http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/sc_nm/bees_memory_dc_3

Honestly this is an example of how ridiculously quick scientists jump to conclusions. They were "10%" slower??? That is a big enough percentage to prove there was a correlation?

F'ing awesome study. Who cares about trying to find alternate energy sources or cures for horrible diseases when you can spend money on studies about sick bees.

lol

There are tons of studies done on things like this and money keeps being cut back in the education systems also.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/sc_nm/bees_memory_dc_3

Honestly this is an example of how ridiculously quick scientists jump to conclusions. They were "10%" slower??? That is a big enough percentage to prove there was a correlation?

Well that certainly depends on the number of bees studied. If you studied 10 bees and they were ten percent slower then that isn't very conclusive but if they studied hundreds or thousands then the figure 10% makes a much more convincing argument. It all depends on the amount sampled to get the figure.

Sure you can make the argument that this money would be better spent in our school systems or whatever but the grants that fund this research, even if they are federal or state grants(which very few research studies are), rarely come out of the same pocket as educational funding.

Studies like this, while they don't yield applicable or practice results, can give great insight into large mysteries. I don't think it's wise to right off such studies just because you don't understand the significance of them.

It depends what they're studying them for. For instance cell phones causing many of them to get confused and die is something that needs to be looked into since bees are needed. I'm not sure what they are trying to figure out from this particular study though. Even if they are slower by 10% that doesn't seem to be a major deal since they do eventually find the right flower.

A lot of research has been done with cell phones and Colony Collapse Disorder. Last I read the main suspect in CCD was a microbe that was spreading from colony to colony.

Unrelated to cell phone use then?

I would say so.

AM']http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/sc_nm/bees_memory_dc_3

Sure you can make the argument that this money would be better spent in our school systems or whatever but the grants that fund this research, even if they are federal or state grants(which very few research studies are), rarely come out of the same pocket as educational funding.

Studies like this, while they don't yield applicable or practice results, can give great insight into large mysteries. I don't think it's wise to right off such studies just because you don't understand the significance of them.

I completely disagree. I am not looking for future mysteries to be solved. I live in the present and believe their are more pressing needs right now then what mystery might be uncovered in 2020 because of a bee study in 2008. Gas prices going thru the roof or children with 40 yr old textbooks. is a bigger deal IMO. If you live for tomorrow, then you will always be a day behind.

Well that's certainly an interesting point of view Guy. However, what do you suggest we do about it? Hold scientists at gunpoint and force them to research what only you deem important? Hold grant foundations and universities hostage and demand they only pursue the "most important" endeavors? Honestly you've just got a very narrow field of view about this. Think for a moment. Lets imagine, this is purely hypothetical, that through this research they gain better understanding of how to improve pollination efficiency. Now we have farms being able to producing more...er...produce, more produce can be produced locally saving gas as you deem so important.

I'm no expert in agricultural distribution models, obviously this is pure speculation. I only mean to suggest that progress can be made from many angles, sometimes even seemingly unrelated angles.

Edited August 4, 200817 yr by dvnt

Well that's certainly an interesting point of view Guy. However, what do you suggest we do about it? Hold scientists at gunpoint and force them to research what only you deem important? Hold grant foundations and universities hostage and demand they only pursue the "most important" endeavors? Honestly you've just got a very narrow field of view about this. Think for a moment. Lets imagine, this is purely hypothetical, that through this research they gain better understanding of how to improve pollination efficiency. Now we have farms being able to producing more...er...produce, more produce can be produced locally saving gas as you deem so important.

I'm no expert in agricultural distribution models, obviously this is pure speculation. I only mean to suggest that progress can be made from many angles, sometimes even seemingly unrelated angles.

You make a valid point sir and I appreciate it but I do disagree again. What I do agree with is me being narrow minded about this subject. I also am no agricultural expert but I do believe pollination is not one of the most important factors on better or more localized farms. I would imagine, Soil, irrigation and weather conditions would be the three most important factors in maximizing our land and its resources. We can't change the weather, just try to predict it. What we can do is work on ways to improve soil conditions in parts that normally can't produce crops. We also can find more efficient way to irrigate the farms thus preventing over saturation. The last thing to consider is that farming today is still the same job it was 100 yrs ago. We may have bigger and better machines, new potions to spray all over but its still the same job. Wake up early, do your best at work and say your prayers for a bountiful season.

I love to think outside the box but some situations require a more narrow way of thinking. Sometimes the most simplest answers can be right in front our face.