Beepocalypse!!! A Strange Case of Crankery Derailing Environmentalism
November 25, 2014 2:29 AM Subscribe
Part I: Bee Deaths Mystery Solved? Neonicotinoids (Neonics) May Actually Help Bee Health.
It should be noted that there are scientifically robust reasons outside of the scope of these articles for Neonicotinoids to be causing measured concern that should be addressed with further research
Reports that honey bees are dying in unusually high numbers has concerned many scientists, farmers and beekeepers, and gripped the public. There have been thousands of stories ricocheting across the web, citing one study or another as the definitive explanation for a mystery that most mainstream experts say is complex and not easily reducible to the kind of simplistic narrative that appeals to advocacy groups. We explore the claims by Harvard School of Public Health researcher Chensheng Lu, heralded by anti-pesticide and anti-GMO advocacy groups, for his research that purportedly proves that the class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids are killing bees and endangering humans.Part II: Bee Deaths And CCD - Flawed Chensheng Lu Harvard Studies Endanger Bees.
Here we examine the specific claim that neonics are responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder—the centerpiece of Lu’s assertions and again see how influential media manipulate quotes and selectively present information to ideologically influence trusting readers.
It should be noted that there are scientifically robust reasons outside of the scope of these articles for Neonicotinoids to be causing measured concern that should be addressed with further research
Thanks for this, Blasdelb! One of the more horrifying realizations I've made as I've aged is just how much of human thinking (mine as much as anyone else's, I'm sure) is grounded in narrative rather than reason. We shape our understanding of the word using the particular storylines that appeal to us: evil chemicals vs. Nature, evil foreigners vs. Us, evil [Party] vs. Our Virtuous [Party], and we'll defend those storylines to the death if they're challenged. I can count on one hand the number of times I've read Internet-y commentary that's not either someone trying valiantly in Procrustean fashion to reconcile contradictory information with their pre-set narrative, or someone brimming with unearned exultation when some bit of new data appears to fit that narrative better than the rest. Any sort of really evenhanded, objective logical critique comes like a glass of cold water after a summer hike.
But maybe that's just my own narrative meta-preference for a complex story over an easy one. Who knows?
posted by Bardolph at 3:18 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
But maybe that's just my own narrative meta-preference for a complex story over an easy one. Who knows?
posted by Bardolph at 3:18 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Blasdelb, if you want to update with info answering a question, that's fine, but don't start off with a snark – and, just as a reminder, please do not threadsit and dominate the thread. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:20 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:20 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
Jon Entine is the founding director of the Genetic Literacy Project. He is a senior fellow at the World Food Center Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California-Davis and the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University. Prior to that, he was an Emmy-winning producer for NBC News and ABC News. He researches and writes about corporate responsibility and science and society.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:42 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Blasdelb at 3:42 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
After listening to Prof Dave Goulson (an expert on bumblebees) on Radio 4 earlier this month I decided to have a look what he says about it. This article, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology from 2013 discusses some of the effects of neonics on pollinators (p7 onwards).
"A recent meta-analysis based on 13 studies of the impacts of imidacloprid on honeybees found that field-realistic doses (for seed-treated crops) under laboratory and semi-field conditions had no significant lethal effects (Cresswell 2011). Overall, the balance of evidence at present suggests that field-realistic exposure of bees to neonicotinoids in nectar and pollen of seed-treated crops is unlikely to cause substantial direct mortality (although exposure to dust released during drilling can cause direct mortality, Marzaro et al. 2011; Tapparo et al. 2012)."
and
"Although there is little convincing evidence for direct mortality in bees, there is strong evidence for important sublethal effects. Exposure to sublethal doses of neonicotinoids is known to reduce learning, foraging ability and homing ability in both honeybees and bumblebees (Yang et al. 2008; Han et al. 2010; Mommaerts et al. 2010; Henry et al. 2012)."
Here is a blog from Prof Goulson from October this year featuring a response to a letter in The Times which is also illuminating.
posted by longbaugh at 3:49 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
"A recent meta-analysis based on 13 studies of the impacts of imidacloprid on honeybees found that field-realistic doses (for seed-treated crops) under laboratory and semi-field conditions had no significant lethal effects (Cresswell 2011). Overall, the balance of evidence at present suggests that field-realistic exposure of bees to neonicotinoids in nectar and pollen of seed-treated crops is unlikely to cause substantial direct mortality (although exposure to dust released during drilling can cause direct mortality, Marzaro et al. 2011; Tapparo et al. 2012)."
and
"Although there is little convincing evidence for direct mortality in bees, there is strong evidence for important sublethal effects. Exposure to sublethal doses of neonicotinoids is known to reduce learning, foraging ability and homing ability in both honeybees and bumblebees (Yang et al. 2008; Han et al. 2010; Mommaerts et al. 2010; Henry et al. 2012)."
Here is a blog from Prof Goulson from October this year featuring a response to a letter in The Times which is also illuminating.
posted by longbaugh at 3:49 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
To bee or not to bee - that is the question...
posted by fairmettle at 4:41 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by fairmettle at 4:41 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
There are some red flags in this summary: it ridicules, it's sensationalist, and sounds quasi-scientific
Yeah, especially, as has been cited in the thread, other experts with direct experience in the field have come to an opposite conclusion.
Jon Entine is the founding director of the Genetic Literacy Project.
So, his field is neither entomology nor toxicology as it relates to insects, and his opinion does not reflect the conclusions of specialists who do work in the field. There may be a time or place to tilt at the windmill of bad science reporting, this probably isn't it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:47 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
Yeah, especially, as has been cited in the thread, other experts with direct experience in the field have come to an opposite conclusion.
Jon Entine is the founding director of the Genetic Literacy Project.
So, his field is neither entomology nor toxicology as it relates to insects, and his opinion does not reflect the conclusions of specialists who do work in the field. There may be a time or place to tilt at the windmill of bad science reporting, this probably isn't it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:47 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
I know that I am certainly not qualified to have an informed opinion in this debate (unlike most of the commentators here it seems (hah!)), but it is interstice to note that Australia has healthy European bee populations, and uses neonicitinoid pesticides, but doesn't have Varroa mite.
posted by wilful at 5:03 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by wilful at 5:03 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
A less flattering profile of Jon Entine in Motherjones. Tldr this guy is a joke and has zero credibility.
posted by humanfont at 5:04 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:04 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
I don't see any smoking gun there, just lots of guilt by association.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:19 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:19 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Digging further. Before becoming a chemical company appologist he wrote two books on race. The first book argues that blacks are stronger and faster, but less intellectual than other races. The second talks about the Jews. Including the theory that European Jews have special genes that make them smarter. The author is Jewish and it isn't an anti-Semitic work, but it is a bit nutty never the less.
posted by humanfont at 5:27 AM on November 25, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:27 AM on November 25, 2014 [13 favorites]
Oh it's that guy. Yeah I'd go ahead and be skeptical, but those books aren't as bad as they sound according to reviews.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:28 AM on November 25, 2014
posted by Drinky Die at 5:28 AM on November 25, 2014
You know, even if pesticides work perfectly, killing all and only the exact insect they are supposed to and not getting into the food, spraying them around all over the place don't seem like a good idea to me.
Life on Earth is complicated, interconnected and precious. Hammering something you think is a pest today is probably not a great plan.
Any deviation from the perfection of the insecticide is only the opposite of whatever icing is.
posted by DU at 5:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Life on Earth is complicated, interconnected and precious. Hammering something you think is a pest today is probably not a great plan.
Any deviation from the perfection of the insecticide is only the opposite of whatever icing is.
posted by DU at 5:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
If you look at the author of that piece on Entine in Mother Jones, and have RTFA, you'll also notice that its written by the same guy who popularized Chensheng (Alex) Lu's 'work' and is mentioned throughout the article. This is part of a longstanding squabble that makes neither of them look good, but Philpott is absolutely embarrassingly wrong. Entine is many things, but an industry stooge isn't one of them, and that its possible to make such a squeaky clean funding record look so dirty to the uninformed with choice adjectives is incredibly depressing.
This is the same Philpott who got suckered in whole hog by Séralini and agreed publish his fraud in Mother Jones without even letting real scientists advise him on it first. He is way out there in the deep end of the woo woo bullshit pool and its sad that he is being so successful at dragging Mother Jones, which is so great on economic issues, out there with him.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:39 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
This is the same Philpott who got suckered in whole hog by Séralini and agreed publish his fraud in Mother Jones without even letting real scientists advise him on it first. He is way out there in the deep end of the woo woo bullshit pool and its sad that he is being so successful at dragging Mother Jones, which is so great on economic issues, out there with him.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:39 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
I think the precautionary principle applies in situations like this. But this motherfucker's books have titles like "Caution Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things".
There's a principle of innocent until proven guilty, regarding substances, that is promoted by these John Stosseloid so-called "skeptics" (who are only skeptical of anything that might harm someone's profitability). But burden of proof in that sense only applies to people, not to compounds - say, are they squaring around to legislating personhood for pesticides? Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Anyhow if my man is so down on precaution, show up at one of his appearances with 12 ounces of some colorless odorless fluid and ask him to drink it. Don't tell him what it is. If he's really skeptical of the precautionary principle, he will, because hey, innocent until proven guilty, right?
posted by fleetmouse at 5:46 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
There's a principle of innocent until proven guilty, regarding substances, that is promoted by these John Stosseloid so-called "skeptics" (who are only skeptical of anything that might harm someone's profitability). But burden of proof in that sense only applies to people, not to compounds - say, are they squaring around to legislating personhood for pesticides? Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Anyhow if my man is so down on precaution, show up at one of his appearances with 12 ounces of some colorless odorless fluid and ask him to drink it. Don't tell him what it is. If he's really skeptical of the precautionary principle, he will, because hey, innocent until proven guilty, right?
posted by fleetmouse at 5:46 AM on November 25, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah, that's some bibliography he's got - wow. Normally I'm in "it's the message, not the messenger" camp, but he's got two spectacularly racist (and spectacularly wrong) books on human genetics and three anti-enviro hitpieces to his name and nothing else that stands out as notable in the field of bringing solid science to the public.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:05 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:05 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Until I see where these guys get their money, I'll go ahead and ignore them.
It's easy to state that x does not cause y, because that ain't how this works. We don't really know if smoking causes lung disease and asbestos is perfectly safe when used properly. But the reasonable approach when confronted with enough circumstantial and supporting evidence is to limit or control the potential problem.
Pesticides and herbicide may have far reaching and compound effects on other animals? Sounds plausible and reasonable to me. While we sort out the details, it makes perfect sense to be prudent.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:07 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
It's easy to state that x does not cause y, because that ain't how this works. We don't really know if smoking causes lung disease and asbestos is perfectly safe when used properly. But the reasonable approach when confronted with enough circumstantial and supporting evidence is to limit or control the potential problem.
Pesticides and herbicide may have far reaching and compound effects on other animals? Sounds plausible and reasonable to me. While we sort out the details, it makes perfect sense to be prudent.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:07 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
Until I see where these guys get their money, I'll go ahead and ignore them.
Jon Entine is a Visiting Scholar (formerly an Adjunct Scholar) of the American Enterprise Institute. According to AEI's Wiki entry:
...we absolutely have to be talking about the bullshit artists in our midst and how obscenely gullible we have been to them.
Irony!
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:40 AM on November 25, 2014 [11 favorites]
Jon Entine is a Visiting Scholar (formerly an Adjunct Scholar) of the American Enterprise Institute. According to AEI's Wiki entry:
I can guess where his organization gets its funding.
AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[8] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow
...we absolutely have to be talking about the bullshit artists in our midst and how obscenely gullible we have been to them.
Irony!
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:40 AM on November 25, 2014 [11 favorites]
Slap*Happy: "Jon Entine is a Visiting Scholar (formerly an Adjunct Scholar) of the American Enterprise Institute."
That's all I need to hear about him.
wilful: "it is interstice to note that Australia has healthy European bee populations, and uses neonicitinoid pesticides, but doesn't have Varroa mite."
That seems important and worth further investigation, IMHO.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:07 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
That's all I need to hear about him.
wilful: "it is interstice to note that Australia has healthy European bee populations, and uses neonicitinoid pesticides, but doesn't have Varroa mite."
That seems important and worth further investigation, IMHO.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:07 AM on November 25, 2014 [4 favorites]
Ignoring science for a minute, just the rhetoric of this guy's piece is enough to make a competent reader assume that he's in the pocket of Big Neonicotinoids. (What's with the lack of subediting, though? 'Reports [...] has concerned' in the opening sentence? 'It's been a busy fall for diminutive professor' - WTF?)
posted by Mocata at 7:16 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Mocata at 7:16 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
While I definitely understand being skeptical of anyone associated with the AEI and while the tone of the posts struck me as being a bit off at some points, the claimed problems with Lu's research sound legitimate to me. The criticism that Entine isn't an entomologist is a bit ironic since Lu isn't either.
I think the two issues of whether neonics are harmful in general and whether they cause CCD in particular need to be differentiated. They can be bad for bees (and other living things) without causing that particular issue.
The corruption of science by big business is a problem, but the practice of science by press release is as well.
posted by nicolas.bray at 7:16 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
I think the two issues of whether neonics are harmful in general and whether they cause CCD in particular need to be differentiated. They can be bad for bees (and other living things) without causing that particular issue.
The corruption of science by big business is a problem, but the practice of science by press release is as well.
posted by nicolas.bray at 7:16 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
One thing to keep in mind, regardless of your feelings towards Entine, Lu, or any of the other characters involved, is that this 'research' is only looking at honeybees. While certainly important, they are not native to North America and are only one of roughly 1,600 species of bees in California alone. The only consensus I've parsed is that neonics are concerning enough to be studied more thoroughly.
Disclaimer: My wife is currently studying neonics on several solitary bee species with the UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab.
posted by hangingbyathread at 7:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
Disclaimer: My wife is currently studying neonics on several solitary bee species with the UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab.
posted by hangingbyathread at 7:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [9 favorites]
Entine is also the author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It which looks like a load of '90s bell curve/human biodiversity/genes-prove-I'm-not-racist-he-really-was-a-demon horseshit. Not sure why anybody would want to give this guy a second look.
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 7:38 AM on November 25, 2014
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 7:38 AM on November 25, 2014
load of '90s bell curve/human biodiversity/genes-prove-I'm-not-racist-he-really-was-a-demon
See? You're afraid to talk about it.
posted by benzenedream at 7:55 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
See? You're afraid to talk about it.
posted by benzenedream at 7:55 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
See? You're afraid to talk about it.
As a scientist, I'll tell you straight out that you're damn right I am. Considering the obvious ease with which people could think "Hey, since science tells us that this stereotype about black people is true, it'll probably end up telling us that the others are true too", I think I'd have to be kind of an asshole not to be afraid.
What a nightmare it would be to write a book and find that it's being given five star Amazon reviews with titles like "White Men Can't Jump - Black Men Can't Think".
posted by nicolas.bray at 8:34 AM on November 25, 2014
As a scientist, I'll tell you straight out that you're damn right I am. Considering the obvious ease with which people could think "Hey, since science tells us that this stereotype about black people is true, it'll probably end up telling us that the others are true too", I think I'd have to be kind of an asshole not to be afraid.
What a nightmare it would be to write a book and find that it's being given five star Amazon reviews with titles like "White Men Can't Jump - Black Men Can't Think".
posted by nicolas.bray at 8:34 AM on November 25, 2014
The article dismisses the winter death, but it's one the regulators have been pretty concerned with.
Ontario has just banned some neonicotinoids with the stated goal of knocking winter deaths down by 10 to 15%. Bees in Ontario are some of the best studied in the world. This province will likely be convincing laboratory to figure out these debates in the next few years.
The assumptions made in the linked articles are somewhat disconcerting. One of the guiding assumptions in environmental science is the precautionary principle, which, while not perfect and often misapplied, stands as a sort of Hippocratic Oath. You shouldn't have to prove an anthropogenic chemical used widely isn't safe, you should have to prove that it is safe. If you have a chemical which is suspect, once thought safe, with new evidence that it isn't, it should be restricted or limited rather than used freely while the evidence comes in. There have been far too many cases (starting with DDT though PCBs through brominated fire retardants) where the opposite course has lead to big problems.
posted by bonehead at 8:34 AM on November 25, 2014 [13 favorites]
Ontario has just banned some neonicotinoids with the stated goal of knocking winter deaths down by 10 to 15%. Bees in Ontario are some of the best studied in the world. This province will likely be convincing laboratory to figure out these debates in the next few years.
The assumptions made in the linked articles are somewhat disconcerting. One of the guiding assumptions in environmental science is the precautionary principle, which, while not perfect and often misapplied, stands as a sort of Hippocratic Oath. You shouldn't have to prove an anthropogenic chemical used widely isn't safe, you should have to prove that it is safe. If you have a chemical which is suspect, once thought safe, with new evidence that it isn't, it should be restricted or limited rather than used freely while the evidence comes in. There have been far too many cases (starting with DDT though PCBs through brominated fire retardants) where the opposite course has lead to big problems.
posted by bonehead at 8:34 AM on November 25, 2014 [13 favorites]
If this article's premise did turn out to be true - well, that would be very convenient for a lot of powerful people, wouldn't it.
posted by HypotheticalWoman at 8:42 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by HypotheticalWoman at 8:42 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ha, I was hoping he'd cite that U Guelph study (funded by Bayer and conducted by summer interns working at Bayer, but let's call it U Guelph), with a sample size of five, conducted for two weeks off blossom peak. I didn't realize that the accumulation of human knowledge was best conducted on popular science blogs, thanks for the links!
posted by one_bean at 8:49 AM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by one_bean at 8:49 AM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
The only consensus I've parsed is that neonics are concerning enough to be studied more thoroughly.
As the link below the fold points out, there is growing evidence that they're bioaccumulators, and may be causing bird problems, at least. Bird populations are crashing world-wide. Annual declines in Ontario are in the 1 to 8% range, and getting worse with time. Annual: let that sink in---imagine if 1 person in 10 or 20 of everyone you knew died each year.
Birds don't need more stressors.
posted by bonehead at 8:50 AM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
As the link below the fold points out, there is growing evidence that they're bioaccumulators, and may be causing bird problems, at least. Bird populations are crashing world-wide. Annual declines in Ontario are in the 1 to 8% range, and getting worse with time. Annual: let that sink in---imagine if 1 person in 10 or 20 of everyone you knew died each year.
Birds don't need more stressors.
posted by bonehead at 8:50 AM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
You shouldn't have to prove an anthropogenic chemical used widely isn't safe, you should have to prove that it is safe
That's an unreachable standard. We know very well that any intervention in a web of complex, non-linear reactions and interactions such as the environment cannot be perfectly modeled or tested in advance. To some extent, the only test for whether widespread use of a given chemical (or new variable of any kind) has negative consequences is to implement that widespread use. If you state the precautionary principle as "you can't implement widespread use until you've proved it will be safe" then you're calling a halt to any new developments of any kind in agricultural practice.
posted by yoink at 8:51 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's an unreachable standard. We know very well that any intervention in a web of complex, non-linear reactions and interactions such as the environment cannot be perfectly modeled or tested in advance. To some extent, the only test for whether widespread use of a given chemical (or new variable of any kind) has negative consequences is to implement that widespread use. If you state the precautionary principle as "you can't implement widespread use until you've proved it will be safe" then you're calling a halt to any new developments of any kind in agricultural practice.
posted by yoink at 8:51 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
As for this thread--like the last thread on neonicitinoids--it goes a long way to proving the basic metapremise of Entine's article, that the science really takes a back seat to the Goodies vs. Baddies narratives that people invest in. No one much seems interested in "what does the science say about the impact of neonics on bees"; everyone's very interested in "is Entine a Goodie or a Baddie?" and "Are the companies that make neonics Goodies or Baddies?"
posted by yoink at 8:56 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by yoink at 8:56 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
Like anything, if your definition of safe is perfection, then you can straw man it as a slippery slope and go home early. No one applies the precautionary principle that way except cranks and think tank authors.
The answer is a defensible risk-exposure model, which is routine practice for regulators. And yes, there are routine ways to evaluate this, including beneficial insect effects and bioaccumulation. These studies are a major reason why registering a new pesticide is so expensive.
However, it also means that as science improves, like it has in this case, if there is an indication of a problem, the attitude isn't to wait until all the evidence is in before acting. History has not proven out the wisdom caution in minimal environmental regulation. That may mean a decade or more of problems and generations of affected species.
posted by bonehead at 8:59 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
The answer is a defensible risk-exposure model, which is routine practice for regulators. And yes, there are routine ways to evaluate this, including beneficial insect effects and bioaccumulation. These studies are a major reason why registering a new pesticide is so expensive.
However, it also means that as science improves, like it has in this case, if there is an indication of a problem, the attitude isn't to wait until all the evidence is in before acting. History has not proven out the wisdom caution in minimal environmental regulation. That may mean a decade or more of problems and generations of affected species.
posted by bonehead at 8:59 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
What a nightmare it would be to write a book and find that it's being given five star Amazon reviews with titles like "White Men Can't Jump - Black Men Can't Think".
How utterly disingenuous. He's not some misunderstood researcher - he's a full-bore racist relying on the dodgiest of science. We can be comfortable in this conclusion based on his other books, which are similarly psuedoscience fairy tales for the libertarian wing of the rabid right.
You can't reform this guy's image to save the argument, it's too far gone. If another source is willing to take on Hu, fine. But actual, reputable scientists who aren't blatantly in the pocket of partisan political thinktanks have come to similar conclusions about this class of chemicals using other studies, so the bar's a little higher than complaining about science-by-press-release.
We aren't ingoring the science because Entine is a "Baddie", we're ignoring Entine because he has a history of bad science reporting for the purpose of deceiving the public, and works for people who fund a lot of the same.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:02 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
How utterly disingenuous. He's not some misunderstood researcher - he's a full-bore racist relying on the dodgiest of science. We can be comfortable in this conclusion based on his other books, which are similarly psuedoscience fairy tales for the libertarian wing of the rabid right.
You can't reform this guy's image to save the argument, it's too far gone. If another source is willing to take on Hu, fine. But actual, reputable scientists who aren't blatantly in the pocket of partisan political thinktanks have come to similar conclusions about this class of chemicals using other studies, so the bar's a little higher than complaining about science-by-press-release.
We aren't ingoring the science because Entine is a "Baddie", we're ignoring Entine because he has a history of bad science reporting for the purpose of deceiving the public, and works for people who fund a lot of the same.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:02 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
Interestingly, Entine is also credited as the originator of the phrase "greenwashing," and the guy who exposed the Body Shop.
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
(RTFAs)
As a beekeeper, mini-farmer and a skeptic, I look forward to more stringent research and reading the UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab research as noted above. I wish the issue didn't need to be politicized, but apparently it is and it always will be. I wish an actual entomologist and a larger team of scientists had been on Lu's team. I wish a racist libertarian douche hadn't written the takedown of that research. It's almost Quonsmas; perhaps my wishes will come true. But, as of yet, there seem to be no clear answers no matter the actors.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:10 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
As a beekeeper, mini-farmer and a skeptic, I look forward to more stringent research and reading the UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab research as noted above. I wish the issue didn't need to be politicized, but apparently it is and it always will be. I wish an actual entomologist and a larger team of scientists had been on Lu's team. I wish a racist libertarian douche hadn't written the takedown of that research. It's almost Quonsmas; perhaps my wishes will come true. But, as of yet, there seem to be no clear answers no matter the actors.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:10 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
How utterly disingenuous. He's not some misunderstood researcher
Yes, but the comment I was replying to was asking whether we were afraid to talk about that and my point was that if I were to write on a related topic, my fear would be that I might be a misunderstood researcher. My comment said absolutely nothing about Entine except to imply that he has to be "kind of an asshole".
You can't reform this guy's image to save the argument, it's too far gone.
I was wondering how you could have misunderstood my comment so thoroughly and this appears to be it: because I defended part of something this guy wrote, you've interpreted that as meaning that I'm on his side and therefore have some interest in reforming his image. Both parts of that are wrong. Knowing nothing about this subject, I'm not on either side. And I could care less about Entine himself.
If another source is willing to take on Hu, fine.
I assume you mean Lu here. Part of my original point was that other sources apparently are willing to take him on, namely the various scientists and beekeepers quoted in Entine's article.
But actual, reputable scientists who aren't blatantly in the pocket of partisan political thinktanks have come to similar conclusions about this class of chemicals using other studies, so the bar's a little higher than complaining about science-by-press-release.
Even if Lu's conclusions happen to be correct, if his studies are flawed then that's not acceptable. If they were overhyped by media with assistance from Harvard (following a pattern I've seen a number of times), then that's not acceptable either.
We're allowed to be concerned about more than one thing at a time.
posted by nicolas.bray at 9:26 AM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, but the comment I was replying to was asking whether we were afraid to talk about that and my point was that if I were to write on a related topic, my fear would be that I might be a misunderstood researcher. My comment said absolutely nothing about Entine except to imply that he has to be "kind of an asshole".
You can't reform this guy's image to save the argument, it's too far gone.
I was wondering how you could have misunderstood my comment so thoroughly and this appears to be it: because I defended part of something this guy wrote, you've interpreted that as meaning that I'm on his side and therefore have some interest in reforming his image. Both parts of that are wrong. Knowing nothing about this subject, I'm not on either side. And I could care less about Entine himself.
If another source is willing to take on Hu, fine.
I assume you mean Lu here. Part of my original point was that other sources apparently are willing to take him on, namely the various scientists and beekeepers quoted in Entine's article.
But actual, reputable scientists who aren't blatantly in the pocket of partisan political thinktanks have come to similar conclusions about this class of chemicals using other studies, so the bar's a little higher than complaining about science-by-press-release.
Even if Lu's conclusions happen to be correct, if his studies are flawed then that's not acceptable. If they were overhyped by media with assistance from Harvard (following a pattern I've seen a number of times), then that's not acceptable either.
We're allowed to be concerned about more than one thing at a time.
posted by nicolas.bray at 9:26 AM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
Until I see where these guys get their money, I'll go ahead and ignore them.
Jon Entine is a Visiting Scholar (formerly an Adjunct Scholar) of the American Enterprise Institute.
On the contrary: watch out for these fuckers. Instead, we should be supremely grateful to the OP for pointing out how, with just the right amount of libertarian seasoning and more than a dash of think tank money, even science journalism can get Johnstosseled.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:32 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
Jon Entine is a Visiting Scholar (formerly an Adjunct Scholar) of the American Enterprise Institute.
On the contrary: watch out for these fuckers. Instead, we should be supremely grateful to the OP for pointing out how, with just the right amount of libertarian seasoning and more than a dash of think tank money, even science journalism can get Johnstosseled.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:32 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
As for this thread--like the last thread on neonicitinoids--it goes a long way to proving the basic metapremise of Entine's article, that the science really takes a back seat to the Goodies vs. Baddies narratives that people invest in.
The meta premise is bullshit created to deflect from the obvious conflicts of interest and lack of qualifications by the article's author. We can't trust the information he provides.
posted by humanfont at 9:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [7 favorites]
The meta premise is bullshit created to deflect from the obvious conflicts of interest and lack of qualifications by the article's author. We can't trust the information he provides.
posted by humanfont at 9:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [7 favorites]
humanfont: The second talks about the Jews. Including the theory that European Jews have special genes that make them smarter. The author is Jewish and it isn't an anti-Semitic work, but it is a bit nutty never the less.I'm not clear on why you seem to give a pass to theorizing "Jews are genetically superior to all others" just because it "isn't antisemitic." Racism is racism.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
This article is hardly a counternarrative to the Goodies and Baddies take given that it's one long sneer. He refers to Lu as "The Dr. Doom of bees" twice (setting aside that he shouldn't use metaphors from comic lore if he doesn't understand it), says outright that Lu is not a scientist (apparently only people you agree with are scientists). In once sentence he's got "diminutive professor ... adoring fans". There's a trailing quote mark on the word "study", as if he meant to scare quote it but left the leading one in his other pants; a complete pair of them around "proof" -- It just goes on and on, in typical AEI fashion, really.
He also mystifyingly characterizes his own headline as "tongue in cheek" as if that were somehow obvious or even not a complete WTF.
In short maybe Lu is debunkable. Perhaps this article's facts are correct and not cherrypicked or anything -- I'd be curious for example to know if the increase in working hives is a sign of health or a managed and perhaps desperate response to bee deaths; an isolated fact like that doesn't tell you anything. But this article isn't something to hold above Lu's work as something to a higher standard.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:13 AM on November 25, 2014 [11 favorites]
He also mystifyingly characterizes his own headline as "tongue in cheek" as if that were somehow obvious or even not a complete WTF.
In short maybe Lu is debunkable. Perhaps this article's facts are correct and not cherrypicked or anything -- I'd be curious for example to know if the increase in working hives is a sign of health or a managed and perhaps desperate response to bee deaths; an isolated fact like that doesn't tell you anything. But this article isn't something to hold above Lu's work as something to a higher standard.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:13 AM on November 25, 2014 [11 favorites]
I wish the issue didn't need to be politicized, but apparently it is and it always will be.
Any population management question becomes politicized if there's a conflicting commercial interest. It's never an atmosphere that is the best for good science, but industry and government (and the public) need answers now rather than in the five or ten years that good research will and must take. This tension is fundamental to how evidence-based decisionmaking works though. It's never going to change.
The press loves making controversial science about the personalities of the people doing it. That's almost always a distraction, and usually agenda-driven. As such, it's almost always bad journalism: hit pieces like this one or hagiographies. I'm not sure which is worse.
The major benefit to personality-driven arguments is that they're easy to recognize and so dismiss.
posted by bonehead at 10:19 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Any population management question becomes politicized if there's a conflicting commercial interest. It's never an atmosphere that is the best for good science, but industry and government (and the public) need answers now rather than in the five or ten years that good research will and must take. This tension is fundamental to how evidence-based decisionmaking works though. It's never going to change.
The press loves making controversial science about the personalities of the people doing it. That's almost always a distraction, and usually agenda-driven. As such, it's almost always bad journalism: hit pieces like this one or hagiographies. I'm not sure which is worse.
The major benefit to personality-driven arguments is that they're easy to recognize and so dismiss.
posted by bonehead at 10:19 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
As a scientist, I'll tell you straight out that you're damn right I am
Lest anyone think I am actually defending scientific bases of race, I should have put the /HAMBURGER tag on my comment. It's a usual crank tactic to claim that we're "afraid to discuss" a belief, when actually the belief is dismissible out of hand by most reasonable people (e.g. truthers, Zionist conspiracy nuts, etc.).
posted by benzenedream at 10:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
Lest anyone think I am actually defending scientific bases of race, I should have put the /HAMBURGER tag on my comment. It's a usual crank tactic to claim that we're "afraid to discuss" a belief, when actually the belief is dismissible out of hand by most reasonable people (e.g. truthers, Zionist conspiracy nuts, etc.).
posted by benzenedream at 10:38 AM on November 25, 2014 [1 favorite]
We aren't ingoring the science because Entine is a "Baddie", we're ignoring Entine because he has a history of bad science reporting
You're not "ignoring Entine." You're energetically and actively digging up all the information you can on him. This thread has provided me with all kinds of background information on Entine. It's all Entine all the time.
Now imagine if we'd responded with the same energy, instead, to the question "hey, I wonder what reputable scientists have to say on this issue of bee colony health and neonicitinoids?" Entine might or might not be an asshole, but that strikes me as an essentially uninteresting question. An interesting question is: is he right that there is so little scientific basis to the claims made about neonicitinoids and bee colony health?
The last time we discussed this subject the material I turned up from a variety of scientific sources all seemed broadly to agree that--asshole or not--he's right about this. Environmental groups jumped on the neonicitinoid theory way in advance of compelling evidence, and the evidence keeps continuing not to arrive. But I also found, last time we discussed this, that there was very little appetite for actually looking at the science and an enormous appetite for reinforcing a satisfying narrative: Big Agriculture is Killing the Bees with Eeeevil Neonics.
posted by yoink at 10:51 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
You're not "ignoring Entine." You're energetically and actively digging up all the information you can on him. This thread has provided me with all kinds of background information on Entine. It's all Entine all the time.
Now imagine if we'd responded with the same energy, instead, to the question "hey, I wonder what reputable scientists have to say on this issue of bee colony health and neonicitinoids?" Entine might or might not be an asshole, but that strikes me as an essentially uninteresting question. An interesting question is: is he right that there is so little scientific basis to the claims made about neonicitinoids and bee colony health?
The last time we discussed this subject the material I turned up from a variety of scientific sources all seemed broadly to agree that--asshole or not--he's right about this. Environmental groups jumped on the neonicitinoid theory way in advance of compelling evidence, and the evidence keeps continuing not to arrive. But I also found, last time we discussed this, that there was very little appetite for actually looking at the science and an enormous appetite for reinforcing a satisfying narrative: Big Agriculture is Killing the Bees with Eeeevil Neonics.
posted by yoink at 10:51 AM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Big Agriculture is Killing the Bees with Eeeevil Neonics.
You're doing that thing with our language that the think tank stooge from the OP is doing. Stop it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:23 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
You're doing that thing with our language that the think tank stooge from the OP is doing. Stop it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:23 AM on November 25, 2014 [5 favorites]
You're energetically and actively digging up all the information you can on him.
It's not exactly doxxing to read the dude's Wikipedia page and google the title of his book to see if he's actually as much of a paid, professional crank as it appears.
The last time we discussed this subject the material I turned up from a variety of scientific sources all seemed broadly to agree that--asshole or not--he's right about this.
There are two sources posted in this thread that show convincing evidence he may be wrong about this. An actual debate on this would be fine, but he's more likely making an attempt to deliberately muddy the water to silence or sideline a growing body of evidence. This is textbook and old-hat to industry reactionaries, see also: DDT, Tobacco, Global Warming, etc. etc. etc. The real takeaway is that this guy is now involved - a clear indication that the evidence is building against neonicitinoids, and the professional hatchet-men have been summoned to shout it down.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
It's not exactly doxxing to read the dude's Wikipedia page and google the title of his book to see if he's actually as much of a paid, professional crank as it appears.
The last time we discussed this subject the material I turned up from a variety of scientific sources all seemed broadly to agree that--asshole or not--he's right about this.
There are two sources posted in this thread that show convincing evidence he may be wrong about this. An actual debate on this would be fine, but he's more likely making an attempt to deliberately muddy the water to silence or sideline a growing body of evidence. This is textbook and old-hat to industry reactionaries, see also: DDT, Tobacco, Global Warming, etc. etc. etc. The real takeaway is that this guy is now involved - a clear indication that the evidence is building against neonicitinoids, and the professional hatchet-men have been summoned to shout it down.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:30 AM on November 25, 2014 [8 favorites]
Why does Entine refuse to engage with the rest of the literature on the subject? There are more studies than just Lu's looking at the effects of neonicotinoids on bees (and absolutely zero studies demonstrating some "beneficial" effect - jesus what an overreach and a huge red flag for his analysis), and most of them were published in perfectly reputable journals (including Science). Some of them even support his conclusions! I'm very wary of letting a non-scientist go to town "debunking" peer-reviewed science without even so much as a lit review, and especially when he peppers his piece with shitty little comments toward Lu: "the diminuitive professor" and numerous other examples like that really poisoned the well on this piece for me.
By no means am I arguing that the neonicotinoid science is settled, but this reads like a personal hit piece on Lu, not a sober examination of all available evidence. Here are just a few of the studies he could have engaged with if he was actually interested in the science and not just interested in tearing down environmental groups with a just-so story about "alarmism":
Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Whitehorn et al., Science 2012. "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the laboratory to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared with control colonies."
A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Henri et al., Science 2012. "Nonlethal exposure of honey bees to thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid systemic pesticide) causes high mortality due to homing failure at levels that could put a colony at risk of collapse. Simulated exposure events on free-ranging foragers labeled with a radio-frequency identification tag suggest that homing is impaired by thiamethoxam intoxication."
A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. Cresswell, Ecotoxicology 2011. "In a meta-analysis of fourteen published studies of the effects of imidacloprid on honey bees under laboratory and semi-field conditions that comprised measurements on 7073 adult individuals and 36 colonies, fitted dose–response relationships estimate that trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar will have no lethal effects, but will reduce expected performance in honey bees by between 6 and 20%"
This study even supports his point (makes it ten times better than he does, in fact) and he still doesn't cite it:
Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Blacquiere et al., Ecotoxicology 2012. "Although environmental residue levels of neonicotinoids were found to be lower than acute/chronic toxicity levels, there is still a lack of reliable data as most analyses were conducted near the detection limit and for only few crops. Many laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees, while no effects were observed in field studies at field-realistic dosages."
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on November 25, 2014 [24 favorites]
By no means am I arguing that the neonicotinoid science is settled, but this reads like a personal hit piece on Lu, not a sober examination of all available evidence. Here are just a few of the studies he could have engaged with if he was actually interested in the science and not just interested in tearing down environmental groups with a just-so story about "alarmism":
Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Whitehorn et al., Science 2012. "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the laboratory to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared with control colonies."
A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Henri et al., Science 2012. "Nonlethal exposure of honey bees to thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid systemic pesticide) causes high mortality due to homing failure at levels that could put a colony at risk of collapse. Simulated exposure events on free-ranging foragers labeled with a radio-frequency identification tag suggest that homing is impaired by thiamethoxam intoxication."
A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. Cresswell, Ecotoxicology 2011. "In a meta-analysis of fourteen published studies of the effects of imidacloprid on honey bees under laboratory and semi-field conditions that comprised measurements on 7073 adult individuals and 36 colonies, fitted dose–response relationships estimate that trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar will have no lethal effects, but will reduce expected performance in honey bees by between 6 and 20%"
This study even supports his point (makes it ten times better than he does, in fact) and he still doesn't cite it:
Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Blacquiere et al., Ecotoxicology 2012. "Although environmental residue levels of neonicotinoids were found to be lower than acute/chronic toxicity levels, there is still a lack of reliable data as most analyses were conducted near the detection limit and for only few crops. Many laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees, while no effects were observed in field studies at field-realistic dosages."
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on November 25, 2014 [24 favorites]
Entine might or might not be an asshole, but that strikes me as an essentially uninteresting question.
Entine's putative status as an asshole does have relevance though, yoink. I initially read this post as a criticism of certain specific studies undertaken by one person (Lu) and the media coverage surrounding them. I think in those respects the post is valid: I've looked a little bit into the 2012 Lu paper, at least, and it does seem to have serious problems which of course renders the media hype very problematic.
But that's not all that's going on here. It wasn't until a little later that I realized that Entine hadn't just been criticizing Lu but also creating an impression that the entire anti-neonicotinoid movement is more or less based on Lu's research. That appears to simply be false.
And while some of his claims about issues in Lu's work are correct (as one would hope given the fact that they can be checked fairly easily), the claims about neonics being good for bee health seem to be baseless and/or misleading. Then there's this bit:
Reading an asshole's criticism of one or two papers is one thing: you can go read those papers and evaluate the criticisms yourself (if you can't, probably best to ignore the whole business to begin with). But if that asshole is simultaneously subtly shaping your worldview and throwing out more independent claims than you're going to actually to verify, then you're better off not reading.
posted by nicolas.bray at 11:34 AM on November 25, 2014 [21 favorites]
Entine's putative status as an asshole does have relevance though, yoink. I initially read this post as a criticism of certain specific studies undertaken by one person (Lu) and the media coverage surrounding them. I think in those respects the post is valid: I've looked a little bit into the 2012 Lu paper, at least, and it does seem to have serious problems which of course renders the media hype very problematic.
But that's not all that's going on here. It wasn't until a little later that I realized that Entine hadn't just been criticizing Lu but also creating an impression that the entire anti-neonicotinoid movement is more or less based on Lu's research. That appears to simply be false.
And while some of his claims about issues in Lu's work are correct (as one would hope given the fact that they can be checked fairly easily), the claims about neonics being good for bee health seem to be baseless and/or misleading. Then there's this bit:
In September, a coalition of environmental groups co-wrote a letter signed by 60 Congressional Democrats urging the EPA to restrict neonicotinoid use citing Lu’s work in arguing that “native pollinators” have “suffered alarming declines.”Again creating the impression that opposition was based on Lu's work. In fact, the letter does not cite Lu at all except perhaps as one of "over 800 peer-reviewed published journal articles". I guess it wouldn't sound as good if he'd said "citing Lu's work along with hundreds of other articles" though. I'm sure there's others but I won't take the time to ferret them out.
Reading an asshole's criticism of one or two papers is one thing: you can go read those papers and evaluate the criticisms yourself (if you can't, probably best to ignore the whole business to begin with). But if that asshole is simultaneously subtly shaping your worldview and throwing out more independent claims than you're going to actually to verify, then you're better off not reading.
posted by nicolas.bray at 11:34 AM on November 25, 2014 [21 favorites]
imagine if we'd spent the same energy
If you want serious discussion, don't start by citing clowns. The onus is on the original poster to bring articles and source material that we can take seriously. It took one Google search finished in seconds to discover that the author of the articles was not a credible.
posted by humanfont at 4:00 PM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
If you want serious discussion, don't start by citing clowns. The onus is on the original poster to bring articles and source material that we can take seriously. It took one Google search finished in seconds to discover that the author of the articles was not a credible.
posted by humanfont at 4:00 PM on November 25, 2014 [2 favorites]
Guess that mic got dropped.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:35 PM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:35 PM on November 25, 2014 [3 favorites]
« Older "we knew the B-52 could be destroyed just like any... | The 15 Worst Owners in Sports Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by devnull at 3:00 AM on November 25, 2014 [15 favorites]