Bees have been disappearing for centuries. To some, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) as a discrete phenomenon does not exist. In an effort to study the cause of this decline, a researcher questions whether the methods of inquiry are scientific.
In a BBC World Service Report from March 2009, “‘No Proof’ of bee killer theory,” science reporter Matt McGrath stresses that honey bees are “of crucial importance to the local economy.” It is undeniable that the honey bee is fundamental to the continued agricultural productivity and economic health of America and the world. In 2006 David Hackenberg, a Pennsylvania bee-keeper, sounded the alarm: he had found his bee boxes empty of bees, no dead bees in the neighborhood, no bodies to be found. The mysterious disappearance of the bees was to be called “Colony Collapse Disorder.” But is this decline of the bees really such a new phenomenon?
While scientists are researching the potential causes of this sudden and drastic collapse of bee colonies, and pointing to discrete culprits such as pesticides, fungicides, stress, monoculture food, and mites, it remains unclear whether what Dave Hackenberg and other bee keepers, noted beginning in 2006 was an unprecedented event. The question then is: is this decline a new disorder, what has been called “Colony Collapse Disorder,” or is it just a phenomenon that has been happening for hundreds of years but that, given this 2006 publicity, has come to be seen as a new phenomenon?
In my previous blog posts, I have focused on the possible causes of CCD – pesticides, and in particular neonicotinoids, fungicides, and viruses – without questioning the basic hypothesis underlying the debate–that Colony Collapse Disorder exists as a discrete phenomenon. Scientists, according to Renee Johnson, specialist in agricultural policy for the congressional research service, do not argue about whether the bee colonies are declining. The colonies are. There is consensus, furthermore, that this decline is not brought on by a single factor but rather by a multiplicity of factors acting synergistically.
The question remains: why has the decline of bees that has always been integral to bee life been named in 2006 CCD?
Donald Steinkraus, entomologist at the University of Arkansas, states in a November 8, 2011 interview, that the death of bees is part of a natural process: “Colonies die off. They always have. Every bee keeper knows that. There have been major declines in bee keeping before, even before major chemicals came into use. It has been historically shown. It is not a new phenomenon.” So why is it being treated as a new phenomenon?
Steinkraus points first to the flaw in identifying CCD as a discrete disorder. Beyond that he also underscores the flawed approach of identifying a potential cause for CCD based on the analyses of dead bees. Upon analyses of dead bees, Steinkraus points out that scientists have found certain viruses present among all the dead bees. It is tempting to conclude, as he says, that the viruses found among all the dead bees are the viruses responsible for killing them: “They all died of this virus because they all had this virus present. However, the presence of microorganisms is not proof of disease. People are analyzing the bees genetically to see what microbes are present and they are finding zillions of microbes. Finding zillions of species of microbes present in the bees even if they are known pathogens is no proof of disease. If someone looks in your mouth, for instance, […] they find that your mouth houses something like 200 different species of bacteria at all times. […] but these bacteria are not causing disease. The presence of these microorganisms is not proof of disease.”
Steinkraus underscores the absurdity of such reasoning:
These speculations or opinions, in Steinkraus’ view, about the potential causes of CCD are getting a lot of media attention. Instead of presenting opinion or speculation as scientific evidence, he claims one should perform scientific experiments on the dead bees in order to find a cause for a decline that has existed among bee colonies for centuries. People, as Steinkraus points out, are finding ”all these microorganisms and [saying] ‘this is the cause.’ But instead of doing experiments to prove the cause, everybody is just writing these papers left and right and getting all kinds of press.”
Steinkraus points to flaws in reasoning and in scientific method: 1) the assumption that the decline in bee colonies is a new phenomenon and 2) that the studies of this decline are not conducted in a scientifically sound manner but rather driven by opinion and speculation. According to Steinkraus CCD, per se, may not be a discrete phenomenon and the methods used to identify the causes of the decline in bee colonies may be questionable.