Relax. I'm an Entomologist

An unapologetic look at the world of entomology and science My goal is to create a scientifically and entomologically literate population through current arthropod and insect related news stories and scientific peer-reviewed literature. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RelaxImAnEntomologist

[relaximanentomologist]

This is my ‪#‎Zika‬ post. There are many like it, but this is mine.

It may seem like everyone is beating a dead horse with Zika, but we need to keep beating this dead horse until it is deader than a graduate student’s hopes and dreams. Why? Because when the public is engaged, research and mosquito control dollars follow.

As of right now, there are more mosquito experts within 1 mile of me than anywhere else in the world. I’m in Savannah Georgia at the 82nd annual American Mosquito Control Association conference. I know all of these Culicid gurus are going to be talking about Zika even though there is only ONE talk on it that turned up after a quick search through the program. (EDIT after the first day, more people have been invited to talk about Zika and a lot of people have been incorporating the virus into their talks). It’s not anyone’s fault; the program became finalized in the late summer while Zika only started making headlines recently. It is amazing how quickly a relatively obscure mosquito-borne virus can become a household term in a matter of months.

If you haven’t heard of the Zika virus by now, you’ve probably been living under a rock. It’s all over the news, social media, etc, and us mosquito people are doing our best to get reliable information out there about what we know, and importantly, what we don’t know. I’m split between being pumped that the spotlight is firmly on my science, and exasperated about how badly the media and others can so royally screw this up.

Before I continue, here are links to catch those up that need it:

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Zika Virus http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/health/what-is-zika-virus.html

Joe from @Ask an entomologist https://askentomologists.com/2016/01/29/so-whats-the-deal-with-zika-virus-whats-going-on-in-brazil/

Be wary of anyone who says they are a Zika expert, because I’ll be honest, there really are no Zika experts. The reason is not unique. No one seemed to care about it until this latest epidemic. And when I say no one cared about it, I mean no one really wanted to fund the research. That is quickly changing. President Obama has called for money to be set-aside for it, and many of the major grant funding agencies have called for white papers. There are also even vaccines being developed. It’s a damn fast turn around for something like this, and it’s great it’s happening, but also sad we are so far behind.

Because we know so little about Zika, there are now people who speculate and cast aspersions on medical and scientific communities. Maybe some are fair, but many are not. The situation in Brazil where children are born with smaller heads with incomplete brain development generates an immediate emotional response (link to Zika still needs more research). With this emotional response comes fear. And with fear comes sensationalized headlines. And with a general lack of understanding, fear, sensationalized headlines, the conspiracy theorists come slithering out of the woodwork. The target now: Oxitec’s genetically modified mosquitoes.

I was going to dedicate an entire post to why it is impossible that GE mosqitoes are responsible for the spike in microcephaly cases, but many others have beaten me to it and done a great job. GE mosquitoes are not a danger to human health. They are not a danger to ecosystems. They are a tool that will be used to combat horrible vector-borne diseases like Zika and the other flaviviruses; CHIKV, dengue, and YFV. They are used to crash populations and do not perpetuate in the environment. Get on-board, because I have a feeling they will be coming to a mosquito-infested locale near you. This is a good thing.

GE mosquitoes from Oxitec are a great tool. They are species specific. Only the mosquitoes they want to die will die and only males are released, so none of them will bite you. And even if one does, they are not more toxic or allergic than a non-GE mosquito. Unlike other forms of mosquito-control non-target species like bees are not accidentally killed. And lastly, these are the mosquitoes that have adapted to us. The species of predators that may feed on them will not be impacted. And if you have legitimate questions, I suggest you reach out to some of the experts directly. @Oxitec has a great Facebook page.

Here are some people who have efficiently debunked the garbage conspiracy theory that GE mosquitoes cause microcephaly and are linked to the Zika outbreak. Woo, go Christie! 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2016/01/31/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-didnt-start-zika-ourbreak/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/alert-theres-a-dangerous-new-viral-outbreak-zika-conspiracy-theories

The current Zika situation really shouldn't be a surprise. The microcephaly link was a surprise, but the arrival of the virus isn't. If an area has the climate, the vectors, the reservoirs, and is regularly visited by travelers, it’s probably just a matter of time before a pathogen arrives. Every year we have imported cases of malaria, dengue, CHIKV etc. all it takes is the right combination and a pathogen stays and becomes endemic. Wonder what that’s like? Check out West Nile Virus. Luckily with things like CHIKV and Zika, they aren’t perpetuated in nature by wild animals like birds. Possibly monkeys, but we obviously do not have those in North America.

The bottom line is we need to continue to talk about Zika. We have a unique opportunity to support the science moving in the right direction while the public eye is firmly focused our way. It’s exciting, but be patient with people who have questions. We are all in this together. I’ll continue to post the latest Zika news!

- Jake

And more reading if you’re bored:

‘Zika isn’t important': The infuriating case of a scientist’s search for funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/02/03/can-you-get-zika-during-sex-this-scientist-has-been-trying-to-answer-that-for-years/

Obama calls for rapid Zika research as virus seen spreading http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-usa-idUSKCN0V42FK

‘Zika isn’t important': The infuriating case of a scientist’s search for funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/02/03/can-you-get-zika-during-sex-this-scientist-has-been-trying-to-answer-that-for-years/

How to keep mosquitoes away: Natural (most) and homemade repellents without the correct active ingredients, do NOT work. https://www.facebook.com/RelaxImAnEntomologist/photos/a.366185656790630.85941.356509487758247/462139207195274/?type=3&theater

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/01/30/464740275/whats-the-best-way-to-keep-mosquitoes-from-biting

[relaximanentomologist]

“DDT has killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.” - The World Health Organization

Today is International Day of No Pesticides or World Anti-pesticide day! So I’m going to tell you why we need them. What they are. How they’re made. How they’re regulated. How they’re used responsibly. Buzzwords misused around them. And whom should you go to if you have questions about them. The media, to put it bluntly, sucks at covering pesticides. We as entomologists, scientists, and professionals in the entomology discipline, I think, need to do a better job at communicating the science behind pesticides. This is a very long post, but as I started writing it, I realized I needed more info. And I still feel like I left a lot out. Hopefully some of this information can be useful. Pesticides are easy to vilify because they kill things, and also because many people simply do not understand them. In fact, only 28% of people believe that foods grown with pesticides are safe to eat (1). If applied according to the label, they are safe to eat. More on this later. Before you comment about how I’m the devil for poisoning the earth and give out the cry, “Who’s paying you?!”, you know, the usual crap whenever anyone talks favorably about them, please read this entire post.

Why do we use pesticides and why do we need them? Insects have been our constant companions for good and bad throughout human history. By and large, insects are incredibly beneficial to our world; however, a few of them are pests. The level of injury or damage they inflict on hosts, plants or animals, can determine the pest status of certain insects. Pests compete with us for the food we eat. They can make us sick by vectoring diseases. They can be introduced into an ecosystem, invasive species, and cause damage to the new ecosystem. And they can invade our homes (I don’t really mind this, but other people seem to for some reason…). But the agricultural pests, vectors of disease, and many invasive species need to be controlled so we can enjoy the food we work hard for and also, you know, go on living and enjoying our natural world (2).

There has been a trend or even a surge of people migrating from rural settings into cities. Some people are now unfamiliar with the labor required to protect our food, and due to our standards of living and lifestyle in developed countries, some people are unfamiliar with many of the diseases spread by insects that have killed billions of people throughout the history of our species. Some people even claim that more people have died throughout human history due to insect-borne diseases like malaria than due to any other single factor (3). This is a statistic that is near impossible to prove, but no one can deny the massive pressure insect-borne diseases have put on our species. We need to control them, and insecticides are a tool to do just that. As with any tool, it can be used responsibly or it can be used in a detrimental manner. But the use of insecticides and pesticides in general is unavoidable. Now before you comment that we should avoid them because you watched a Green Peace video with a cute bee, keep reading.

What are pesticides and insecticides? Pesticides are chemicals used to control, suppress, and kill pest populations. Pests can include arthropods like insects, plant weeds, and even mammals such as rats, mice, and birds. I will focus on insecticides, as this is an entomology page.

Insecticides can be natural plant-derived products, sometimes referred to as botanical insecticides. Plants and insects have co-evolved together over millions of years. Many of the plants evolved ways of preventing insect damage by producing different compounds. Scientists study these compounds and attempt to mimic them. Some of these include alkaloids like nicotine from tobacco, pyrethrins from Chrysanthemum, neem and more. Caffeine, my favorite drug, is actually a natural insecticide, but hasn’t really been exploited for that purpose.

Then there are synthetic insecticides that have no natural analogs. These include carbamates, organophosphates, organochlorines, phenylpyrazols, and others. Most of these are broad spectrum and can kill many different insect species. Some of these synthetic insecticides listed are being phased out because newer, safer, more environmentally friendly ones have taken their place (2).

Toxicity Everything is toxic on some level. Frat bros have even died because they consumed too much water. For the tongue-in-cheek page about the horrors of the chemical known as Dihydrogen Monoxide (actually should be oxidane), search for it on Facebook. What determines toxicity is the dose applied. The common saying, also a great book, is the dose makes the poison (4).

There is acute toxicity and chronic toxicity with pesticides. Acute toxicity occurs over a shorter amount of time sometimes from a single dose. It is easier to quantify and often expressed as an LD50, or the median dose required to kill half of the test population. The lower the LD50 the more toxic something is. Many insecticides are less toxic than table salt and certainly caffeine. If applied using the guidelines set out by government agencies the risk to consumers and people is negligible (5).

Chronic toxicity is where adverse effects are developed over a longer period of time. About half the synthetic and natural (organic) pesticides are carcinogenic (6-7). Long-term rat studies are often used a benchmark for chronic toxicity, but they can have their problems also (8).

How are they made? Insecticides take a long time to bring to the consumer, especially if it involves a new mode of action. It can take up to 10 years or more for this to occur and costs a lot of money. The physiology of insects and mammals can be very similar but there are major differences. The integral mechanisms of an insect’s physiology that are different from a mammal’s can be a target of insecticides. This allows insecticides to be able to kill insects, while being much less harmful to mammals like us (9).

How are they regulated (10 ? Pesticides are regulated by the EPA under FIFRA and other laws. What the EPA evaluates:“the ingredients of the pesticide; the particular site or crop where it is to be used; the amount, frequency, and timing of its use; and storage and disposal practices.”

The EPA also develops risk assessments that evaluate for: “Harm to humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms. Contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff, and spray drift.”

It is a very thorough process to ensure the pesticides being developed are legally used responsibly. They are also regulated at the state level, so there may be differences from state to state.

Problems with insecticides

Insecticide resistance is a major concern of entomologists and pest control professionals. Because certain modes of action are used repeatedly some populations do not pick up a lethal dose and can evolve resistance. This means that if the same modes of action are used, they will stop being as effective. A way around this is to cycle modes of action; however, many of the chemical control methods run the risk of resistance (11).

Non-target species and the environment When applying insecticides, applicators want to kill only the pests that are causing damage to crops or to people. The other insects and animals that can be killed are called non-target species. Agriculture in general can be detrimental to certain species. It’s obviously better for biodiversity than a parking lot or shopping mall, but the number one cause to biodiversity loss is habitat loss. Feeding the growing population needs land to do so. And before you say it’s a distribution problem, not a yield and land management problem, it’s probably both.

Pesticides residues in runoff can enter freshwater ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable. There is also the problem with biomagnification of certain insecticides. This is where the chemical becomes more concentrated as it moves up the food chain (12). If there is enough evidence any of this is occurring, certain insecticides and pesticides can be relabeled. This is the case with certain ones only being sprayed at night to avoid pollinators. Drift can also be a problem when volatile formulations are used. However, if applied legally according to their label, there should be minimal impact on the environment and nontarget species. If there is indeed enough reliable evidence to the contrary, certain ones can be relabeled or even banned.

Could less be used? Definitely. As entomologists we promote an integrated pest management strategy. This is where pest populations are suppressed by a long-term, best management practices that include monitoring/pest ID, mechanical control, cultural control, biological control, and chemical control all used together (13)

Myths and Words and phrases used incorrectly with pesticides

Chemical. The world has succumbed to chemophobia. There are obviously chemicals that are harmful to our health and if there is enough evidence that some are still being used without great benefit, they will be phased out, restricted, or banned.

Organic=pesticide free. Simply not true. Organic is not a nutritional label or one that denotes that the food is produced without pesticides. It means that no synthetic pesticides are used in its production (8).

No one regulates them. See above (10)

The pesticide residues on our food and in our environment are detrimental to our health. They are largely trivial and if applied correctly the risks associated will not hurt you. If there is a case where there is evidence of contamination, the FDA and EPA will respond accordingly (8).

Farmers don’t know what they are putting on crops. False. Farmers have embraced new technology better than most professions. Most know what they are doing and to call them ignorant only shows how disconnected some people are from their food.

Who to trust with pesticides? At the land grant universities in each state, there is usually a pesticide department. If you have questions about something in your state, they should be the first resource you seek out.

Government agencies are controlled by chemical companies. Thanks Monsanto. This is the revolving door cry that many people have. If there were evidence of any illegal activity, people would be fired and public officials let go. “Well there are people in the EPA that used to work for chemical companies.” Of course there are. Who do you want regulating the pesticides being used? I want the best, most informed person possible, and if they happen to have previously worked for a chemical company, that doesn’t necessarily make them “dirty”. Evidence is needed before you accuse someone of anything.

We can get by without pesticides and with small-scale pesticide free farming. Largely false. There is no single way of farming that is best for each situation. Each crop and geographic area can benefit from different practices (14). The average age of farmers is 60. Who is going to farm the food we need with the labor required? You? I hope so. Pesticides are necessary. If you are concerned about them, know whom to reach out to.

I hope we eventually move into species specific control and it's already happening. Oxitec can genetically engineer pests and crash populations to be used in an integrated pest management program. Monsanto is even developing RNAi sprays that can target specific pests. In the future, maybe we wont need these current pesticides, but as of right now, their use is unavoidable.

This day was implemented because of a tragedy that occurred in India in 1984. A chemical plant exploded and thousands of people have died as a result of it. This post by no means is meant to diminish the severity of this disaster, but to inform those seeking information about why we need and still need to use pesticides.

- Jake

(1) http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ (2) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/111884615X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1

(3) https://www.ted.com/talks/hadyn_parry_re_engineering_mosquitos_to_fight_disease?language=en

(4) http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/ATR/ATR_Chapter1_X.pdf

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_toxicity

(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_toxicity

(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17957539

(8) https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

(9) http://www.amazon.com/The-Pesticide-Book-George-Ware/dp/0913702633/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

(10) http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/about-pesticide-registration

(11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_resistance

(12) http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/biomagnification.html

(13) http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/GENERAL/whatisipm.html

(14) http://asi.ucdavis.edu/programs/sarep/about/what-is-sustainable-agriculture

[relaximanentomologist]

Hi! I'm an undergrad student, and I was wondering if I could bug you with a question about beginner's research. I want to teach myself about arthropods - classification, physiology, behavior, et cetera - and figured the best place to start would be the basics. But I'm not really sure what the basic questions are, and what the "introductory" material would be for such an intensive field would be. What would you recommend I start with? Taxonomy? Thanks for taking the time to read this!

Hi! Well the best place to start would be a text book. Nice and dry reading to put you to sleep at night. But it is necessary. I recommend this as an introductory text.  

http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?action=index&itemId=111884615X&bcsId=9165

Ahem, there uhh, may or may not be pdfs available of old versions if you search for em. 

[relaximanentomologist]

Hi, you stated in one of your article that insects do not feel pain as currently defined due to the lack of emotional capacity however you did state that they show nociception-like responses even though they do not actually have nociceptors. Assuming that nociception is unpleasant, I'd be interested in your opinion on the ethics of Roboroach as an 'educational toy' for non-scientists. Thanks.

So... we got a few of em for our outreach event last year. It’s pretty messed up. As far as research and neural research at that, on a small scale, I think it’s great. I felt terrible for the roaches we had for our outreach event. I’m against it now.  

[relaximanentomologist]

E.O. Wilson: "What's dragging us down is religious faith." E.O. Wilson is probably the most well-known entomologist alive and has described himself as a 'provisional deist', something that Dawkins referred to as a "sexy atheist". Most scientists I know don't really ever identify themselves as anything. We're just scientists. Religion and faith are always a touchy subject when I post about them. Those of us operating in our science bubble at universities and other places of research don't often come in contact with those who's beliefs are completely contradictory to ours. And if we do, we either awkwardly shrug them off, put our headphones back in, and move on, or we engage in what is usually a unproductive exchange of ideals where no one's mind has been changed. Whether believers are dragging down our species, as Wilson has said, is of course up for debate. One of my best mentors throughout my graduate degree was Christian, but never let her beliefs interfere with scientific progress. Religious scientists are out there. Some are great while others... not so much. So, what do you think? Is religion dragging down our species? Are religion and science so completely at odds with each other that they cannot coexist? Are the religious fundamentalists the sole problem, a few bad apples ruining it for the rest? And can there be moderate believers who embrace the scientific process without the radicals who are completely hostile to those who don't think the way they do? When you get ready to comment on this, remember: Have a good conversation, just don't be a dick. - Jake E. O. Wilson: I'm not an atheist but religion should be eliminated http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/e-o-wilson-im-not-atheist-religion-should-be-eliminated-1485543 More info: Relationship between religion and science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

[johnskylar]

A Career in Science Will Cost You Your Firstborn

"I hate science."  In six years of graduate school, this has to be the phrase I’ve heard most frequently from my colleagues.

People who have dedicated their lives to science. 

People who made a decision when they were about 16 years old to focus on science, who went through four years of undergrad and an average 6 years of graduate school, and 4-10 more years of training. 

People who’ve spent every moment since 2000 entirely dedicated to making new facts using the scientific process.

"I hate science." Why this instead of, "I love science?"

Read More

[relaximanentomologist]

It's pretty spot on, but I'll add my perspective to it. The PhD factory is cranking at full force. More people are getting their PhDs than ever before. I think that part is fantastic, but the jobs remain stagnant. Sometimes a PhD will actually limit your job prospects. You're now over-qualified for a lot of work out there. Freshly minted PhDs have a few options. Some grab the money and run and go into industry/consulting etc., this is not guaranteed to be the best paying, but it usually is. They can teach at a smaller university or teaching college. Or if they want to go into an R1 top tier research university, they'll most likely have to get a post-doc. Some people only take on one round of postdocing,while others get stuck in the postdoc cycle. Should they be paid more? Of course. Everyone out there is over-worked and underpaid. It's part of life. One thing has stuck with me ever since I heard it one morning. Collin Cowherd was talking about how much athletes get paid. I can't seem to find the official quote, so I'll pass on what I took away from it:  How much you get paid is dependent on how easy it is to replace you. So make yourself irreplaceable. Obviously, there are exceptions to everything I've said and everything in the original blog post. Also, please don't let this dissuade you from pursuing a career in science, but you should at least know what you're up against.

[relaximanentomologist]

Mosquito Problems with Jurassic World

I just watched the new trailer for Jurassic World, and I’ve got some problems with it. I don’t mind the fact the new GMO dinosaur isn’t labeled, or even whenChris Pratt teams up with his pack of super-sized velociraptors to hunt the new dino down. All of that is fantastic. And yes, DNA degrades and wouldn’t be useable the way it’s portrayed in the movies, but I can chop that up to sci-fi fun. But what I can’t stand idly by about is the damn crane fly they use instead of a mosquito!  Jurassic Park can’t seem to figure out what a blood-feeding mosquito is. In the original, they did use an actual mosquito but the wrong species. They used a Thoxorhynchites. These mosquitoes don’t feed on blood, so they’d be useless. You can tell it’s a Tox by the wicked-looking (harmless) curved proboscis. Now in the latest movie they use a damn crane fly, a Tipulid! If you want to make a mosquito biologist upset, call a crane fly a mosquito. They superficially look like giant mosquitoes, but they don’t feed on blood and are completely harmless.  I'll go see the movie because I love them, flaws and all. If I could only watch movies that didn't contain scientific inaccuriacies, I'd be a miserable, sad, lonely man. Also, the bar was lowered so far when the little girl used gymnastics to kick the velociraptor in the second movie, it can't possibly be any worse (they still might even have to recruit James Cameron to recover the bar).  OK fine, you’re all correct, all the dinosaurs are genetically modified in some way, so if you label one, you’d have to label all of them.  - Jake The exciting trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4 Dr. Cameron Webb @Mozziebites does a good rundown of the original Tox story, and I’m not the first to notice the crane fly. Morgan Jackson @BioInFocus went after em a few days ago.  Dr. Webb on the original: https://cameronwebb.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/dinosaurs-dna-mosquitoes-and-movies/ Morgan’s BioInFocus: http://www.biodiversityinfocus.com/blog/ Screen Shot used for criticism and is considered "Fair Use" under Section 107 of the U.S. copyright law

[relaximanentomologist]

What prominent honey bee scientists think about Lu's neonic CCD study

Neonics and bees are back in the news! Jon Entine asks multiple prominent honey bee scientists their view on Alex Lu’s “Harvard Study” that environmentalists tout as proof neonics are causing bee declines. No one has anything supportive or positive to say about Lu’s work.  Dr. Alex Lu from Harvard has had a very controversial publishing history, but people looking to ban neonics tout his studies as proof of their deleterious effects on honey bees. As soon as his most recent publication came out, I noticed major flaws in the study, and I’m just a grad student researching mosquitoes. So, Lu and I have something in common, neither one of us are serious honey bee researchers. But I wasn't alone in my criticism of his work. Big wigs in the honey bee world dismissed his studies as easily as he got them published in the Italian Journal of Insectology (impact factor of 0.375). No one’s first choice of journal is the Journal of Insectology. Ever.  Part I http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_the_contrarian/part_i_bee_deaths_mystery_solved_neonicotinoids_neonics_may_actually_help_bee_health-149615 Part II http://www.science20.com/jon_entine_the_contrarian/part_ii_bee_deaths_and_ccd_flawed_chensheng_lu_harvard_studies_endanger_bees-149799 Hot off the press, a new article: A large-scale field study examining effects of exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola on honey bee colony health, development, and overwintering success https://peerj.com/articles/652.pdf My criticism http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/study-claims-colony-collapse-disorder-caused-insecticides However, it’s important to note that no one is saying neonics are not a factor in pollinator declines. Their relatively low mammalian toxicity for people and wildlife have helped make them the most widely used insecticides in pest control. Some of the methods or ways they are implemented are contradictory to recommended integrated pest management strategies. And whether or not there are better ways to use them that could benefit farmers and pollinators should be looked at closely. But if there is just a broad ban on them, what will farmers use? They’re going to use something, and it might end up being worse off for the bees, the environment, and us. It's not an easy situation.  There is enough concern about pollinators from the scientific community to warrant the Obama administration’s creation of the Pollinator Task Force (Supported by the ESA). Neonicotinoids will be placed under the microscope along with many other factors. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. The conversation about neonics is far from over, but Lu’s voice in it rings hollow.  Want to know more?  Where to start your research:  Randy Oliver’s website is one of my favorites for bee related stories: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/ USDA: http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572 EPA: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection Review Article:  Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full#etc2527 To add some balance, legitimate articles incriminating neonics: Xerces Society on Neonics (PDF): http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Are-Neonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces-Society1.pdf Pesticide Residues and Bees – A Risk Assessment http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0094482#pone-0094482-g002 (Not directly pollinator related) Widespread occurrence of neonicotinoid insecticides in streams in a high corn and soybean producing region, USA (not about pollinators, but freshwater) http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pubs/2014/HladikKolpinKuivila2014.pdf Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7509/full/nature13531.html Pollinator Task Force: MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b Image is in the public domain

[relaximanentomologist]

Get me off your fucking mailing list, an actual scientific paper

This is an actual peer reviewed journal article. Seriously.  The peer review process is usually a battle cry for those demanding evidence over anecdotes. But not all peer reviewed papers and journals are created equal. Since the start of the internet, parasitic journals sucking money from the scientific community publish whatever you want... for a fee. This is a hilarious extreme case of someone fed up with it, but the implications are far more dangerous.  Say I have an agenda. I want to get "B" banned. The public has some distrust of "B", but so far there is no evidence "B" is harmful enough for it to be banned. In fact, there's no evidence "B" is bad at all, but is actually better than a lot of other stuff out there. However, I'm convinced "B" is bad. So I when I set up a study that is bound to incriminate "B", I'll be able to create a public shitstorm. Because all I need to do is sway public opinion to change policy.  I conduct my study, and promptly get it rejected by every credible journal I submit it to, but there's hope for me yet! I know what I'll do, I'll publish it in a not very well known journal, with a very lax peer review process. The journal thinks, alright, sure we'll publish this controversial study in our shitty journal so it will bring much needed attention to our journal and other people who think the same way will want to publish in it too! Great.  Now that I got my study published, I can shout from the rooftops, "HEY, "B" is terrible. Hey everyone, "B" should be banned! Look, I published this garbage, and it was peer reviewed in a REAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!" And this example goes the other way also. Hey look at my product! It works! It works! Or even a competitor... If a study is paradigm shifting and spits in the face of dogma, it'll be published in the best journals out there, like Science or Nature or any other high impact journal. That is, only if there is enough evidence. Without enough evidence those scientists wishing to change policy/dogma look to weaker journals or even to journals where all you have to do is pay a fee and you can publish whatever you want. Seriously, whatever you want. Whenever a controversial paper comes out, the first thing I do is look at the journal. If it has enough evidence, the journal will be credible, and its impact factor will reflect it.  The point is, be skeptical of things you read even if they are peer reviewed. The greater the claims, the better the evidence and journal should be (- paraphrased from my boy C Sagan).  - Jake Vox article on it http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam Actual paper: http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf How impact factors work **this indicator of quality is also criticized, but it's all we've got right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor http://www.impactfactorsearch.com/ Credit: David Mazieres and Eddie Kohler

[relaximanentomologist]

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

From the paper:

Results On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Limitations Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

Conclusion The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Link to open access paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629

Further reading from The Economist http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21630961-biggest-study-so-far-finds-gm-crops-have-large-widespread-benefits-field

[relaximanentomologist]

Why are insects so small?

‘It moved fast, impossibly fast. The creature shuffled its gargantuan armored mass toward the college coeds in a matter of seconds. In a flash of giant insectoid mandibles, a letterman jacket-clad arm flies across the screen with an explosion of blood and gore. Human screams and dinosaur-esque roars echo out…’ Your buddy pauses the B-horror movie and looks at you, the entomologist, “Why aren’t insects massive?” Insects are all around us, but we don’t see any the size of an elephant much less the size of a Labrador puppy. The answer to why insects are small is simple, yet getting there is somewhat complex. Their size is limited by many different factors, including different parts of their anatomy, physiology, and their environment. But what it comes down to is this: They are small because being small works. It works incredibly well.  The most common acceptable answer to why insects are not huge is the way they breathe. In contrast to our gas exchange that is spread around our bodies by our circulatory system, insects bring oxygen to their cells via a different mechanism. They use a series of branching tubes that are invaginated into the insect’s body and bring critical oxygen to each and every cell. This is called the tracheal system, consisting of small openings to the outside of an insect’s body called spiracles. These little holes lead to an open atrium that branches into smaller trachea. The trachea branch into even smaller channels called tracheoles. Tracheoles then loosely surround the insect’s different tissues. Inside the insect cells their mitochondria must be spaced very close to tracheoles so that they may receive an adequate supply of oxygen by a process known as diffusion.  The diffusion of oxygen via a tracheal system takes up a lot of room inside an insect, and as an insect gets bigger this method of breathing becomes less efficient. A 2007 study by Kaiser et al. took x-rays of beetle’s tracheal system and concluded that the beetles we see today are at the maximum size limit allowable by our current oxygen levels, about 21%. However, some people think insects could be up to three times larger than the current ones today (need citation).  The giant insects that were present 300 million years ago support Kaiser’s work. Dragonflies with wingspans of up to 28 inches (70 cm) soared through the air eating anything they could. These giant insects slowly got smaller and smaller as oxygen levels decreased until what we see today. But there’s a small problem, oxygen levels fluctuated, they didn’t just steadily decline. So in theory, we should see insect size become directly proportional to how much oxygen is present in the atmosphere, but we don’t see that in the fossil record.  About 150 million years ago, during the Jurassic period, oxygen levels started to rise again, but insects continued to get smaller or stay the same size. What happened? The other rulers of the skies evolved. Birds. The authors that proposed this theory, Chapman and Karr are unclear whether birds preyed upon the giant insects or simply out competed them, but what is clear is that the oxygen level in the atmosphere is not the only factor influencing the size of insects. There are environmental factors too.  Another limiting factor on insect size could be the way they molt. As insects get larger, they must shed their exoskeleton. This is similar to the way a boy in Game of Thrones would need a new suit of armor as he becomes a man (assuming Martin doesn’t kill him off first). Molting is incredibly taxing on arthropods, and directly after they molt their exoskeleton is flexible and whitish. This leaves the animals in a state of extreme vulnerability before the tanning process can once again give rigidity to their external protection.  An outdated, less accepted theory deals with the size and thickness of an insect’s exoskeleton, and was unintentionally perpetuated by Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory. This theory holds little weight and has become less popular due to larger insect’s not necessarily having thicker exoskeletons (citation needed, quote from citation 4).  For me, the answer to the question comes back to a simple conclusion. The majority of insects are small because there is not enough evolutionary pressure on them to be large, and in many cases there are a myriad of advantages to being small. Insects are arguably the most successful creatures on the planet and their small size is one of the major reasons for their success. If you walk outside your home and look at a plant in your garden, there may be different kinds of insects that feed solely on the roots, stem, leaves, flowers, nectar and even individual predators, parasites, and parasitoids that prey on each of these individual insects. There are innumerable niches only available to be exploited by the tiny. This ability to rapidly adapt to and fill different parts of the ecosystem has lead insects to become the most diverse animals on the planet ever. Evolution moves in the direction of whatever works, not perfection, and being small works really well for insects. If insects were the size of elephants or puppies we wouldn’t see this dazzling display of diversity that is all around us. So, I’m thankful for their small size that has lead to their wonderful alien worlds they provide for us to study.  You hit your buddy, because he’s fallen asleep after your long-winded explanation to a simple question, “Let’s get back to the movie.” Additional notes: If you have a chance to vivisect an insect or dissect a recently deceased insect, the tracheal system will appear silver in color and are quite a striking contrast to the rest of an insect’s internal anatomy.  Interested parties are encouraged to look up the Harrison lab’s research at ASU. You really want to know the details of insect size; this is the place to start:  http://jharrison.faculty.asu.edu/ Citations and further reading (not all may be open access) From the Harrison Lab: 1. Increase in tracheal investment with beetle size supports hypothesis of oxygen limitation on insect gigantism http://www.pnas.org/content/104/32/13198.full 2. Body size is not critical for critical PO2 in scarabaeid and tenebrionid beetles http://jeb.biologists.org/content/215/14/2524.full Pop News article: 3. Why Aren't Insects Human-Size? http://www.livescience.com/24122-why-insects-are-not-bigger.html Chapman and Karr 4. Environmental and biotic controls on the evolutionary history of insect body size http://www.pnas.org/content/109/27/10927.full 5. Pop News about this study: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120601-insects-birds-giant-prehistoric-clapham-proceedings-science-bugs/ 6. Klowden’s Physiological System in Insects, Chapter 9.  7. Photo Credit: Lyn Gateley, Limon, Costa Rica CC Be sure to flip through all of the images, the angle makes this beetle appear larger than it really is https://www.flickr.com/photos/lyng883/133056154/in/photostream/

[relaximanentomologist]

The Wilderness Act turns 50! So, what is ‘wilderness’ and what is the best way to preserve it? What role should biotechnology and human intervention play in its preservation?  The road to our understanding of the natural world and our subsequent quest to save and even reverse humanity’s deleterious effects on it is a long one. Our ancient ancestors viewed the natural world as something dark and sinister, as a source of fear and death, resulting in mythology to explain things beyond their intellectual grasp. Science and our progression as a species has since allowed us to realize our natural world is integral to our survival and should be protected. We will fight to save and preserve it from ourselves. But how best to protect and save it will be a discussion that will rage well beyond our lifetime. As our technology progresses and scientific understanding of the natural world advances we stand at a precipice.  Fifty years ago today Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness Act into law but our interest in protecting the natural world started before 1964. During the mid to late 19th century authors like Emerson, Cooper, Thoreau, and Marsh and the artist Catlin capture the public’s interest in the untouched land. As a result of the public interest in our natural world Lincoln, Johnson, Harrison, Roosevelt, Wilson, and more presidents create laws to protect some of it, but a question remained for some time: What is the legal definition of “wilderness”? The Wilderness Act defined it and set aside 9.1 million acres (36,000 km²) of federal land.  The graceful definition outlined in the Wilderness Act: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” We now have over 109 million protected acres of land administered under the National Parks Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. It’s not enough. We are facing species and ecosystem loss at unprecedented levels. Well, not unprecedented. It’s happened five times before. This just happens to be the only one caused by complex interactions driven by anthropogenic influence; including introductions of invasive species, agriculture, urban sprawl, and, of course, climate change to name a few. To ignore these issues and deny what is happening to our natural world is like staying inside your home after you set it on fire. Many other analogies have been used, most notably the boiling frog and an ostrich with its head in the sand, but the point remains the same: We have a fundamental unwillingness to make changes to incredibly important things that are occurring “gradually”. But I like the burning home analogy, because it’s not occurring gradually. It’s occurring very, very quickly.  Relevant comic:  http://gunshowcomic.com/648 As I read many of the articles today on the Wilderness Act’s half-century birthday, I came across this interesting piece in NatGeo News: Wild at 50: The Wilderness Act Turns a Half-Century http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/03/wild-at-50-the-wilderness-act-turns-a-half-century/ The author makes the claim that the best way to protect the natural world is to stop treating small symptoms and to start setting aside much larger tracts of land and allow the natural ecosystems to run without human intervention. E.O. Wilson has made a similar plea, stating that half the world should be set aside for animals. I like it and agree that we should protect as much of the natural world as possible, but one thing I don’t necessarily agree with from the NatGeo article, is the claim that there should be an absence of human intervention in these protected areas. The author says, "An environment engineered by humans sounds depressingly dull and astonishingly arrogant to many of us." However, I don’t think it should be dismissed without giving it a chance. We’ve been changing the natural world ever since our civilization began and to simply set aside as much land as possible, I do not think, will be enough. Especially when we keep screwing it up. When you start a fire in your home, you do more than just build an addition to it.  Right now only ‘absolutely necessary’ human intervention is allowed to occur in protected areas. One of the best examples of human intervention most people know about is the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone. Another measure of human intervention includes the research and release of biological control agents to suppress exotic pests. “Biological control has been defined simply as the utilization of natural enemies to reduce the damage caused by noxious organisms to tolerable levels (DeBach and Rosen, 1991)”. Many people who criticize biological suppression efforts don’t really understand how it’s implemented. Some work, some don't, but all of them are incredibly heavily regulated. For controlled releases to be approved they undergo rigorous testing that lasts for years. And the people who do this for a living know about the risks and mitigate them. Do you seriously think they don’t know about the damn cane toad and where biological control has gone wrong in the past? Like any intelligent person, they learn from their mistakes. And because there have been many successes in introducing control agents, the practice of biological control isn’t going anywhere.  Successes in biocontrol: http://www.biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/success.php In National Parks: http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/video-dispatch-hwa.htm We have acceptable human intervention “when absolutely necessary”, but how black and white is that line? And as interesting as biocontrol is, there are even more controversial and fascinating topics and discussions to be had. These are the ones that aren’t approved for implementation, but I don’t think we should close the door on them before we ever truly explore them. Many people who criticize much of the future of ‘human intervention in nature’ severely underestimate our scientific trajectory. We are exponentially advancing our understanding of the world and the first step is regulation. Because right now, we don’t have a clue how to do it safely, and that is why it scares us.  We already possess the ability to biologically manipulate species. Before being almost completely wiped out by the chestnut blight, the American chestnut was one of the most important and abundant forest trees in Appalachia. Over four billion trees were killed because humans introduced an Asian fungus to which our trees had no defense; however, as you read this, genetically modified American chestnuts are thriving in quarantine areas because they were engineered to produce an enzyme called oxalate oxidase that effectively destroys the toxic acid produced by the fungus. We have this technology and it’s getting better, a lot better. With the implementation of the genetic editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9, TALENs, RNAi, and more, we are now able to manipulate our biological world like never before. We can modify any number of different keystone plant species to be resistant to the exotic pests currently decimating their numbers. Hemlock, pine, ash and just about every other tree species being destroyed by exotic pests is being looked at for genetic modification. This is all in the name of restoring a natural environment to its original state, or before we screwed it up. Once we have genetically fortified keystone species to be resistant to human activity, should we then release them? What level of regulation should they be under? We don’t know yet.  We have the ability to genetically manipulate current species but what about bringing back extinct species? The process dubbed “de-extinction” isn’t a far-fetch science fiction topic, but a realistic process that will be debated within the coming years. What level of restoration do we want to work back to? For now, it isn’t as practical as say 50-100 years from now. If we progress at the same rate without curbing our actions should we bring back all the species that go extinct? I don’t know, but I ‘m pretty sure our future world isn’t going to be burdened by the fact of whether or not they CAN do it, but if they SHOULD do it. (see the links at the end of the post for more info on de-extinction) And for those of you who claim that extinctions leave vacuums for new species to evolve, you’re absolutely right. BUT the new species are going to be ones that adapt to our world. They will be the ones that evolve from cockroaches and rats. Let’s try not to let that happen, shall we?  As we sit in our burning home deciding what to do with it, there’s a group of people building a most excellent fire-hose right outside it. It’s so powerful it could put out the fire in a short amount of time, but because it’s so powerful, it’s also capable of destroying the house. We need better control over our technology so we know we can use it for good, because if we rush it, we might just destroy that which we are trying to save. And if we leave it for too long, it will have already burned to the ground. However, the point remains; we have to do something.  - Jake  The Wilderness Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act http://www.nature.nps.gov/views/KCs/Wilderness/HTML/ET_04_Why.htm The Boiling Frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog GM Chestnuts http://www.esf.edu/chestnut/#.VAejhGRdU08 De-extinction, Pros and Cons: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/ Pleistocene Park  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park An extreme view to preservation: Dark Mountain http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/ More on the Wilderness Act from around the web: 50 Years Later: Honoring the Wilderness Act Through Citizen Science http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kayri-havens/50-years-later-honoring-t_b_5753112.html What the Wilderness Act has taught us http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ferguson-wilderness-act-50-years-20140902-story.html Are you a Pinchot or a Muir? I tend to side more with Pinchot http://schreinerpatrick.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/muir-vs-pinchot-perspectives-on-nature/

[relaximanentomologist]

When Should Scientists Kill?

This article is not about entomology, but it was posted in the entomology group and I thought I'd give my 2 cents about insect collecting and killing. 

http://strangebehaviors.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/when-should-scientists-kill/

Image is in the public domain

I’ve had to explain why I have a personal insect collection a few times. It’s so I can know as much as possible about the insects in my area. Upon identifying a lot of the insects, I rarely kill the species again because I already have it and can recognize it; however, if I'm working on a teaching collection, pretty much everything is fair game. Making an insect collection is literally the cornerstone of almost all insect biology courses. I learned more from that project than any other single assignment in undergrad. Assuming you can accomplish the same thing with smartphone is laughable. Maybe a seasoned entomologist that knows much more than I do can get away with only taking pictures, but the fastest way for me to learn insect taxa is a collection.  Killing insects is a part of the science of entomology. The authors of this semi-recent Science article on Arthropod diversity killed and identified 129,494 specimens. From those specimens they were able to make estimates on global arthropod biodiversity. It’s an amazing paper, and they would never have been able to do it with images.  http://www.nature.com/news/jungle-search-gives-global-count-of-arthropods-1.12026 So no, I do not think entomology is shifting away from killing for students or for tenured entomologists. I sometimes feel a pang of remorse for my mosquitoes I've ripped the wings and legs off when I collect saliva, but then I remember they are mosquitoes. We do this in my lab to study vector competence in different mosquito species. I don't find any pleasure in doing it, but knowing which mosquitoes can spread which pathogens may help save lives and prevent sickness.  Vertebrates and some cephalopods… that’s a different ballgame.  For those wondering about pain in insects, I wrote this a while ago:  http://relaximanentomologist.tumblr.com/post/51301520453/do-insects-feel-pain Greg Pohl put it better than I did and goes into much more detail! Great read http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/pdf/whywekillbugs.pdf

[relaximanentomologist]

Image is in the public domain

  The Real Reason to Worry About Bees http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910093353.htm Let's beat a dead horse... again.  It's scary that certain areas in the world are losing 1/3 of their hives over the winter. It's scary that pollinators are probably declining. Pesticides are an easy target for the public to hate, they're poisons, but no honey bee biologist or entomologist is going to lay the blame solely on them. There are a lot of different factors to be considered and how they interact with one another remains a mystery. TIME magazine recently did a piece on it and every popular news source has done pieces on it multiple times, but what it comes down to is this: We don't know. Be wary of anyone who claims they KNOW the reason. They don't.  First of all, Colony Collapse disorder (CCD) is a term that's been perpetuated by the media and public, but it was pretty much made up. If I started ranting about Fall Dwindle Disease, would anyone even read it? Probably not, because in 2006 a team of researchers didn't like it so they changed it to CCD. This creates the illusion that this amazing phenomenon, CCD, only started in 2006. It's been around much longer. Similar symptoms were described as far back as 1869. Uhh, well... neonics and many of the pesticides haven't been around that long, neither have migratory beekeepers. In fact most of the man-made causes of CCD are pretty damn new, while the symptoms are pretty damn old. The term is now used to describe multiple ailments and the media creates a veritable shit-storm of conflicting stories that it feeds the eagerly awaiting public. Because, hey, who doesn't love to read about the catastrophe that is occurring in the bee world? And I'm guilty of passing on everything to you guys, so here's my two-cents.  Factors possibly involved:  Parasites: Varoa, Nosema, Fungus, Viruses (IAPV etc.) Tracheal mites.  Pesticides: Miticides, fungicides, herbicides, neonics etc.  Antibiotics, traveling hives and management practices, malnutrition, a phorid fly, lack of genetic diversity, bees with a compromised immune system Some of these are more important than others, but their interactions with each other are what have our scientists stumped. The problem with the current pesticide and neonic studies: their lab methods don't translate to the field and the field studies use concentrations that are not normally found in the field. Example: If I gave you a shot of whiskey, you'd probably make it home... what if I gave you 50? There are current studies being conducted to rectify just this. I am 100% open to new evidence and am not ruling anything out.  ***I am not saying any of these factors don't kill bees, but no single one can claim the title of a smoking gun.  Things probably NOT involved: Cell phones & GMOs  Anti-GMO people: Hate all you want, but the science to back up the claim that Monsanto and GMOs are killing bees isn't there. So be angry for other reasons and give this one a rest.  Cell phone people: Electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and towers might affect biological systems, but all studies using cellphones in hives are unrealistic of real life interactions... meaning they cary 0 weight.  More nonsense: The infamous Terry Ingram story: Its sad to say, but it's his word against theirs. If the IL dept of ag did find foulbrood, they did their job. He has no evidence to support his claims (They destroyed it! you say). Maybe, but I doubt it. But I don't automatically believe the guy. I believe evidence and the whole thing reeks of conspiracy theory lunacy. Burden of proof lies with him.  What about all those bees that died in Oregon? The pesticide that caused the die-off was not used according to the label. -- The story in-itself isn't nonsense but using it as an example against theses pesticides is.  Once again, I'm open to new evidence but none of these holds up to scientific scrutiny.  This isn't a popular stance, I know. If I were attacking big agriculture and saying "Ban all pesticides!" I'd have more followers in heartbeat. That's not what I want. What I want is to get the clear message out that no one knows what the f&*k is really going on and that CCD describes many different symptoms. Honey bees aren't going extinct, so stop saying that. Technically the ones we manage aren't even native to the US; Apis melifera L. is native to europe. Other pollinators are probably declining also, but we know even less about them than we do the honey bee (even scarier to me).  Who pays for honey bee research? "So follow the money." people always say. Big agriculture pays off USDA and EPA of course. There's a conspiracy to kill the honey bee! A ridiculous statement, no one really wants anything bad to happen to beneficial insects. Be skeptical, but funding and biases in bee literature goes both ways. The vast majority of funding for science (including entomology) comes from taxpayer dollars.  Say a honey bee researcher at a university wants to do a study on miticides/Nosema and a lack of genetic diversity in a hive (2 of my favorites). They write a grant proposal and if it is accepted (usually by a government agency like NIH, NSF, USDA, or even Bayer) the grant review team critiques it and pokes holes in methods and helps make the best study possible. They are looked at on a competitive basis through peer review. Every dollar is accounted for and dedicated to a certain aspect of the study. Scientists (if they haven't already) must undergo responsible conduct of research training. In journals, there is usually a conflict of interests (COI) section in publications. So if an author works for Bayer (just an example), it lists it.  There is no goon looming around the lab making sure they don't do something. It is now the researcher's job to conduct the study in an unbiased as possible way. Say they find the special cocktail of factors that leads to CCD! They did it! Awesome. If they pass the peer review process, they'd probably publish in Nature or Science. If it holds up, it will be repeatedly tested. Any major theory will have its share of skeptics and that's a good thing. But if the theory is sound, it will hold up to further testing.  If the scientific community comes to an agreement (mostly) on a given theory, the methods have held up and the results can be replicated, over and over. **This has not happened with CCD. Not even close. The only official safe answer is "It's probably a lot of different things." This is assuming that the people who are working on this are honest, which I usually like to do, but not all are. Nature did a review (2005) and asked scientists if they altered methods or results due to outside sources of funding; a whopping 15.5% admitted to doing it. A major part of this came from biomedical sciences. I like to think entomologists are above this dirty side to science, but I can't prove it. And this goes both ways (example: people arguing for pesticides and those against them). There is bias in bee literature and it is difficult to shift through it... Not a comforting addition to my little blog post here, but it needed to be added.  The thing about science vs pseudoscience (solid infographic on IFLS today btw), is that science is open to skepticism while pseudoscience is not. It made me think of the criticism of the neonic studies by government agencies and scientists. Pseudoscience sees criticism as conspiracy. I'm not saying that previous studies on the sublethal effects of neonics and pesticides are pseudoscience (far from it); they themselves are open to criticism and welcome it. BUT the public wants to blame them so bad they see the criticism by the government and other scientists as conspiracy, when there is no evidence to suggest it. Criticism is part of science; especially when a problem as big and confusing as "CCD" is being tackled by so many different angles. 

Amazing blog post by Dr. Doug Yanega via Bug Girl's Blog  http://membracid.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/guest-post-honey-bees-ccd-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/ My favorite quote from it: "Here’s the thing about this: if you look at a lot of what you see these days, be it in the scientific literature or in the media, people are running around looking for things that kill honey bees, and when they find something that does so, they often make this GARGANTUAN leap to claim that since X kills honey bees, and since CCD kills honey bees, then X must cause CCD. Logic fail, anyone?" TL:DR summary We still don't know exactly what's killing honey bees The term CCD was made up in 2006, but the symptoms are much older.  Losses over the winter are around 30% in some areas A lot of people want to blame pesticides. I don't think the science behind the neonic theory holds up just yet. (I'm still open to it though). It's probably a combination of factors and there is no smoking gun.  Science funding isn't something you should automatically distrusts. Science is supposed to be self-correcting by nature (hopefully/not always).  There are biases in bee literature on both sides Don't look at criticism of science as a conspiracy. This is the way it works.  Further reading: Original 'CCD' article: http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/ccd.pdf Funding of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#cite_note-11 Is science self correcting? http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/12/is-the-scientific-literature-self-correcting.html Scientists behaving badly http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.html

[relaximanentomologist]

Health Officials Issue Alert For Dengue Fever http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Health-Officials-Issue-Alert-For-Dengue-Fever-221006251.html

Should the FDA allow Oxitec to release genetically modified mosquitoes to help control dengue in Florida?

This post was brought on when I finally read one of the petitions to stop it.  First, a short history lesson: There is much more misinformation in these petitions than just about anywhere else. So... here's what is happening. Aedes aegypti is an invasive mosquito that has spread to much of the tropics. They spread during the slave trade and are now endemic to much of Florida. Their population undergoes fluctuations, but is somewhat stable; however, their range could move with the changing weather. It's a very difficult thing to prove they are increasing. They are known to spread several viruses and the first major problem was with Yellow Fever virus (YFV). This was actually the first pathogen proven to be spread by mosquitoes. Carlos Finlay and Walter-Reed did work on it when the US was building the Panama Canal. A vaccine was developed a little while later for Yellow Fever. Unfortunately, as soon as Yellow Fever seemed to be letting up Dengue epidemics became more frequent and spread with Ae. aegypt. It is probably spreading "due in part to population growth and uncontrolled urbanization in tropical and subtropical countries, breeding sites for the mosquitoes that transmit dengue virus have proliferated, and successful vector control has proven problematic (Kyle and Harris 2008)." Dengue is now the number one emerging vector-borne disease in the world. It's horrible. There is no vaccine, and there are 4-serotypes or 4 different kinds of dengue, and just getting one actually makes you more vulnerable to getting another. There are hemorrhagic forms, where you literally bleed from your orifices. It was also called break-bone fever, so your joints and bones hurt so bad you feel like they are breaking. Today, approximately 40% of people live in regions of the world where there is a risk of contracting dengue. Florida is one of them.  A synopsis: Ae. aegypti spreads over much of the tropics YF vaccine Dengue epidemics start in areas where aegypti has spread (including Florida and the Keys). One problem, is that aegypti and albopictus (another invasive mosquito) have adapted to us. They breed in our containers and live right next to us. I wouldn't necessarily say aegypti is on the rise in Florida, BUT dengue cases and risks are on the rise. Big difference. We have a wonderful standard of living which mitigates the effects of many vector-borne disease in the US. We don't work outside as much, we have screens, we have mosquito control (who are really good at what they do), and we have public health departments that educate. Normal mosquito control follows an integrated approach. So the first thing to do is educate and monitor, limit breeding sites and undergo other mechanical control, then if it comes to it, use chemicals. During peak mosquito season, fogging can be done to kill adults and larvacides can be put into standing water. If done correctly, it does work. This is usually the last line of defense. Fogging and larvicides can kill non-target insects and when it comes down to what insecticides actually are, well, they're poison. This is where Oxitec comes in. What they have done, is put a deleterious gene in aegypti males (which don't bite) and release them. The genes they have modified do not perpetuate in the population. Advantageous genes are something completely different. As soon as a genetically modified male mates with a female from the field, she essentially becomes sterile, and with enough males, the population plummets. And according to their field trials, it actually works. Without chemicals, and without harming any other species. As to the genetically modified proteins in the few females that are accidentally released: I've yet to read any evidence of any adverse effects they could possibly have. Just thinking about that doesn't really make sense, and I would associate it to grasping at straws by the people against it. These organisms are not genetically modified food. They are modified to make the population crash, not help it. No predator's diet consists primarily of Ae. aegypti. Not bats, not swallows, and not frogs. They breed in bird baths and gutters, not streams. Of course it isn't foolproof. No person in their right mind claims to have all the answers. This is just a piece to the puzzle that could save lives. How much data are enough? I don't think that's what people want. As soon as they hear genetically modified anything they are immediately against it without understanding it. What are the alternatives? No mosquito control, and your kids can pick up dengue on the playground. The disease is horrible and everything that can possibly be done to lessen its impact should be done. As to the playing God factor and not messing with nature. We've been messing with nature since before we even called ourselves humans, now our impacts (introducing new species, ie. aegypti) seriously put people at risk of dying a horrible death. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to spray chemicals or release genetically modified mosquitoes, but, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. If we just "stop messing with nature" people will die. How would you feel if it was a loved one?  The FDA is undergoing a critical review of the their techniques. People who understand it better than you or I are looking into the effects, and if they deem it unsafe they will provide a reason why. I just hope that petitions like this don't create a problem with policy that could save lives. I am not asking you to blindly believe some guy on Facebook. Be critical, skeptical, AND open-minded, but think for yourselves. Do your own research and make decisions based on the available evidence. But know that some evidence put forth by some of the petitions is ludicrous.  Ask Oxitec the questions, they can answer them better than I can: https://www.facebook.com/oxitec Straightforward basic summary of dengue transmission: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dengue-transmission-22399758 Can genetically modified mosquitoes prevent disease in the US? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19091880 Oxitec GM Mosquitoes: These Insects Could Save Thousands Of Human Lives Around the World http://www.policymic.com/articles/49159/oxitec-gm-mosquitoes-these-insects-could-save-thousands-of-human-lives-around-the-world Oxitec: http://www.oxitec.com/ http://www.oxitec.com/health/how-it-works/ ESA student debate on GMOs http://entsoc.org/PDF/students/2008_student_debate.pdf Graphic credit and more info:  http://oneinsevenpeople.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/gm-mosquitoes-buzz-off/ Global spread and persistence of dengue. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18429680 Can genetically modified mosquitoes wipe out malaria? http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/gm-mosquito.htm Another novel mosquito control technique is to use the symbiotic bacterium wolbachia to create cytopathic incompatibility in mosquitoes

[relaximanentomologist]

Onchocerciasis

The worm Sir Attenborough references is Onchocerca volvulus, a nematode, which causes Onchocerciasis or River Blindness. It is spread by the bite of an infected black fly and occurs primarily in Africa.  http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/onchocerciasis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis Other parasites in recent news: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/parasites-want-invade-your-brain Image Credit: Luca Masters; Flickr CC http://www.flickr.com/photos/lkbm/103283648/ 'For hundreds of years, a child leading a blind elder has been the fate of families stricken with river blindness (onchocerciasis) in Africa

[relaximanentomologist]

Remember those little models you drew out or even made in Ochem? Well, check out these images of them! Imaging Breakthrough: See Atomic Bonds Before and After Molecular Reaction http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/atomic-level-images/