Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Transgenic bees

36K views 187 replies 31 participants last post by  tecumseh 
#1 ·
I have been keeping bees for about 10 years now as a hobbyist and can't help but notice how the global economy, for better or for worse, has been directly responsible for the import of honey bee pests. You hear the lament of those that began before the onslaught of plagues that now visit upon most who keep bees. So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?
 
#74 ·
If we could clone a gene into the honey bee that codes for an enzyme that basically shuts down a critical mite biosynthetic pathway, the bees would be truly immune to mites. -HVH
While this may be theoretically possible, I suspect this would be exceedingly difficult. Mites and insects are both arthropods, and are very, very similar physiologically. The same enzyme that would affect mites would likely affect honey bees.

It would take some time, though, even with transgenesis, before the mite populations would dye back to the point where bees are no longer pierced and therefore viruses could not be spread. -HVH
And, of course, if the selective pressure place on the mites by these transgenic bees would be great, natural selection would likely quickly drive the mites to overcome the resistance. (Multiple genes for different traits may be key, here, in slowing that evolution of the mites, but, again, if the selective pressure is great enough, the mites will likely overcome all traits.)

Since this kind of gene would be dominant, only one allele would be needed to confir resistance. -HVH
This kind of gene is necessarily dominant? How do you figure?

While a gene that shows simple complete dominance might be ideal, I doubt that any such gene would necessarily become "dominant" simply because we might wish it to be so.
 
#75 ·
While this may be theoretically possible, I suspect this would be exceedingly difficult. Mites and insects are both arthropods, and are very, very similar physiologically. The same enzyme that would affect mites would likely affect honey bees.



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



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

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

I agree that more than one trait would be ideal and that making a transbee of this kind would not be a slam dunk. Even if mites and bees shared a common biosynthetic pathway, however, they would likely have enough differences in enzymatic binding (or active) sites to be exploited. Also, many cell surface receptors may be similar but again have enough differences to be targeted. Cell surface receptors are very common targets for high throughput drug screens because both agonists and antagonists can be very specific.
A gene that expresses an enzyme that is new to the bee would be dominant in that it would always be expressed (unless designed otherwise) and would therefore always affect the mites when present. When first introduced, the gene would be single copy. Bees could then be crossed to make homozygous transbees. If the gene targeted a crucial pathway, mites may or may not be able to adapt.
 
#84 · (Edited)
Thanks Ian. You just made my day.
I knew when I started this post some would automatically think I was preaching and write me off as an AH 'south end of a north facing donkey'. I really don't have all the answers and hope others on this thread will realize that this is a very real and important topic that we will have to face in the real world eventually and the discussion is not about people, evil corporations or such. We can demogog all we want, call Monsanto names, and throw fuel on the flames, but it won't change the outcome. What we really need is a vigorous discussion, and even perhaps a dialog about what we can do to affect the outcome. If people really don't want a transbee, how can they help in the more conventional arena (I will start another thread with a proposal after this thread dries up a bit). For those interested in a transbee, how can we get more research money to labs that we 'trust'. Again, I plan on starting yet another thread about how to get more research dollars to bee labs (not just molecular). I really do believe that a forum of this type can pull resources and make a change for the better.

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

Chris
 
#78 ·
Would the investment into a GM bee actually pay off when there are other competitive options, that are working off a much smaller overhead?
No way no how. However, it might be easier to get funding to do
some fancy GM work as opposed to good old fashioned breeding.
Someone could play up the 'new and upcoming techniques' that will save
the world in a grant proposal, instead of relying on tried and true.
You can guess which way I would lean.

we do inhabit these "monkey bodies", and our physical health greatly influences our quality of life. i think being able to reproduce without intervention is an important set of traits to "select for".
I disagree. I don't want my children to be selected against since you
included C-sections in your class of un-natural. But this is getting too
Anthropomorphic. Sometimes bees and humans can be compared,
other times it dosen't work to good. On the humans though, a group
of people not considered 'fit' can contribute greatly to the 'fitness' of
the society as a whole. Thats always been a benefit of societies and tribes.
Just like a doctor without kids that performs C-sections. Of course, in humans
fitness has become a non-issue. The more 'fit' we
are individually, the more overpopulation becomes a concern for the fitness of future generations.
 
#79 ·
>>It is extremely unlikely that honey bees will ever reach a level of mite resistance that would make all of us happy. They may get better at grooming and consequently mite removal, but classical approaches are limited to the genes that bees currently possess. You are not going to get any new genes. So if there are bees that can groom to the level where mites are a non-issue great, but don't hold your breath. With genetic engineering you can steal genes

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

One very important factor with GM crops, is its HUGE payoff. The reason for soo much research and development into cropping agriculture is because of the HUGE spin off. I dont see that kind of pay off in the beekeeping industry. It is the reason why there hasnt been much private investment into research and development, and probably the reason why there is such a disconect between beekeepers across the country.
 
#85 ·
Hey Ian,

I would like to see academics get the work done on public funds and everyone benefit. I am a staunch capitalist and see this position as bordering on hypocracy, but a constitutional role for goverment, in my view, includes insuring that our country is always on the leading edge when it comes to technology (including military: big time). Some might say that is because I am a scientist. Nope - just sound economics. On the other hand, I am only talking about applied research. It bugs me when labs get handouts for pet projects that have no stated practical goals.
I agree that the bee industry is not the best target industry to make a buck, but an academic lab might be able to provide what is needed without all the strings.
 
#80 ·
IMO once you start invoking eugenics, the argument has gone way off track.

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

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

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

Look at the real cause of the problem: it is the beekeeper, not the bee, who is at fault.
 
#81 ·
>>On this 'biological' forum, I expect to see forward-thinking beekeepers investigating natural, chemical-free protocols, that will support the natural cycle of bees' life, not mechanics who think that tightening a bolt here or there will somehow make right all that we have done so wrong.


In other words you prefer to have a onesided conversation on an issue,where you can slang and slander all the big corperations without any challange, and get issues spinning in circles to where the opinions are no longer based on facts but rather hype,
 
#82 ·
If the gene targeted a crucial pathway, mites may or may not be able to adapt. -HVH
While I believe your statement is accurate (organisms have repeatedly demonstrated that, confronted with extreme selective pressures, they either adapt or become extinct), I doubt that extinction of Varroa through transgenic bees is very likely at all. So far, we (humans) have proven ourselves very poor at "eradicating" the pests we've attempted to eliminate. Take primary screwworm flies as an example: efforts over the last 50 years have "eradicated" the flies, yet massive numbers of sterile males must be released annually to ensure that screwworms do not "recur." (Which begs the question, "If they are truly eradicated, how could they recur?") More recently, studies have demonstrated that female screwworms are employing different mating strategies that may be difficult to overcome (the reason that sterile male releases worked so well with screwworm was that females mate only once in their lives); some females now mate multiply, rather than singly, and some evidence suggests that females can now somehow evaluate potential mates to determine whether or not the males are sterile.

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

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

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

i expect, if one could find the data, that before c-sections was used, that there were less people that required them (as those that did tended not to be born alive and/or died in childbirth). -deknow
Interesting trivia: the first account of a "c-section" was recorded by Pliny the Elder in the first century A. D., supposedly documenting the birth of one of the Caesars (which is perhaps where the term "caesarean section," shortened to "c-section," originated). Of course, back in those days, the mothers didn't typically survive such practices.

well, diversity in a gene pool is not "every possible gene" for a good reason. -deknow
Well, pretty much it is. "Diversity" is measured by the differences. The more possibilities in the genes, the greater the diversity. Now, whether or not that diversity is desireable is a different question.

how long do you think it will be before the words of martin luther king jr. cease to have a significant impact on the world? what he contributed to society is much greater (imho) than what he contributed to the gene pool by reproducing. -deknow
Maybe so, but his evolutionary fitness is measured in terms of how many progeny he left here on earth, not what he may have accomplished to advance human culture.

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

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

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

No way no how. However, it might be easier to get funding to do
some fancy GM work as opposed to good old fashioned breeding. -MichealW
I suspect that this is about right, although the speed and deliberate addition of selected genes might offset the "low-tech" methods, economically.

On the humans though, a group
of people not considered 'fit' can contribute greatly to the 'fitness' of
the society as a whole. Thats always been a benefit of societies and tribes. -MichaelW
This tends to be true to honey bees as well. Think of the average worker: her direct fitness is likely zero, or very, very close to it (unless she's a drone layer). Her "inclusive fitness" (the fitness gained by caring for closely-related individuals that share genes that might be passed into future generations) is much greater. The same can work in humans.

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

IMO we should not interfere with bee genetics while there is an a relatively unexplored, natural alternative: working more closely with the bees' needs. Most especially, they need a better environment than the Langstroth hive - designed 160 years ago, when we had little understanding of bees' nature, but blindly used ever since - and less dependence on synthetic inputs. -buckbee
I was under the impression that Varroa made the host shift in an area where North American Langstroth hives were seldom, if ever, used. Do you have any documentation to support the hypothesis that simply altering the design of the hive will reduce pest problems from Varroa?
 
#83 ·
One very important factor with GM crops, is its HUGE payoff. The reason for soo much research and development into cropping agriculture is because of the HUGE spin off. I dont see that kind of pay off in the beekeeping industry. - Ian
Thats a good point. Look at BT cotton. Its had near total acceptance by cotton growers. BT corn is spreading fast as well. But making queens is a lot more expensive than making seeds.

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

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

Bugs, yes true bugs, that where not a problem in Cotton are now a problem in BTCotton due to the reduced pesticides. No matter what your agriculture sector, something is going to try and kill it and you have to constantly come up with new strategies ideally incorporating least toxic and least damaging for the long term situation, such as avoiding the 'chemical treadmill' that eventually wares out. Any transgenic work on the bees is not taking into consideration the risk of negative long term consequences since there is so much unknown. Beekeeping is too vulnerable to risk that.
 
#86 ·
GM bees

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

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

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

And yes - we are experimenting with some very promising natural beekeeping protocols: I have colonies that have survived three years with no synthetic treatments for mites, nosema or anything else. I have no use for GM bees and I hope never to see them, nor the need for them.
 
#88 · (Edited)
I am just astonished by the arrogance and pseudo-scientific pontification in this thread. How can any of you - in the face of millions of years of evolution - dare to suggest that mere 'scientists' - mere dabblers in comparison with the forces of nature - can 'create' some kind of 'superbee' by fiddling with genes - and seriously imagine that there would be no repercussions or unpredictable side-effects in the wider ecology?

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

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

And yes - we are experimenting with some very promising natural beekeeping protocols: I have colonies that have survived three years with no synthetic treatments for mites, nosema or anything else. I have no use for GM bees and I hope never to see them, nor the need for them.
I think it is fair to say that people bring to every argument their own world view. You might be correct and the superbee may destroy the world, but from my vantage point we had this argument already back in the 1970's and the fears that people had then were not realized. We aren't talking about major changes to the bee's genome. I add genes to human cells all the time, using the same technology, and have yet to have one jump out of the flask and attack me. In recent publications, the authors described how the addition of four human genes into human skin cells resulted in reprogramming back into stem cells. Do you have any idea of what that could mean for humans in the future. This technology has the potential of replacing worn out or damaged parts. I know some will say "never". These are the same people that take antibiotics when they get an infected tooth.

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

Ha ha ha, couldnt help but smile at that comment :)


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

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

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

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

:)
 
#89 ·
Ian,

What would happen if every beek that is into pollination went on strike for a full year? I wonder who would listen then. Would hundreds of millions of lost dollars in the AG economy create a stir? I understand that this is a naive suggestion, but still it is fun to look at the extremes.
 
#94 ·
>>What would happen if every beek that is into pollination went on strike for a full year? I wonder who would listen then. Would hundreds of millions of lost dollars in the AG economy create a stir?

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

But let us sit and think for just a moment, if we could actually get our industry to do just that. That industry, or others just like ours. Just imagine the back lash that would come upon us for "starving" the people, becasue we so carlessly and selfishly pulled back our services to prove a point. I dont know if it would ultimatly work out as most in our industry invisions it.
 
#95 ·
I admitted it was naive. Still, I wonder if it could be done if beeks, in one loud voice, determined that the risks of pest contamination were too high to justify sharing acreage with other beeks, and thus decided to wait until the CCD epidemic was ironed out. Clearly this would be good justification to shift to honey production until researchers could characterize the CCD problem. Beeks would finally be taken seriously and our fabulous leaders would be placed in the position of having to address the poor funding of bee research labs. If beeks waited for the CCD answer and refused to enter into pollination contracts until the problem was resolved, money would begin to flow into bee labs again. The problem I see is getting everyone on board. If supply and demand sent the pollination fees to $300.00 per hive, it's likely that some of the big boys couldn't resist the temptation and it would completely nullify the intended effect. Since I am not a lawyer I am not even sure if this kind of thinking is considered collusion (the illegal kind - not the kind signed into law). Plus, you could never get the beekeepers organized.
Of course I'm off topic. Maybe the subject should be about making transgenic politicians. We could insert genes that (fill in the blanks).
 
#96 ·
After careful reading, I see little in this thread other than conjecture, presumption, and speculation. My experience with molecular biology is that it rarely works to produce new knowledge and will most likely not translated into useful honeybees yet alone dangerous ones.
 
#98 ·
It looks like we are back on topic.
I can tell you that I (and others) have cloned the human telomerase gene into normal human cells (MRC5 fibroblasts) that do not express telomerase and the result is cells that are immortal. MRC5 cells will normally double every 30 hours or so and double about 50-70 times before they die. We have MRC5 cells with telomerase where the cells have already doubled over 300 times with no end in sight (they are not cancer). If you think this through, it has vast implications. This is just one example from my small little world - just think what others might be up to.
 
#97 ·
I only read the starting thread and lightly browsed in between.Gets kind of deep in what if. I have a nice hive of AHB hybrids that make considerable amount of honey. Have not treated for anything going on 3 yrs. I do not see the swarming tendency the original AHB had and the original AHB made no honey. They are mean but workable in a single hive setting. About as mean as black Germans of 30 yrs ago. Make these bees more gentle and you would have a great bee. I put them on previously made large cell comb and they are happy with it. Have not torn it down to rebuild small cell.
 
#101 ·
The desire to be on the “leading edge” and maintaining economic superiority is also about control – controlling one’s apparent, abstract position in this world. The abstractions (science, law, economics) we make about this world are also an attempt at control – to control the world in our minds by conceptualization.
one's position in the world isn't always abstract. if you lived in tibet, for instance, you might wish that your country was more in control of it's position in the world.

deknow
 
#102 ·
I have been among the Tibetan diaspora in northern India. Certainly there are those that seek control, and even by militant means, but the basic philosophy is that control is illusion. While exiled they at least survive peaceably.

The Chinese seek much greater control - control of the land and control of a people who curiously don't need control. Control is the very reason for the situation.
 
#105 ·
I have been among the Tibetan diaspora in northern India. Certainly there are those that seek control, and even by militant means, but the basic philosophy is that control is illusion. While exiled they at least survive peaceably.
The Chinese seek much greater control - control of the land and control of a people who curiously don't need control. Control is the very reason for the situation.
...i'm only guessing here, but i expect that those living in exile in india are afforded much more in the way of freedoms than those still in tibet under chinese occupation. it is my contention that this population would be better of (and would prefer) to have more control rather than to be controlled. i can't say that i would blame them, and i can't imagine being of the opinion that they are better off being controlled than being in control.

deknow
 
#104 ·
Transgenics is a product of anxiety. And if one thing is certain about the future, engineering life is simply more of the same. -Tim Hall
I personally know several people who create transgenic organisms, and some were in on some of the earliest successful transgenic events. To a person, when I asked some of them about your statement, they denied that "transgenics are products of anxiety."

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

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

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

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

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

And honey bee breeders, such as Brother Adam, deliberately crossed races or subspecies of honey bees that would otherwise never have interbred. Talk about "unnatural!" If we wish to do away with all "unnatural" events or organisms, should we destroy all Buckfast bees (and all other hybrids that would otherwise not exist)? Should we simply destroy all forms of life whenever possible that did not exist in a location before deliberate or inadvertent transport by human activities? (No wheat in the Americas, for example, and no corn or potatoes in Eurasia; no cattle or swine or sheep or horses in North America, and no pheasants in North America. No tobacco in Europe or Asia or Africa. And no honey bees in North America or South America.)
 
#106 ·
>>Transgenics is a product of anxiety. And if one thing is certain about the future, engineering life is simply more of the same

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

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

Now Tim, who is propagating fear and anxiety here?
 
#107 · (Edited)
I liked Tim's bit of psychological analysis, that kind of thing is
healthy from time to time.

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

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

Buckbee I enjoyed your post #86 as well. Although I don't agree
that the langstroth hive is a problem I do appreciate what you
say about the arrogance of science. I study science, and it can
be quite arrogant at times. Its not the standard, but it does
exist. And this comes from someone whom is pro BT cotton.
 
#110 ·
Michael,

I would be the first to admit that making a transbee would not happen overnight. But keep in mind that genetic engineering is advancing quickly like the power of computers.
One possible approach that comes to mind (maybe the easiest place to start but not ideal), is to identify the least toxic pesticides that are effective against the mite (and bee for that matter) and test bacteria (unless some organisms are already known to be naturally immune to mites through biochemical means or an enzyme is already characterized that is efficient at catabolizing a known pesticide) from all over the world for the ability to survive high doses of the pesticide. Current batch sequencing approaches, old fashion subtractive hybridization, or DNA array analysis could determine the genes responsible for tolerance in bacteria. The pesticide tolerance gene would then be introduced into bee cells grown in vitro. The pesticide would then be added to the growth media in normal cells and transbee cells. If the transbee cells showed resistance and the normal cells did not, the transgene would be delivered through sperm mediated transgenesis. The resulting queens and offspring from several clones would then bee tested for miticide resistance. This is an oversimplification.
This kind of transbee would benefit beekeepers and consumers of honey by allowing for the eradication of mites with the least toxic pesticides. The goal would be to use pesticides with a low LD50 for mites that had a very short half life in the hive. So instead of applying Apistan strips, the beek could gas the hive from the entrance and kill all adult mites and then repeat once or twice to get the newly hatched mites.
Ultimately, it would be better, and also more difficult, to clone a gene into bees that would kill mites when they fed upon the bee.
 
#108 · (Edited)
>>Besides that, other "unnatural" events seem to be overlooked in this discussion. Honey bees are not native to North or South America. Their introduction and spread displaced native pollinators, and likely caused ecological disruptions that we likely will never fully comprehend.

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

A GM bee, enabling us to raise production and pollination bees without all the preasures of mite controls ect, would prove as a huge benifet to our opertions. Mites are truely the most devestating factor in colony losses in this country. They weaken the system of the bees, allow infections to get in. They are the root cause of many secondary diease infections and hive losses. If a GM bee would avoid alot of that, I think we could beekeep with a big advantage
But as I said earlier, I dont believe the economics are there to enable the reaserch and development into such a program. I wouldnt get into too much of a tizzy, this program would be a long and complicated one. It ultimately needs a pay off to attract funding!!
 
#109 ·
how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?
Wow. Took quite a while to slog thru this thread. Now that I have, I'd like to exercise my privilege of posting on this site by responding to your original question and my reason why not.

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

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

There. I think that answers your question without speculation or conjecture. No what-ifs or how abouts. And as far as I'm concerned, Barry can move this thread into the Tailgater where most of it belongs anyway.
 
#112 ·
Wow! I was a bit slow in the head and completely missed the insult behind moving the thread. Now that you have weighed in, I guess there is nothing else left to say. I am OK with discontinuing this thread. I think the feedback that I have received so far is probably fairly representative and has certainly met my objective.
Also, I had no idea how much of my time it would take to stay current.
 
#114 ·
>>There. I think that answers your question without speculation or conjecture. No what-ifs or how abouts. And as far as I'm concerned, Barry can move this thread into the Tailgater where most of it belongs anyway.
>>Insult? What insult?...Did you not want a straight answer to your original question or has this whole thread been just a trolling maneuver?

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

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

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

I ask you John, knowing that your bees may be collecting thier nectar and pollen stores from crops that may have been influenced by GM technology, are you still able to portray your product as "Pure, All Natural Honey"? And perhaps, knowing that your hives are influenced by GM cropping practices, are you going to quit beekeeping?
 
#120 ·
If it is just a trolling maneuver, you my friend have just got caught in it!
My apologies. My last comment was rather inflamatory, wasn't it?

I ask you John, knowing that your bees may be collecting thier nectar and pollen stores from crops that may have been influenced by GM technology, are you still able to portray your product as "Pure, All Natural Honey"? And perhaps, knowing that your hives are influenced by GM cropping practices, are you going to quit beekeeping?
Hm. Good point. But as far as I know (and I'm not a crop farmer) the only GM influenced crop in Ohio is corn. If I'm correct on that, then my honey and my pollen are not influenced.

Now that you have weighed in, I guess there is nothing else left to say.
More apologies, I suppose... You certainly couldn't know that I've been reading along and felt myself more involved than it appeared. I certainly could have edited before I pressed "Submit"... It's an election year. Guess I'm just in the controversial head-butting mode.

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

...the feedback that I have received so far is probably fairly representative...
I hope you're right. But I think if you're looking for an accurate representation, I don't believe you've gotten it thru this format. There's "lurkers" and "readers" whose opinion you'll never see. You'd really need to canvas a broader selection of the beekeeping populace. Perhaps spending time with formal beekeeping organizations? ABF? EAS? Submit an article to ABJ? Bee Culture? Good luck.
 
#115 ·
>>is to identify the least toxic pesticides that are effective against the mite ... ability to survive high doses of the pesticide.

I dont know Chris. I wouldnt favour a breeding and development plan that would involve building resistant or tolerance to heavey chemical treatments. My motivation in developing a GM mite tolerant or resistant bee would be to move totally away from any need of a chemical treatment. Thats getting away from the whole issue of developing a GM bee in the first place, and if you think there is resistance towards any mention of development of a GM bee within the industry, just wait until you tell them how you aim to proceed with that program! Youd be done before you got things started.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top