Red Herring."

I don't believe in global warming, I think it's a load of crap....however....3/4 of the world does, and that it's manmade, no red herring here. I find transgenic supporters only like to bring up the good things, and refuse to admit that there "might" be a problem with the technology, and the applying of that technology.


"But for now, I think the positions that you hold are faith based and you will have a hard time making a truly substantive argument against transgenics."

I can say the samething about you, your faith that our reseachers will do the right thing, and that our companies will not release something harmful, unfortinately, this is usually not the case.

I can add one fact: The building of the "Doomsday" vault, that is fact. It shows that your complete trust in GMO's and transgenic organisms may not be shared by everyone.....ironic that the investors are the very people producing said GMO's.....makes me wonder what their're not telling us......


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

peggjam said:


> "peggjam brought up global warming which is a Red Herring."
> 
> I don't believe in global warming, I think it's a load of crap....however....3/4 of the world does, and that it's manmade, no red herring here. I find transgenic supporters only like to bring up the good things, and refuse to admit that there "might" be a problem with the technology, and the applying of that technology.
> 
> ...


peggjam,

Hit the breaks! I was extremely careful not to state that transgenics were safe. I bent over backward in my posts to stay neutral regarding safety. I've stated that you may end up being right. I have said that there may be harmful intended/unintended consequences. If you look back over my posts I think you will see a measured and balanced approach to the topic. This is not a faith issue with me. It is a cost/benefit topic with immeasurable risks and benefits involved.

I think the reason people bring up only the good things about GMO's is because we don't have any examples yet of bad things. The bumper sticker "Sh.t Happens" is not nearly as compelling as the stench that comes from the bottom of the shoe when we step in it.

As for the doomsday vault, your argument is the logical fallacy - argumentum ad verecundiam (or indirectly translated to an "argument from authority"). So the argument really is; people that are authorities are worried enough to build a vault, therefore, I am worried also. That is not an argument for or against GMO's. Personally, I am glad the vault exists, and don't really see a downside. Even though the vault was built with natural disasters in mind it may come in handy if we screw up the Earth with GMO's. If the investors have money tied up in GMO's, they may be financing the vault for altruistic reasons or perhaps to selfishly guarantee a diverse genetic pool to manipulate in the future. This is not evidence that they see much risk involved in transgenics.
I think it would make a funny cartoon if the doomsday vault had a plaque that read "Protection from GMO's" while a Monsanto vault next door had a plaque that read "Protection for GMO's".


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

I indicated on post 149 that "I came home for lunch and figured while I was here I may as well take some drones to work with me and see if I can clone a gene that is likely to be highly expressed in sperm. It usually takes me about two days to clone a gene (took months back in the 80's)." After taking the weekend off, I did clone the gene of interest on Monday as predicted. Last Friday, I took about 10 drones to work, isolated sperm, and extracted the RNA. The RNA was converted to cDNA and then amplified by PCR. Late Friday afternoon a band of about 3500 bases could be seen on an agarose gel indicating that amplification was successful. The gene was then cloned into E coli on Monday and will be sent for sequencing to verify that it is the correct gene. After sequence verification I will need to express the gene in bee cells grown in culture and see if the gene is functional. This will require the transfection of bee cells with a plasmid which I don't think has been done yet. Since this only involved a couple of hours of labor, I thought it might be a fun little side project.
I bring this up because this thread was originally in "Biological Beekeeping" before it was deemed hypothetical and moved to the "Bee Forum". Some of the posts on this site suggested that making transgenic bees was too hard or way off in the future or there was no financial incentive to make them. I just wanted to illustrate how the technology has changed. Cloning a gene is rather simple these days, but making a transgenic bee would require many more steps. The point here, is that the technology has changed to the point where each individual step is light years easier than it was in the past and transgenic bees will be in our future. 
It is obvious from earlier responses that many beekeepers won't have anything to do with transgenic bees. Many Europeans share that sentiment. In fact, I don't really like the idea much either. But for me, I don't like the idea of all the bee diseases being passed around indiscriminately either. Global trade practices coupled with migratory beekeeping will insure the introduction and spread of every known bee disease on Earth, and the idea that classical breeding can keep up pace is naive.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I can add one fact: The building of the "Doomsday" vault, that is fact. It shows that your complete trust in GMO's and transgenic organisms may not be shared by everyone.....ironic that the investors are the very people producing said GMO's.....makes me wonder what their're not telling us...... -peggjam


Let's clear up some of these statements about the "Doomsday vault" before they get spread any more. Similar statements have been made in several threads, now, and to the best of my understanding, these statements are misleading.

First, the stated goals of the project are to "[paraphrasing] safeguard. . . against nuclear war, climate change, terrorism, rising sea levels, earthquakes and the ensuing collapse of electricity supplies." No where do they state a goal of safeguarding against the spread of GMOs.

Then, this particular project is funded -- so far as I've been able to determine -- by the Norwegian government. Are you suggesting that the Norwegian government is now producing transgenic crops? Or are you suggesting that biotech companies now govern Norway?

Seeds stocks, in part, are being donated from some of the biotech companies, but that's likely a result of the simple fact that biotech companies actually _have_ some of these archane stocks accessible to donate. Biotech companies use these older seed stocks for breeding purposes. Farmers certainly do not maintain these breeding lines, since most serve little direct purpose in economic agricultural practice. Traits or genes from those ancestral lines are incorporated into modern seeds, but, just as an example, how many soybeans do you see growing that sprawl across the ground with long tendrils and produce seeds with black seed coats? Ancestral soybeans (still used by plant breeders) tend to trail across the ground, rather than standing upright like the modern varieties grown as row crops, and ancestral soybeans produce black-coated seeds, unlike the white-coated seeds typically seen in American soybean production.

So, most of the seed stocks that will be housed in the "Doomsday vault" are not currently used for agricultural production.

And, maybe most importantly, the "Doomsday vault" is simply a redundancy in archiving germplasm of plants. Several other similar vaults exist and have existed for years around the world (the first were built before transgenic crops ever reached the market); this one is intended to offer some protections that the others do not. Think of this as "hedging bets."

If you have sources that cite other facts related to the "Doomsday vault," I'd appreciate seeing them.

So far as being concerned about problems that we inflict on future generation, while I think some concern is valid and valuable, I also recognize that I would not be living the way I do if humans did advance technologically in the past without living in complete fear of potential changes. For instance, I'm typing this on a computer, a piece of technology that my grandparents never used and would, for the most part, have seen as foolish and wasteful in the early developments of computers.

In terms of agriculture, what I believe you're advocating (even if you don't recognize it), peggjam, is a reversion to subsistence agriculture and/or hunting and gathering. I doubt enough arable land exists on the planet for the current human population to regress to subsistence production.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Kieck

Once again I am dismayed by someone as smart as you are, can't preform a simiple google search for this information:

"Then, this particular project is funded -- so far as I've been able to determine -- by the Norwegian government. Are you suggesting that the Norwegian government is now producing transgenic crops? Or are you suggesting that biotech companies now govern Norway?"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ult&as_q=investors&btnG=Search within results

The following is a list of investors that include:


"The group of investors includes The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation, and the Government of Norway. Both Monsanto Corporation (US based) and Syngenta Foundation (Swiss based) are leading agricultural companies active in the development of genetically modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agricultural chemicals."

Kieck, sorry, but for someone who is so pro-GMO, and profess to their absoulte safty, who can't even preform a simiple search, kinda throws your beliefs and statements into the non-believable range. I hate to say it, but I nolonger believe anything you say.....sorry.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Once again I am dismayed by someone as smart as you are, can't preform a simiple google search for this information: -peggjam


Ah, c'mon, peggjam! Did you read the first hits from your Google search? Did you notice that they were largely from anti-biotech sources? Do you think they have any bias in their reporting, since they are anti-biotech?



> Kieck, sorry, but for someone who is so pro-GMO, and profess to their absoulte safty, -peggjam


You're putting words in my mouth, so to speak. I do not consider myself "pro-GMO," but I don't consider myself "anti-GMO," either. At this point, all things considered, I do not see the risks that you (and others) claim the current GMOs pose. I have seen other risks, but those risks are no different than the risks posed by any other selective breeding programs.

For example, cotton bollworm is an economic pest on cotton. Bt cotton virtually eliminated losses to cotton bollworm. However, since cotton bollworm are not feeding on the cotton, the resources (plants) are prime for exploitation by other pests. So, while cotton bollworm is less a problem for cotton producers, plant bugs are now causing losses on Bt cotton as great as losses to cotton bollworm on conventional cotton. These sorts of shifts are the risks that I consider "real" and likely with the adoption of more transgenic crops.

But the same has happened and continues to happen with "conventional" breeding programs, too.

As far as "professing to their absolute safety," I have not and do not. What I have stated is that, so far as the claims you've made, we have no evidence to support such claims. Your statements have no basis, other than wild speculation. As I've stated before, why not worry the same ways about other technology? Why single out transgenic events? And what about "natural" transgenic events?

Honestly, I don't see that I individually have much to say about whether or not transgenic events should be used in breeding programs. I understand that bits of DNA, including pieces large enough to contain complete genes, move from one species to another naturally. I am not involved in breeding programs at this time. And I am not a crop producer, so I do not have to make a decision whether or not my income (profit) would benefit from using transgenic crops. Here in eastern South Dakota, more than 85 percent of acres planted are planted in transgenic crops, and have been for several years (at least since 2000, although transgenics were in use here since the mid 1990s by producers, and experimentally since the 1970s). We have not seen the problems you allege might be attributed to transgenics. Frankly, I worry more about the fast draw-down of ground water supplies by ethanol producers than I do "risks" from transgenic crops. I worry more about radioactive pollution by some of our local manufacturers than I do use of transgenic crops. Both of those risks have at least been documented.

Now, for "performing simple searches," why haven't you used the correct name of the "Doomsday vault," if you've done so much searching on it? The correct name is the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, and here's the Wikipedia link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Your statements have no basis, other than wild speculation."

I think the only "wild speculation" you can lay at my doorstep is whether they are "actually" using terminator gene technology. You on the other hand, well, lets just say that this thread is filled with wild speculation on your part, from completely wrong, to completely not being able to read your own links and digest and relay that information:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217456.

And yes, you do profess to the fact that GMO's in your oppinion are not dangarious(sp).....


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I think the only "wild speculation" you can lay at my doorstep is whether they are "actually" using terminator gene technology. -peggjam


Let's see:



> Yes, they choose to develop and include a teminator gene in every gmo crop they have produced, what happens if it is then transferred into hertiage crops during cross pollination? -peggjam


which you already mentioned, but have never backed up with any evidence that Monsanto has, in fact, included "terminator genes" into "every gmo crop they have produced." You also have provided no reasonable arguments, in my opinion, about how a "terminator gene" for cotton is likely to wind up in "heritage crops."

Then:



> And we certainly didn't need the risks that [transgenic crops] represent. -peggjam


In fairness to you, however, you never did specify what those "risks" are/were. You have thrown around a lot of comments about "risks" without specifying any other than "loss of germination due to terminator genes."

And:



> Now do you understand the risk of GMO crops, and the building of the "Doomsday" vault? -peggjam


I didn't understand which risk you see in GM crops, and still don't, simply because you haven't really specified what you perceive as risks.

But this "risk" that you have suggested is the one that I've really been thinking of as "wildly speculative":



> . . .putting the entire world's food supply at risk. -peggjam


How on earth do you get to believing that RoundUp-Ready crops (the most prevalent form of transgenic crops right now) "put the entire world's food supply at risk?" Or, for that matter, Bt corn and Bt cotton? How do they threaten the world's food supply?

Perhaps you believe the answer lies here:



> GMO crops in particluar have not been studied enough to know the negitive impacts they may or may not have. -peggjam


Of course, again, you never specified what "negative impacts" concern you. Should we study the potential for computers to cause gout? That would also be a case of a technology and a health risk, yet I see no reason to believe the two are linked, so I see little point to conducting a study to examine a potential risk of gout associated with computers.



> And yes, you do profess to the fact that GMO's in your oppinion are not dangarious(sp)... -peggjam


To some extent, you're right, but show me. Quote me on it.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I'm gonna leave this thread just as I did the last one. My feelings on GMO crops, and the risks they may pose is clearly spelled out, not once but multiple times, and I guess if you arn't smart enough to figure it out, then any further explaniation by me wouldn't be understood either.

By the way, I did specify what the risks were with termantor gene cross pollinating with "like" species, you should reread some posts. But then I don't think you really read any of my posts, as you clearly don't understand crap.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> By the way, I did specify what the risks were with termantor gene cross pollinating with "like" species, you should reread some posts. -peggjam


Naw, you didn't really. You stated that "terminator genes" threaten heirloom varieties and heritage crops. Considering that TPS (a.k.a., "terminator genes") has only been developed for cotton to this point, I fail to see much validity to your argument. Since you believe you have a greater understanding of this subject than I do, spell this out in simple language for me: How can "terminator genes" in cotton threaten heirloom varieties and heritage crops? (I'll confess that I don't know much about growing cotton, coming from the part of the country that I do, but I doubt much "heritage" cotton -- if any -- is grown in this country.)

As far as "figuring it out," do you have a vested interest, maybe? Are you developing and selling forms of conventional crops? Or maybe selling pesticides, other than glyphosate?


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

All I can say is to quote the immortal words of cartoon possum on earth day 1971:

"Yep son, we have met the enemy and he is us."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

HVH said:


> You sound like one of the few on this thread that might even purchase a trangenic bee some day in the future.
> 
> If the people in the USA and Europe are refractive, will the Chinese be glad to step in and make transgenic bees? Will we be less competitive if they do?


As far as I can tell the Chinese governments biotech research is behind much smaller nations, such as Scotland, Germany and the U.S. Also, I'm not convinced that GMO technology has yet produced a product definitely superior to more conventional breeding techniques. That said, if GMO use results is certain environmental improvement and decreased land use, then I might be convinced to use such products.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

peggjam said:


> I'm gonna leave this thread just as I did the last one. :


I think you and Kieck have made a noble attempt here, but none of it changes the fact that we will be seeing many more GMO's in the future. Kieck and I will probably take a wait and see attitude while you await our imminent doom. Since I am already waiting to get fried by nooks and bioweapons, I can just add GMO's to my list. 
Since I am a genetic engineer, I have as good of an understanding of the risks as anyone, and can guarantee that deliberate misuse of this technology is much more dangerous than crop transgenesis. Just think of how much easier it is to make a bioweapon than a nuclear bomb. Then add in a little madness (like Amidinajad) and a belief system that includes allah protecting the faithful if the weapon was ever used against Israel, and that this will usher in the prophetic Caliphate that will unite Islam, then we are talking bad transgenics. This is, of course, more speculation but much scarier than any corn or cotton scenario I can come up with.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

GMO Risk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON863

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/gp_briefing_seralini_study.pdf

Guess there is some risks, after further studies.

After reading that it was a Greenpeace release, I went back and here's the study they quote:

Gilles-Eric Seralini; Dominique Cellier; Joel Spiroux de Vendomois (2007). "New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity". _Environmental Contamination and Toxicology_ *52*: 596–602. Springer.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Here's the patent claim for terminator genes, I see nothing that states this can't be placed in any crop at the patent holder's whim.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5723765.PN.&OS=PN/5723765&RS=PN/5723765


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"has only been developed for cotton to this point,"

This is another one of your false statements. TPS technology can be transfered to any crop the patent holder deems nessacery, exactly as it is used in cotton, same three step process, same bacteria, same genes, same principle...simiple.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Guess there is some risks, after further studies. -peggjam


Did you read your links? From following links in your links, I found this one particularly interesting:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Assessment MON863 feeding study.pdf

Check out their conclusions.

By the way, the specific transgenic that you seem concerned about in this instance is MON863, which produces a protein similar to the one that many beekeepers feel is safe to use against wax moths. Considering that in one instance you believe the protein poses a risk to health, do you believe the same for the proteins used against wax moths?

Also, just to provide a little more detail about MON863:

http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=MON863



> Here's the patent claim for terminator genes, I see nothing that states this can't be placed in any crop at the patent holder's whim. -peggjam


While that's true, that does not mean that TPS has been developed for use in other crops at this point. Monsanto may be pursuing such goals, but that does not mean that it is or even will necessarily be on the market.

Also, from you link, note that the application for the patent was made in 1995, and the patent was granted in 1998. That's 10 years ago that the patent was granted! Were you as outspoken in protesting such technology back then?

Oh, and if this technology has been so widely used (as you've alleged), and if it poses the imminent threat that you've alleged, why do we even still have any of the "heritage crops" around?



> This is another one of your false statements. -peggjam


No, it's not false. You wish to call my claim that, then prove it false. I stated that TPS technology has only been developed for cotton to this point. I never stated that it could not be developed for other crops, just that it has not to this point. Honestly, you keep alleging that some of these technologies are in use, prove it. Point out an example or two where what you're claiming is actually going on.

What I'd like to know from you, peggjam, is what actual effects you've observed from transgenic crops. Transgenic crops have been around for more than 30 years now, and have been widely planted for more than 10 years now, so if some of these threats are so grave, what examples have you observed that are actually caused by transgenic crops?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Did you read your links? From following links in your links, I found this one particularly interesting:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_src...ng%20study.pdf

Check out their conclusions."

This study you referanced was done sometime in 2004-2005. The study I referanced was done in 2007. So I guess your study would be a bit outdated, don't ya think....but that's nothing new with you. You always seem to referance the older studies that support your postion, ignoring the newer studies that don't..


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"By the way, the specific transgenic that you seem concerned about in this instance is MON863, which produces a protein similar to the one that many beekeepers feel is safe to use against wax moths. Considering that in one instance you believe the protein poses a risk to health, do you believe the same for the proteins used against wax moths?'

I'm concerned about all GMO crops. This just happens to be one instance when a GMO crop was approved before adiquite testing was completed. Which has been one of my main points all along. Duh.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I found this interesting. It appears not everyone is sold on all the reportedly good things about GMO crops...hehe..

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gene-deleting-tool-could-lead-to-safer-gm-crops.html


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Well, here we go...

Sheep die grazing BT cotton:

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gene-deleting-tool-could-lead-to-safer-gm-crops.html

Illness linked to BT cotton:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MILTBT.php

GMO potato flop:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrokenPromises.php

Reduced herbicide and insecticide use....not so fast...actually increased useage of chemicals..

http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/documents/Full_version_first_nine.pdf

I found this interesting as well:

http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"While that's true, that does not mean that TPS has been developed for use in other crops at this point."

Actually it does, as TPS can be inserted into any plant as is, and produces the same results.

TPS is also currently used in tabacco..i'll find the link again at some point.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Transgenic crops have been around for more than 30 years now"

Maybe in a lab some where, but unless you have links to prove your statement, then I will stick with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic#History


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Hard to do studies when you get shut down, but here is a preminary study worth reading, and make sure you read the last two sentences:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/120.pdf


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

It's funny how many of these researchers get gagged when their research shows problems with GMO crops.....here's another one:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/119.pdf 

This might be a good read:

http://www.geneticroulette.com/


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Interesting presentation from HI professor on GMO v Organic/non-gmo:

http://www.wcc.hawaii.edu/CommonBook/2007-2008/Valenzuela_Slides.pdf

Hey Kieck, you keeping up? Seems that all is not well in the GMO industry, looks to get worse with any luck...hehe.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"When interviewed on BBC recently [4], Dr Ermakova said that she has now repeated the experiment three times with very similar results each time; the average death rate within three weeks of birth was 51 percent in the group fed GM-soya compared to around 6 percent in the two control groups. In addition, a third of surviving animals in the GM-fed group show markedly reduced body weight and lack normal internal organ development."

See referance link above.

"New research in Canberra Australia demonstrated that a previously harmless protein in bean when transferred to pea caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked reactions to other proteins in the feed [5]. Immunological and biochemical studies carried out for the first time on the transgenic protein revealed that it is processed differently in the alien species, turning the innocuous protein into a strong immunogen. In addition, the transgenic protein promoted immune reactions against multiple other proteins in the diet. In other words, it provoked dangerous food sensitivities. As practically all the transgenic proteins involve gene transfer to an alien species, they will be subject to different processing. All transgenic proteins, therefore, can potentially cause serious immune reactions including allergies [6]. Yet, none of the transgenic proteins commercially approved for food and feed had received the regimen of tests now carried out on the transgenic pea protein. This omission is a most serious public health issue; and warrants an immediate ban on GM food and feed until proper assessment on the immune potential of all the transgenic proteins has been carried out."

Still think we've done enough research, there are many who would disagree.

Still more:

"These latest developments are the most dramatic and revealing in the light of previous scientific and anecdotal evidence that have been suppressed and dismissed, or simply not followed up (see Box). I should mention a series of reports from the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and Pavia in Italy that have also come to light. They document many changes in the cells of young mice fed GM soya. The acinar (secretory) cells of the pancreas showed a pattern of changes associated with a decrease in the synthesis of the digestive enzyme a -amylase in mice fed GM-soya compared with controls [7, 8]. In liver cells, however, the GM-soya fed mice showed a pattern of changes associated with an increase in metabolic rate compared with controls [9, 10] (“liver of mice fed GM soya works overtime”, _SiS _20). Some of those changes could be reversed by a change of diet from GM-soya to non-GM soya; but equally these changes could be induced in adult mice by switching their diet from non-GM to GM-soya [11]. There were also alterations in the Sertoli cells (cells nurturing the developing sperms) and the sperm cells in the testes associated with a decrease in transcription in young mice fed GM-soya compared with those fed non-GM soya [12]." 

The good Dr says:

"Commenting on some of the evidence presented here, Dr. Michael Antoniou, Reader in Medical and Molecular Genetics at King's College London, had this to say [18]: “ If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the development, endorsement and marketing [of] GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials.”" 

Here's the link:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMBanLongOverdue.php

Still no risks with GMO's there Kieck??? Seems to be some well documented risks....but of course they proably arn't from sources you would approave of......but, none the less, it seems that Montasanto and USDA have gone to great lenghts to shut these researchers up, why is that do you suppose? Here's a hint: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Ah, c'mon, peggjam! Did you read the first hits from your Google search? Did you notice that they were largely from anti-biotech sources? Do you think they have any bias in their reporting, since they are anti-biotech?"

Oh, and I suppose Montasanto and the USDA arn't equally as biased in their reporting? As are you in your responses?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

*Montasanto...A Company With Zero Ethics...*

Let's switch gears and look at another Montasanto product, rBGH, it's history, and how it got FDA approval.

History:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

Why would a big company like Montasanto oppose milk labeling as hormone free....hmmm....maybe it's because consumers wouldn't buy theirs.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57354

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/08/01/25/milk.labeling.html

Then there's the human health concerns:

http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/WhatsInYourMilkRelease.htm

http://www.noharm.org/details.cfm?ID=1104&type=document

How did Montasanto gain FDA approval for rBGH? It helps if you load the FDA with ex-employees, and researchers who have preformed research on rBGH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFRxABSG1HE

Then there is the bovine health concerns, exactly what does a cow get to look forward too.....

"Two meta-analyses have been published on rBGH's effects on bovine health.[6][7] Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score but speculated that it may have been attributable to, differences in feeding of treated (underfed) versus untreated (overfed) cows.
A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[8] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the recommendations of external committees were that despite not finding a significant health risk to humans, the drug presented a threat to animal health and for this reason could not be sold in Canada.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

This is just one of Montasanto's products that has FDA approval, what makes you think their GMO crops are any better, or were submitted for _proper_ FDA approval????????????????

Montasanto also brought us agent orange....we all know how that one worked out......


----------



## CSShaw (Aug 25, 2008)

*I was thinking over exactly what contributions*

Ph D.s in entomology have added to beekeeping? In every case i considered there seemed a natural effect that caused the solved problem to reappear and render it useless. Fumidal may be the one exception. This seems to be the firmest portion of bee science.

These are the scientists closest to honeybees and they have more long term failure than genuine success. Once they left II, they lost their way and there were plenty of failures there as well. To trust the honeybee to scientists whom are motivated by profit margines, working for the large bio-tech folks seems even less wise. 

How is it that most of this culture is bent upon waging war against our problems rather than learning how to abide in a world with problems? Beekeeping, as far as i can see regarding success, is done low key, in tune with the environment and in co-operation with, not in dominance of the insects in question. At the end of the day, the beekeeper with the healthy colonies in the midst of the scourge is the only one worth speaking to, asking advice from and worth emulation.

Chrissy


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

curious thread and some even more curious points of view.

bwrangler writes:Regardless of technology, best intentions and know-how, most times things don't work out as we expect. Sometimes it's better. Sometimes it's worse.


tecumseh sezs: sometimes called the law of unintended consequense. in the realm of human interaction it would seen to fall as close to most folks definition of law as almost any of the laws of physics. Rather that use terms like better or worse... I would suggest that the advantages of a technological improvement are most time knows while the problems are quite typically only considered in a very casual fashion. so as BWranger suggest the consequences may be good or bad.. but the process seems bias to the bad. 

anyone who might think (or suggest) that the introduction of varroa, trachaeal mites plus several other nasties and who don't recognize that this is largely the product of 
free trade (whatever that politically spun term might mean???) certainly have their heads conviently buried in the sand.

30 years ago it was predicted to be a part of the outcome... so in reality these problems do not fall into BWranglers description.

and now back to topic somewhat:
GM 'this or that' is a response to a manufactured (by human activity) problem. the flawed thinking (which I think may be significantly generational) is that some technological fix will cure a technological problem. In the past it seems that most 'technological improvements' simply created their own list of additional problems.


----------

