Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Breeding Super Bees

Elliot Chang writes "Over the last five years the world's honey bee population has been steadily dwindling, with many beekeepers citing 2010 as the worst year yet. In order to save these extremely important insects, scientists are working on breeding a new super honey bee that they hope will be resistant to cold, disease, mites and pesticides. If all goes well, the new and improved insect will continue to pollinate our crops for years to come."

248 comments

  1. They tried this already. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this how we got "killer bees" in the first place?

    1. Re:They tried this already. by myurr · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong?

    2. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      super-weed killed the bees. So, we need super-bees.
      Super-bees killed the humans. So, we need super-humans....

    3. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nietzsche is dead.

    4. Re:They tried this already. by GeekBoy · · Score: 1

      Something like that. They cross bred a very docile bee with a very aggressive african bee which produced lots of very good honey. They though that by doing so they could get a docile bee which produced lots of top quality honey. Unfortunately they ended up with a bee that would kick your a$$ if you even looked at it funny, never mind trying to get the honey.

    5. Re:They tried this already. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Worst case scenario would be that they fail. From TFA:

      bees pollinate 90% of the world’s food crops

      This is not like tinkering around with a ton of fissile material for a lawn ornament, this is breeding bees to ensure we have food. Creating a second breed of killer bees is not a nightmare scenario. There have been 11 deaths in the US due to killer bees since the 90's. Imagine we create a killer bee variety that's worse, and that number rises a thousandfold. Compare that nightmare scenario to 90% of the crops worldwide failing to be pollinated.

      Which would you rather risk?

      If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

    6. Re:They tried this already. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I thought Lorne Michaels was how we got the Killer Bees?

    7. Re:They tried this already. by 246o1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mod Parent Up!

      Not only is the killer bee problem much less of a problem than people think it is, but the potential loss of the world's honeybees is a much WORSE problem than people think it is. It's another case of the less-sexy story being more important by orders of magnitude.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    8. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd rather not risk either.

      You're offering up a false dichotomy, that it is "either this, or that". Nothing is further from the truth. SOMETHING is going on with the bees, and we had better find out what it is. If it is really THAT dire, then this is an "all hands on deck" moment for science. Trying to fix the bees when it is not their fault is stupid.

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're suggesting mechanical self-reproducing bees?

    10. Re:They tried this already. by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      Nietzsche is dead.

      but if he was right he died after god...

    11. Re:They tried this already. by black+soap · · Score: 2

      Worst case scenario would be they work for a while, long enough that we become dependent solely on them, and then they fail. Imagine a scenario where they survive, but find it easier to pollinate non-crop foods. They discover a niche that doesn't benefit us.

    12. Re:They tried this already. by hierophanta · · Score: 0

      that something is climate change. if we could fix that as easily, that would be really great

    13. Re:They tried this already. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

      Congratulations fellow earthling! I'm here to tell you that we have selected your post as "that most likely to have saved the world."

      I come from your future - a future so bleak it makes idiocracy look like a summer camp. There is one bee left and it's getting really tired. If only you had tried harder! :-(

    14. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with.

      Thinking that nature knows anything is just as arrogant.
      What makes you think that nature won't kill us all if left alone?

    15. Re:They tried this already. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll just unleash the needle snakes.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    16. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it should be worth noting that these stories are specifically about honey bees and not bees in general. Honey bees make up only ~10 out of ~20,000 species of bees.

      If all honey bees disappeared it seems like there would be several other bees left to pollinate crops. It would be nice to find out what is happening with these bees but these stories should not be read as a "sky is falling" story as they are often presented.

    17. Re:They tried this already. by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're offering up a false dichotomy, that it is "either this, or that". Nothing is further from the truth. SOMETHING is going on with the bees, and we had better find out what it is. If it is really THAT dire, then this is an "all hands on deck" moment for science. Trying to fix the bees when it is not their fault is stupid.

      And you're offering up another false dichotomy. We try to make resistant bees AND we try to solve the problem with the mites. There are other scientists working on the problem with the existing bees. We have enough scientists to work on both. Hopefully we'll solve the problem without breeding new bees. If that fails, hopefully we can fix the bees.

      Not trying to make resistant bees because "it's not their fault" is stupid. Plus, that's not really what we do. Aside from fish, we domesticate (read: fiddle with the genetics of) everything we eat or use in the production of food. Why would bees be any different?

    18. Re:They tried this already. by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      Not only been tried, it's unnecessary.

      Commercial crops aren't pollinated by honeybees alone. There are many insects responsible for insect pollination. Not to mention that most crops are pollinated manually by pureeing male plants and spraying them on the others.

      This situation is a typical example of so-called in-the-know bloggers making completely false claims due to ignorance. Slashdot: so very, very average.

    19. Re:They tried this already. by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      The article is talking rubbish. That factoid about bees pollinating 90% of the world's food crops is extremely inaccurate.

    20. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Ghhhhaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:They tried this already. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Yes but 'honey bees' do not account for pollination of 90% of the world's food crops. There are all sorts of bees. If honey bees go away it would really suck but it's not the end of the world.

    22. Re:They tried this already. by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but in "I am legend", the monster was in fact the last human, in a weird reversal of the vampire's legend (a monster that kills at daytime, just because).

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    23. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

      Paranoia or not - it would be nice if they focused on breeding out the stingers first.

    24. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if they did become way more aggressive then the current killer bees and started wiping out the human population while pollenating plants, there would be a lot of food for the survivors. Now we just need bee keeper suits that can stop new killer bees that are the size of cats so the survivors can get to the crops.

    25. Re:They tried this already. by h5inz · · Score: 1

      Technological singularity (the Skynet thing you mentioned) would be actually a cool thing, if it was somehow in my benefit. The killer bees would be a cool thing too, if it was somehow in my benefit. How about a Rage virus that kills everyone else but me? It would solve all my (The Worlds) food problems, I think. Then I could eat a divinity fudge on a roof of a supermarket and crap on a dying zombie and that would be fun I think. And uh, that is it my diary. No no sarcasm here, I am just being in this happy mode again. I wish I had the Nuclear football thingy.

    26. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, killer bees are a family of bee from Africa, that has been steadily migrating this direction.

    27. Re:They tried this already. by carpenoctem63141 · · Score: 1

      Are there any birds left? I hear there's this thing you can do with the two.

    28. Re:They tried this already. by IICV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thinking that nature thinks, and that if it does it cares at all about our survival, is pretty much the stupidest thing I can imagine.

      Nature doesn't give a shit about us, or about anything. It just is - and if, in the process of nature taking its course, humanity is wiped out in the most horrific way possible, then nature doesn't care at all.

      So yes, we can know better than nature - because nature doesn't know anything at all.

    29. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with."

      Ummm...we do know better than nature. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading this on a computer. You'd be chasing deer with a spear. Hey, that rhymes!

    30. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's also how we got all our modern domestic animals and plants.

    31. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We already know what it is killing the bees.

      A Germany company called Bayer developed a widely-used insecticide called imidacloprid destroys a bee's immune system at extremely low doses. Bees pick it up in large amounts when they visit plants that were sprayed with the insecticide, carry it back to their hive, and it spreads around rapidly. Then the bees die from any normal illness they would otherwise be able to fight off.

      One of the earliest trials in Germany resulted in all bees within the test site dying in a matter of months. For whatever reason, Bayer decided not to stop and continued to develop the insecticide. They've always known from the earliest steps about its lethality.

      Bayer has been actively trying to withhold scrutiny of their product and are suing/threatening everyone that implies they are responsible. At least in the US, the EPA isn't doing anything so it may be up to other countries to investigate and find Bayer accountable for this mess.

      So to be absolutely clear, this entire bee problem is due to Bayer selling an insecticide that adversely affects bees as a side-effect worldwide. I really wish the media would make a bigger stink about it. It's not a mystery fungus or global warming.

    32. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      First off, I didn't offer another "false dichotomy" as you claim. I didn't give "either one or another" I said "IF / THEN" There is no "ELSE".

      Secondly if the condition exists, then it requires us to use an "all hands on deck" meaning looking at everything.

      Third, if we try to fix the bees, and the problem isn't the bees, what are we "fixing" in the bees?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    33. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "then this is an "all hands on deck" moment for science"

      The most important scientists work in high paying, high profile jobs like breast and penis enlargement, hair growth and other valuable things. The money is also used wisely, funding wars, buying fossil fuel at artificially high prices, bailing out those "poor" banks and their starving investors.

      By the way, the killer bees were created to make more honey, not improve their resistance to disease or other environmental factors.

    34. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not trying to make resistant bees because "it's not their fault" is stupid. Plus, that's not really what we do. Aside from fish, we domesticate (read: fiddle with the genetics of) everything we eat or use in the production of food. Why would bees be any different?"

          Maybe that's why the bees are in trouble?

    35. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 30-120 deaths in the US yearly from regular bees.

    36. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be an atheist to share this point of view.

      I'm sick of all the religious people who say that everything happens for a reason. It doesn't. If everything happened for a reason, then we would not truly have free will. Everything happens within certain limits.

      I have little doubt that God wouldn't mind one bit if WE (note that He said that HE wouldn't cull our population again) killed off 99.9% of the world's population or if it just randomly happened. Take 6 billion, and subtract 99.9%. That still leaves 6 MILLION people worldwide. That's plenty of people to carry out Revelations or the final chapter in whichever book you like to believe in.

      God does not care if we die or when we die. He only cares what we do between the time we are born and the time we die. God has a much different perspective on death than we do.

      So, it's not that even God can't save us. It's just that He has no reason to bother.

    37. Re:They tried this already. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance

      We do know better than nature. For evidence I offer up such artifical marvels as: the wheel, the screw, trans-pacific planes and boats, the transcontinental railroad in the U.S., micro SD cards, macro SD cards, buildings, seismographs, and submarines.

      If nature knows better than us, please show me where she invented anything comparable to those manmade items above that isn't completely inefficient or didn't take multiple thousands of years to develop. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

    38. Re:They tried this already. by leenks · · Score: 2

      If this is true, the parent should be modded up (there are plenty of articles suggesting it needs more research - eg http://www.fastcompany.com/1710746/bayer-our-bee-toxic-pesticide-is-actually-safe-for-bees)

    39. Re:They tried this already. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No that is not at all the worst case scenario.

      The worst case scenario is them making all other bees extinct and then either turning out to not be a viable alternative to crop pollination of all dying themselves because that is what a mono-culture does.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    40. Re:They tried this already. by leenks · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is more like 70-80% of crops (http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0703-honeybee_decline.htm). The World is still fucked without them.

      Oh, you meant in the USA, where most of the food (as here in the UK) eaten is manufactured crap - so yeah, optimistically 30% of the food the USA consumes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1005_041005_honeybees.html).

      Clearly this isn't a problem at all.

    41. Re:They tried this already. by leenks · · Score: 1

      Other than the africanized honey bee fiasco, bees tend not to sting. Most species of bee die soon after stinging and they are reluctant to do so. This doesn't apply to wasps, hornets and most other stinging insects. By breeding out the stinger we might totally change the behaviour and properties of the insect.

    42. Re:They tried this already. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Imagine the delicious honey we could get if we cross breed that with a grizzly bear, and a Puma.

      And that creature from Aliens.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    43. Re:They tried this already. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The part the media doesn't hype so much is that south and central american bee keepers have been quite successful keeping "killer" bees and like them for their high honey productivity.

    44. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the fact remains that the thing they were specifically created for ended up NOT being their dominant trait. What makes you think trying the same thing again won't deviate at all from the plan?

    45. Re:They tried this already. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Well I for one welcome our new Apoidea Overlords.

      Long live the queen...

    46. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be an atheist to share this point of view.

      I'm sick of all the religious people who say that everything happens for a reason. It doesn't. If everything happened for a reason, then we would not truly have free will. Everything happens within certain limits.

      I have little doubt that God wouldn't mind one bit if WE (note that He said that HE wouldn't cull our population again) killed off 99.9% of the world's population or if it just randomly happened. Take 6 billion, and subtract 99.9%. That still leaves 6 MILLION people worldwide. That's plenty of people to carry out Revelations or the final chapter in whichever book you like to believe in.

      God does not care if we die or when we die. He only cares what we do between the time we are born and the time we die. God has a much different perspective on death than we do.

      So, it's not that even God can't save us. It's just that He has no reason to bother.

      Did He tell You all that Himself?

    47. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a spiritual point of view I think it would be better to say "because nature doesn't know at all."
      because you know..things aren't important. unless you're a toolmaker.

    48. Re:They tried this already. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Thinking that nature thinks, and that if it does it cares at all about our survival, is pretty much the stupidest thing I can imagine.

      IMO, reification is generally pretty stupid, and has no legitimate place outside of literature and poetry, where it's called "personification". It doesn't make sense to treat nature, society, government, or any abstraction as if it has a concrete existence and can think, plan, know, desire, or do anything on its own.

    49. Re:They tried this already. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Aside from a joke being modded (Score: 5, Insightful)?

    50. Re:They tried this already. by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      I don't think-- I KNOW.

      Nature is already killing us all. We are built to die.

      It's only natural.

    51. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So yes, we can know better than nature - because nature doesn't know anything at all."

      Someone has a God complex.

      If we know better than nature, then why are we causing the sixth mass extinction of species?

      http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/

      Aren't we the root cause of the bee decline? Perhaps we need to consider that were held in check by disease until the wisdom of modern medicine turned us into a ravenous scourge.

    52. Re:They tried this already. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The most important scientists work in high paying, high profile jobs like breast and penis enlargement, hair growth and other valuable things.

      No they don't. You're a moron.

    53. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey ! You stole my response. But seriously haven't we been down this road already with African Bees crossed with North American Honey Bees?

    54. Re:They tried this already. by ladoga · · Score: 1

      Problem is that these super bees could potentially outcompete all other pollinating insects creating sort of a monoculture. Then species dependant on these other pollinators would suffer or even go extinct (birds, parasites etc.). It would damage the ecosystem in unpredictable ways.

      It's much safer to have 100 different species pollinating our plants than one. Imagine if there is only one species that does all pollination for our plants and for example a new disease wipes out all it's population.

    55. Re:They tried this already. by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      You should probably be able to spot this pop-culture reference even if you've never seen the movie.

    56. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You're biased by your short lived nature. And it is clearly evident. Wait for 80 years and then I'll tell you the answer you desire.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    57. Re:They tried this already. by buddilla · · Score: 0

      I have solution. Get the government to stop subsidizing GMO crops and start growing organic again. And the bee population will fix it's self. These people are like the same people that wonder why corn feed cows gets sick. Instead of realizing that they can only eat grasses. Instead they figure out new chemical ways to keep them from getting sick. Where are the environmentalists on this stuff?

      Anyone who has watched Food inc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppL_UuN73Fc knows what im talking about.

      Lets put it together, now. GMO corn and soy are basically the largest crops made in the US. Bees like these crops. Crops are poisonous. Bees are dead. hmmm, makes you wonder what these crops are doing to us.

      To help stop this from happening. Buy organic and don't buy things with high fructose corn syrup in it. Later in life you will have recouped the money loss from buying organic by not having massive doctor bills from eating all those GMO poisons. And you would have helped save the bee population that hasn't needed to change evolutionarily, I "bee"leave, for millions of years. Thus saving the planet and ourselves. I call that a win, win, win scenario.

      Enough said

      --
      Pitch Forks: check Torches: check Angry People: check - A. LaChasse V for Victory
    58. Re:They tried this already. by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      Worst case scenario would be that they fail. From TFA:

      bees pollinate 90% of the world’s food crops

      This is not like tinkering around with a ton of fissile material for a lawn ornament, this is breeding bees to ensure we have food.

      The "90% of the world's food crops" surely refers to 90% of the kinds of food crops -- not 90% of the biomass we eat. Wheat, corn, rice are all wind-pollinated ... the only ones I can think of which need pollination by bees are fruit trees like apples, and maybe oil-producing crops like rape.

    59. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Without resorting to he Gaia personification of nature, it is nonetheless a fact that the natural world is a complex self-regulating system that human beings are quite comfortable with. And interfering with any extremely complex system can cause totally unforeseen consequences before it settles back into equilibrium.

      Human experiments such as introducing cane toads in Australia or myxomatosis in the UK show that we do not necessarily know better than nature.

      Sneering at this as a superstitious Jurassic Park or Frankenstein style "we are meddling with the forces of nature/God's work" is missing the point.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    60. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That is surely an easily testable or provable hypothesis. Some Geman drug company can't buy off all the governments in the world.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    61. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. A large meteorite has no intelligence but it could still wipe out humanity. At that point, it really is irrelevant how many clever toys we've invented, the universe wins.

      And we'd be fucking stupid to say to ourselves "oh, let's construct an artificial meteorite and test what effect it would have if we crashed it into the Earth."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    62. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Technological singularity (the Skynet thing you mentioned) would be actually a cool thing, if it was somehow in my benefit. The killer bees would be a cool thing too, if it was somehow in my benefit. How about a Rage virus that kills everyone else but me? It would solve all my (The Worlds) food problems, I think. Then I could eat a divinity fudge on a roof of a supermarket and crap on a dying zombie and that would be fun I think. And uh, that is it my diary. No no sarcasm here, I am just being in this happy mode again. I wish I had the Nuclear football thingy.

      It's always useful to hear from an Ayn Rand disciple for a logical and incisive post that thrusts right to the truth of a situation.

      And as you're obviously such a fucktard, yes that was sarcastic..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:They tried this already. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Why would you expect a self-confessed nerd (see page's tag line) to give a shit about the shit that is "pop culture"?

      (I'm guessing this is a reference to Idiocracy, but it's a couple of years since I saw it. And it's hardly "popular", and barely of "cultural" significance.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    64. Re:They tried this already. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That is surely an easily testable or provable hypothesis. Some Geman drug company can't buy off all the governments in the world.

      Epidemiology should be able to give a pretty quick answer. It's unlikely that the pesticide in claim was sold in all countries. so, if there are countries where the insecticide hasn't been sold AND where there is a bee decline, then the finger doesn't point directly at the insecticide.

      There are no doubt lab studies under way. But some desktop epidemiology could yeild a very fast answer. And I'm sure it's been done already. The original AC has the whiff of "crank" about him (starting with being an AC).

      Why finger Bayer as a German company? AFAIK, they're a multinational, though German roots are undoubted. And why are a lot of drug and chemical companies of German origin? Because the German government invested a lot in chemical education, training and research. And they're still reaping the benefits over a century later. I'm trying to remember what got Bayer started? Ah yes, Aspirin, of the famous copyright theft case by the Allies during World Massacre 1.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    65. Re:They tried this already. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with.

      That's a glib movie line, but "thinking we know better than nature" is fundamental to every tool and every component of civilization. It does cause some problems, yes, but throwing it all out would be much worse.

    66. Re:They tried this already. by fritish · · Score: 1

      Obviously we get Space Bees with delicious royal jelly made by the queen bee.

      Don't worry, Bender can speak bee. Nothing can go wrong.

      --
      "Coffee is for closers."
    67. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no. Killer bees were a direct transplant form Africa. In the apiary community they are referred to as Africanized honey bees. They were brought here because the African bee's produce more than twice what the European bees produce. They have the down side of being ridiculously aggressive compared to their cousins though so were supposed to be strictly managed and they were until a new worker removed the queen excluders that prevented the breeders from escaping the nests.

      Since this is a breeding/engineering program they can select out the aggressive behavior. I'd be curious to see if they could engineer a bee that has no stinger at all and depends in humans to defend it's colony instead. If they could get one where passive was a dominant trait they might even breed out the "killer" bees.

    68. Re:They tried this already. by kryliss · · Score: 1

      I think by definition that humans are a virus upon the earth.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    69. Re:They tried this already. by kryliss · · Score: 1

      None of which would be able to be created without nature making all the materials and humans by default are part of nature so yes, nature made all of those things too.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    70. Re:They tried this already. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Nature made the raw materials. Humans made them better. Similarly, nature made bees. Humans are trying to make them better. So, once again, I assert that humans know better than nature, especially considering that nature is nothing more than a phenomenon lacking any ability to, "know," whatsoever.

    71. Re:They tried this already. by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      No, it's far less than that. Most crops are pollinated manually by people before the insects have time to take care of it.

  2. Won't someone think of the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Honey!

  3. What's the worst that could happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really?

  4. Haven't I heard this story before? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that how Africanized Bee's were created? Wikipedia thinks so.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Haven't I heard this story before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a bit different, they're trying to selectively breed everyday honey bees here, not cram in some new DNA that comes with increased aggression.

    2. Re:Haven't I heard this story before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to recognise the seriousness of the problem and the need to get new bies and to be frivolous is to be ignorant that the entire question of the existence of most plants, and so most of humanity, is to be or not to be.

  5. Cell Phones by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    I thought the problem was that they had to be resistant to cell phone signals? Has anyone considered tinfoil hats for bees? (because tinfoil bee hats, of course, would be ambiguous grammar.)

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Cell Phones by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I thought the problem was that they had to be resistant to cell phone signals? Has anyone considered tinfoil hats for bees? (because tinfoil bee hats, of course, would be ambiguous grammar.)

      Only because you've not yet discovered the hyphen: tinfoil-bee hats vs tinfoil bee-hats.
      The hyphen: Incapable of disambiguation since the rise of the Nazi Grammarians.

    2. Re:Cell Phones by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      I thought the problem was that they had to be resistant to cell phone signals? Has anyone considered tinfoil hats for bees? (because tinfoil bee hats, of course, would be ambiguous grammar.)

      Only because you've not yet discovered the hyphen: tinfoil-bee hats vs tinfoil bee-hats.

      The hyphen: Incapable of disambiguation since the rise of the Nazi Grammarians.

      Yes, that use of the hypen seems quite wrong, although it would take me several minutes to figure out exactly why, so it is not worth my time until I encounter it professionally, at which point I will consult the appropriate Nazis.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  6. Ok, cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see any way this could go wrong.

  7. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our industrious little overlords.

  8. Harder to kill = harder to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will make incidents like this one more interesting: http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/cafs/articles/1077825-Semi-wreck-spilling-14M-honeybees-draws-Idaho-firefighters/

  9. NOT THE BEES by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't sound like a mass of Jerry Seinfeld we should be OK.

  10. What's the problem? by Normal+Dan · · Score: 2

    Have they figured out exactly why bee population is dwindling? It seems like they are just fixing the symptoms instead of the actual problem.

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    1. Re:What's the problem? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 1

      The most likely culprit seems to be some insecticides that were approved for the market shortly before this problem really became visible. I believe two separate studies have pointed in this direction. Sorry - I don't have references handy.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by JordanL · · Score: 1

      I can't find the article, but I believe the scientific community concluded that among many factors, the most important was a newer, stronger form of disease that was infecting wild honey bees and domesticated honey bees, but was much more destructive to wild bees.

    3. Re:What's the problem? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a fair bit of info on the wikipedia page for Colony Collapse Disorder...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

    4. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we knew exactly why the bees were disappearing. Didn't the BBC have a documentary about it a few years ago? It was all explained by some doctor. Before you ask, no, I don't remember who.

    5. Re:What's the problem? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 2

      And.... http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/poisoned-pollen

      Which points to an insecticide weakening the bees enough for a parasite to finish them off.

    6. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a lot people in my area were convinced that bee populations dramatically fell off some time just after our local city government began aerial spraying and using fogger trucks to kill off mosquitoes potentially carrying the West Nile virus.

    7. Re:What's the problem? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Not really. Evolution is a funny thing. You can either become resistant to your worst predator, or out populate it. Sure, it will kill X, but if you raise the ratio, you survive more by populating faster than by growing giant fangs to bite it back.

      Make bees more tolerant to any other factor that inhibits its propogation, and they can outgrow anything, even infection. And, by increasing the numbers, you raise the chance for them to naturally evolve to resist infection or fungus or whatever it is that's killing them now.

      --
      I8-D
    8. Re:What's the problem? by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      I'm sure somebody will figure a way to blame it on gay marriage.

    9. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OrganicGardening.com eh? Sounds like a nice, unbiased source. Tellingly, they don't provide links (or even the names) to the actual studies.

    10. Re:What's the problem? by drbunny · · Score: 2

      In addition to the pesticide Imidacloprid linked below in organic gardening, leaked documents pretty clearly show a known link between ANOTHER BAYER PESTICIDE, clothianidin being a contributor to CCD.

    11. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The honey bees are getting sick as a result of the more recently introduced systemic pesticides which become a part of the actual plant and get in the pollen. Beekeepers know this is the cause. The bee colony will start to die off within a year of exposure to pesticide infested crops. This article has more info Pesticide toxicity to bees There is also a very informative documentary on the subject called "Vanishing of the Bees" Many countries have banned these types of pesticides and seen improvements in their bee populations. What's bad for the bees is also bad for people, which is why it's best to buy organic produce when possible.

    12. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the newer systemic pesicides that become a part of the actual plant and get into the pollen.
      Bee colonies will start to collapse within a year of being exposed to pesticide infested crops.
      Bee keepers know this is the problem which is why these types of pesticides have been banned by some countries

      There's also a documentary called "Vanishing of the Bees" on the subject.
      What's bad for bees is also bad for people, which is why it's better to buy organic produce in many instances.

    13. Re:What's the problem? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      They're not actually dying, they've all migrated to my garden. Well, maybe not all - just most of them...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:What's the problem? by willpb · · Score: 1
    15. Re:What's the problem? by dragisha · · Score: 1

      As a part-time beekeper (for 40yrs) I have my opinion here.

      First reason for numbers dwindling is less beekepers.

      Second reason is pollution - more pollution -> less "food smells" for bees -> less food for bees - smaller number of smaller colonies. Usual food range for bees is 3 kilometers. In polluted environment it's 0.8 kilometers. Food area is r^2*pi. Go calculate.

      Lots of talk around is sensationalistic, as in every other human activity. Knowledge is hidden under piles of disinformation, covering various interests. Industry, beekepers, governments... Most beekepeers, for example, would like to be paid for pollinating crops, and smaller number of colonies/beekepers means more money for existing ones... Complex game.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    16. Re:What's the problem? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      OrganicGardening.com eh? Sounds like a nice, unbiased source. Tellingly, they don't provide links (or even the names) to the actual studies.

      Yes, I think you need to visit InsecticidesRUs.com for truly unbiased reporting on this subject.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. This had a bad end the last time this was tried by smoothnorman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lest we forget the "Brazilian killer bee" problem, (which, I believe is still an issue), was the result of a good intention to improve the bee breed by increasing their active response via cross-breeding with more aggressive African strains. Then (as the story goes) someone (c1957) left off the queen excluder (grill that prevents from the queen from becoming a "free agent") and as a result dangerous bees escaped into the wild and several terrible horror films were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

    1. Re:This had a bad end the last time this was tried by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Several horror films, but not much else except a story here or there by someone who get's a bee hive in/on/near their house (in which case, it really doesn't matter what kind of bee it is, they'll all want you to go far far away from them). But they've yet to terrorize and drive us into the oceans yet.

      Doesn't worry me. I can think of more dangerous creatures, like the Philosorapture.

      --
      I8-D
    2. Re:This had a bad end the last time this was tried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      breeding a new super honey bee that they hope will be resistant to cold, disease, mites and pesticides.

      What possibly could go wrong?

    3. Re:This had a bad end the last time this was tried by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      Lest we forget the "Brazilian killer bee" problem, (which, I believe is still an issue), was the result of a good intention to improve the bee breed by increasing their active response via cross-breeding with more aggressive African strains.

      You (and several other posters) make it sound as if breeding and bees implies killer bees.

      In reality, bees (like pretty much everything else we use for food) are subject to careful selective breeding, and have been for hundreds of years. Buy bees and you get to choose between Buckfast, Italians, and whatever they are called. Clearly this selective breeding has to continue, or we're stuck with bees optimized for conditions which no longer exist.

      Here in Sweden, the problems that need to be dealt with are:

      • Beekeepers are dwindling. Most of the ones I know are aged 70--90 and about to retire. It's a dirty job, doesn't pay and you need a lot of equipment. My dad spent virtually all of his spare time tending to his bees.
      • The varroa mite reached .se in the 1990s, and kills hives and/or forces the beekeepers to use pesticides and labor-intensive methods (causing more of them to quit.)
      • People tend to buy cheap foreign honey rather than local, even though the foreign bees don't pollinate their fruit trees. The apparent value is in the honey; the real value is in the pollination.
      • Loss of flowering plants due to the destruction of the landscape.

      (Not the official position of the SBF, just my interpretation.)

  12. Hey, Morons, +5, Wikileaked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You forgot:

    the Military-Industrial-Agricultural-Pharmaceutical Applications.

    Yours In Novosibirsk,
    K. Trout, C.I.O.

  13. All Hail!!!... by Wook+Man · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I welcome our new bee overlords!

    1. Re:All Hail!!!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I welcome our new bee overlords!

      don't cock-up the formula "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords"

    2. Re:All Hail!!!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, welcome our new super horny bee overloads!

  14. Awesome. by God'sDuck · · Score: 2

    I'm hoping they aren't stingy with the modifications.

    Hone your puns, folks. Fi hive.

    1. Re:Awesome. by hellkyng · · Score: 2

      Good point, exciting new mods will create quite the buzz.

    2. Re:Awesome. by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I couldn't think of a good response to this. I guess I'll have to wing it.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    3. Re:Awesome. by Columcille · · Score: 1

      Bees with lasers FTW!

      --
      I love my sig.
    4. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Comb on, let's swarm up our pun generators

    5. Re:Awesome. by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      Watch this thread get swarmed by nerds with bee puns.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hivemind! retrurn to reddit at once! puns are lost here.

    7. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh give it a rest, honey.

    8. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out! Here comes NERD SWARM!!!

    9. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's a-pollen to hear

    10. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      mind your drone beeswax

    11. Re:Awesome. by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      That stings, don't be such a queen :'(

    12. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you didn't bumble that one.

    13. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a real zinger.

    14. Re:Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who died and made you queen?

    15. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no one died, but it was the raw agility that promoted me to queen

  15. First let's ban clothianidin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get rid of pesticides that both kill bees outright and make them more vulnerable to mites, then see what happens. You know, pesticides which should have never been approved. See http://www.naturalnews.com/030921_EPA_pesticides.html for example.

  16. I, for one, welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...our new super honey bee overlords.

    BuzzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzz

    1. Re:I, for one, welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, this is the old bee. The new super bee says: Goooooooogleeeeee ++++++++++++++.

  17. Look for the cause by twsobey · · Score: 1

    Since we don't know what's killing them, shouldn't we spend more resources figuring that out before trying to cure the symptom? If it eventually affects people, wouldn't more research on the cause be better than a band-aid fix for this one?

  18. Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientist #2: Well, let's figure out why, and attempt to correct the cause...

    Scientist #1: No, wait! We can use our powers of scientifity to create a new, ultraimpervious, megastrong bee...that way it'll survive anything we do to make it's natural habitat inhospitable...

    Scientist #2: Hmmm, you might be on to something...but what if it's not just the environment? What if it's some other natural evolution of another species that is now a predator to the bee?

    Scientist #1: Fuck that shit. It's gonna die up against our new SuperBee(R).

    Scientist #2: I'm almost convinced. What if this strikes an unnatural balance across the continent? How can we be sure that we don't fuck shit up for everything else?

    Scientist #1: Think of the money we're going to make once we patent the gene!

    Scientist #2: Holy shit, your solution is perfect! Let's get our friends to write some endorsements, and we'll be golden.

    Scientist #1: I'm glad we've come to an understanding.

    1. Re:Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Scientist #2: Hmmm, you might be on to something...but what if it's not just the environment? What if it's some other natural evolution of another species that is now a predator to the bee?

      Scientist #3: You idiot, that IS a factor of the environment! I agree with Scientist #1, fuck that shit. We want honey and our honey source is dwindling. So we're going to make a better honey source.

    2. Re:Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Scientist #4: Let's insert bee DNA into cows and make honey-producing cows!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F*ck everything. We are ging BIG HONEY!

  19. Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees? by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    I'm not a scientist in this field, but I'm curious (if anyone knows the actual reason) why we can't just figure out what is actually killing the bees?

    I know they've been trying to figure it out for sometime now with no luck.. what the heck could it bee? (yes.... yes that was intentional... I'm sorry).

  20. The real question is: by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

    The real question is: have they also inhibited their ability to migrate to other planets using the Tandoka Scale?

  21. Mix these super bees with Africanized honey bees by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    and pretty soon you'll have Planet of the Bees instead of Planet of the Apes...

  22. Already been done by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Didn't they do this a few years ago, when they created the Africanized bee or "killer bees"? Well, by all means keep it up, what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Already been done by perbert · · Score: 1

      Didn't they do this a few years ago, when they created the Africanized bee or "killer bees"? Well, by all means keep it up, what could possibly go wrong?

      According to the article, they're working with Canadian bees. So---so long as the bees are kept away from the hockey games and alcohol---nothing will go wrong!

  23. Super Bees = ??? by pezjono · · Score: 1

    Super Honey!!!

    1. Re:Super Bees = ??? by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      Super deliciously sweet honey, and lots of it!

  24. Digital Dog and the DNA monster by scharkalvin · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of a cartoon that was circulating around Digital Equipment Co. in the 1970's. Written by a DEC employee the strip's hero was Digital Dog, a super K9 whose owner had feed him LSD to make him smart. Anyway it seems some scientists wanted to create a cure for some disease so they combined the DNA from Killer Bees with the DNA of "Tricky Dick" (don't ask!). Anyway they ended up with a huge bee with Nixon's face and appetite for cottage cheese and ketchup.
    Digital Dog had to trap him so NASA could get him strapped to rockets to blast him into space.

    The same cartoonist latter wrote for Creative computing and a few other magazines a strip called "bit pit" which starred a VAX computer.

    1. Re:Digital Dog and the DNA monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That was a dream you had.

  25. SUPER BEES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our winged yellow and black striped overlords, may your reign be terrible and ever-lasting.

    And remember, as an anonymous poster I can assist in rounding up others to toil in your honey comb caves.

  26. sounds like the next scifi channel moive! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    It's super KIller Bees!

    1. Re:sounds like the next scifi channel moive! by kowala · · Score: 1

      This is the MOVIE of which you speak!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsVL22dIdKw

  27. Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by blair1q · · Score: 1

    No reason they can't get rid of the stinger and the hyperaggressive behaviors.

    1. Re:Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by vlm · · Score: 2

      No reason they can't get rid of the stinger

      Then the bears (etc) will eat them all and we'll have no wild population left. Probably not a good idea, long term.

      For safetys sake, I advise experimenting by killing all the mosquitos first, then once you know what made mosquitos extinct, try not doing that to the bees.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is,"Not only is the stinger a good idea, maybe it needs to be improved and hurt more."

    3. Re:Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The fungi and virera are killing the wild hives. We will have to keep bees if we want bees. And the bears won't be an issue.

  28. This can't possibly go wrong... by Faw · · Score: 1

    ... I've seen enough movies to know lab created entities *never* turn on their creator.

    1. Re:This can't possibly go wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a movie, I mean, it could never happen in real life!

  29. Hunney? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    This long after lunch stories like this give me a rumbly in my tumbly. Time for something sweet!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  30. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by GeekBoy · · Score: 2
  31. We can use the actual quote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new inect overlords!

  32. Ever Hear of Africanized Bees? by erilane · · Score: 1
  33. Oh, and we don't need the honey by blair1q · · Score: 1

    what we need is our crops pollinated.

    Got that? Honey=optional. Food=required.

  34. Why Stop There? by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

    Can we start breeding "super" humans that are immune to cancer, disease, cold, mites and pesticides?

    That way we don't have to worry about what we put in our air, water and soil since we'll just be immune to it!

  35. Super Dogs by necro81 · · Score: 1

    But they'll also need to create a breed of super dogs: the super dogs with super bees in their mouths, so that when they bark they shoot bees at you.

    [obscure?]

    1. Re:Super Dogs by HarvardAce · · Score: 1

      [obscure?]

      Not to even a casual Simpsons fan...or at least it shouldn't be!

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    2. Re:Super Dogs by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Indeed, nothing says "obscure" like a 20+ year old pop culture icon.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  36. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by GeekBoy · · Score: 1

    Here some information from that article I posted:

    Shan Bilimoria, a professor and molecular virologist, said the bees may be taking a one-two punch from both an insect virus and a fungus, which may be causing bees to die off by the billions...

    "researchers discovered through spectroscopic analysis evidence of a moth virus called insect iridescent virus (IIV) 6 and a fungal parasite called Nosema."

  37. Re:Mix these super bees with Africanized honey bee by es330td · · Score: 1

    Calling Andrew Wiggen...

  38. Stung? Sue Monsanto .... by argee · · Score: 0

    So, if I get stung by an engineered bee, do I get to sue Monsanto (or whoever)?

    1. Re:Stung? Sue Monsanto .... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      That's not how the New World Order works, citizen 1327877: get stung by engineered bee and Monsanto sues your ass for having their patented bee DNA stuck in your skin

  39. Re:Buzz by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Google Bee! Social Networking in a Hive!

    Tao Pollinates this.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  40. Monsanto Bees by HardCaliber · · Score: 1

    Would anyone be surprised if Monsanto created genetically modified bees, then sued farmers into oblivion because their fields were pollinated by them?

  41. Oblig Simpsons by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    Bee Keeper #1:: "Sure is quiet here today."
    Bee Keeper #2: "Yes, a little TOO quiet, if you know what I mean."
    Bee Keeper #1:: "No, I'm afraid I don't."
    Bee Keeper #2:"You see, bees usually make a lot of noise, NO NOISE, suggests no bees."
    Bee Keeper #1::: "Oh, I understand now. Oh look, there goes one."
    Bee Keeper #2: "To the bee-mobile!"
    Bee Keeper #1: "You mean your Chevy?"
    Bee Keeper #2: "Yes."

  42. I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not exactly.

    Over in parts of Brazil, someone imported African honey bees to raise in CLOSED enclosures, and like all pets they escaped into the surrounding terrain when the colonies became large and their containment was challenged.

    What I find odd is how quickly the African honey bees inter-bred with the native wild bee populations, and it didn't take long for the native bees to show traits that not even the original parent strains had shown. In my experience of managing several 40K hives with a single queen in them, the difference between a Africanized hive and a normal hive is 9 of 10 bees will attack you from an Africanized hive as opposed to a normal hive where 1 of 10 will only "investigate" and then 1 of 20 will actually try to sting you.

    In contrast, Africanized honey bees produce less honey and are over-active in a schizzophrenic way, where when disturbed they will actually survey upto 2 miles around their hive to aggressively attack anything that moves and will remain this way notably longer than non-Africanized populations. In reality, all bees that have stingers are the females and they die after stinging once because they have a barbed stinger that rips their intestines and poison gland out of their abdomen (except the queen, she is barb-less). Why have Africanized bees not simply died-off from their suicidal attacks then? They key is cross-breeding, where only a fraction of thier genetics remains after a 50/50 mating of the original strain gets reduced to verry low genetic footprint after successive mating with other bees. Also of note, because the queen mates only once are rarely more in her life, her collection of male reproductive matterial is stored for her life inside her and it's as though it is preserved, and with successive matings that queen might lay eggs that hatch either pure non-Africanized bees or native bees: there is her genetic footprint, and then there is the share of potential offspring that are fertilized with a pre-stored African contribution.

    In my opinion, scientists realy are the ones to blame: they are introducing unnatural successive genetic statistic into a genome that wasn't aquired through natural selection. With all the corruption of Monsanto Corporation, and the corruption of prior US Army partnerships to USDA to enrich and cross-breed dangerous animals and bacteria and fungus for warfare, you simply can't trust the scientists to ever having any wholesome ethics: the scientists themselves should be given the same suspicion as would when approaching a bee hive you suspect has lost it's native queen and could be turning into African bees with a new queen.

    In reality, there are higher-quality bees that produce more honey, not as destructive when agitated, have better social customs, and are more patient in their lifestyle. The average European Honey Bee lives anywhere from 2 to 4 months, but a Africanized bee lives less than 3 weeks. That alone is proof that the Africanized strain is destructive to itself if not just a bastard to it's surroundings. By far in yield and quality of honey, the greatest replacement to the Africanized bees, as well as to phase-out all Honey Bees due to the recent contamination, I would choose the Denmark Black Bee. Like the Denmark red cow, the Black Bee is endangered. I find that quite saddening how such a higher-quality animal is always the one on the bench.

    1. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a broad brush to paint everyone you have there, if you don't trust scientists or do not like things that are unnatural then may I suggest that you stop,using any medicine, using the Internet and computers in general, eating any domesticated animal(they are all selectively bred after all), using synthetic fibers or plastic, flying , driving..........

      Scientists in general do not approve of moving potentially invasive species across contents to increase yields, that is usually the preserve of farmers and politicians. However with a category such as scientists which is larger than for instance "programmers" (or indeed politicians) there is no homogeneous ethics or hive mind. University and publicly funded scientists tend to have principles and want to do the right thing, because if they did not then they would go to work for the military or scum like Monsanto who both pay more. Even so no subgroup is homogeneous either, everyone has there own reasons, there are some really nice military scientists for example especially doing medical research (were did you think most of the modern trauma medicine was worked out?) and some relay horrible university researchers(backstabbing assholes usually).

    2. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I find that quite saddening how such a higher-quality animal is always the one on the bench.

      The priority of every single living organism is to survive long enough to propagate. It doesn't matter if it's 3 weeks or 3 years or 300 years, as long as it happens within the time it is alive.

      The bees who live longer and produce more honey probably have too much genetic makeup dedicated to doing those two things than to actually surviving long enough to propagate. It's not like we have an infinite amount of room for genetic material. There's a limit, and beyond that certain limit, an entirely more sophisticated system is needed to sustain it.

      Which is why scavengers like rats and cockroaches are probably the most abundant animals out there.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    3. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised no one has mentioned encouraging native bee populations to pollinate (the mason bee is one). Yes, I understand this is only part of a solution, and by no means a comprehensive one, but I think it still deserves mention.

    4. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the type of super bee they make, I hope they won't be resistant to Sevin Dust and Drione Dust, two effective anti-bee insecticides that might be used on bees where a bee infestation may occur in a high traffic area and there is a mass-stinging risk if and when that hive becomes aggressive, and where a bee keeper can't or won't remove the bees.

    5. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All bees have die-off in their colony durring winter months, and the remaining bees live off their honey reserves: that's why these bees produce so much honey because to survive. Other bees that don't make any reasonable amount of honey are invasive to regions that are momentarily having a warm spell into their climate, or are so invasive that their genetics into that region cause more die-off because they contribute nothing to the stores of honey to survive when the nectar flowers stop flowing. The fact is whether global warming is natural or man-made, you have an opportunistic bunch of insects spreading across the terrain that ruin the diversity of neighboring species and sub-species to the effect that everything just dies-off when the course of nature rears it's survivalist face again. The fact I believe is that nature has been post-poned and humanity is allowing the spread of Africanized bees into areas where they are not native, and never could survive to begin with, but every year they spread and cause the die-off of 100-times the rate of die-off because they leave of a void colony where their influence and productivity suffers the greater colony to not store honey for the winter and neither to collect pollen and nectar. It's not only the bees that die-off: it's the pollenation of fruiting and flowering plants and trees that suffer, and farmers are suffering from their crops not yielding their essential rate and the people will experience a rise in the cost of food.

      The priority of every single living organism is to survive long enough to propagate. It doesn't matter if it's 3 weeks or 3 years or 300 years, as long as it happens within the time it is alive.

      The bees who live longer and produce more honey probably have too much genetic makeup dedicated to doing those two things than to actually surviving long enough to propagate. It's not like we have an infinite amount of room for genetic material. There's a limit, and beyond that certain limit, an entirely more sophisticated system is needed to sustain it.

      Actually no. In my younger years I amassed a large library of books on the subjects of insects and arachnids, and I've actually hiked miles around the undisturbed country-sides looking for the most unusual of species only to find them abundantly more around the man-made habitations. Likewise I find more insects humming under a lightsource at night, and their predators following them in the shadows like a bad shephard thinning their flock of the strongest. You find more cockroaches in the unwashed streets and garbage areas of slums then you ever will around the forests. Like when I went out in the deserts looking for the infamous Desert Iguana, I saw 1 small specimen in a mile yet when I aproached a distant gas station a'las behold there is a hole f*cking colony of them dug under the asphault and sun bathing next to the rest rooms while chasing prey near the watered gardens and trashcans. There is not much nature remaining, because it all strives for the least amount of work to get food and if you look around the world then you'll know that America is one giant sprinkler park city on a desert landscape that otherwise would have no life if not for the water rights rationed from a distant region of snowpacked summits. Africanized honey bees are the same way: they don't work, they don't store food, they cause entire colonies to die, and when the next season of flouring occurs they spread their short lifespan and poor genetics like a free cheap gimmick made in China to break when it's under stress other than demonstration. Africanized bees are the retards of the insect world. Don't kid yourself.

      Which is why scavengers like rats and cockroaches are probably the most abundant animals out there.

    6. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, scientists realy are the ones to blame [snip conspiracy theory stuff]

      By far in yield and quality of honey, the greatest replacement to the Africanized bees, as well as to phase-out all Honey Bees due to the recent contamination, I would choose the Denmark Black Bee. Like the Denmark red cow, the Black Bee is endangered. I find that quite saddening how such a higher-quality animal is always the one on the bench.

      That's the same race as the Nordic Bee, right? My dad (who was a beekeeper from 1940 to 2005) used to keep those and took part in the preservation project. They're not perfect either. The ones he kept were aggressive little bastards. More than once I heard beekeepers claim they were as bad as killer bees.

      It's still important to preserve this race of course -- for example for breeding more tolerant races.

    7. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/ Your own comment clearly states that the Africanization of hives involved no meddling with the genes.
      2/ It's not scientists making those calls at Monsanto, the US Army and USDA. There's an aspect of Milgram Experiment involved, but you're pointing the fingers at the wrong people; look at the management, the execs.

    8. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by kowala · · Score: 1

      We have ferel bees in our wall, how can i tell if they are Africanized? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=908rhoTqpAE

  43. Just one? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

    "If all goes well, the new and improved insect will continue to pollinate our crops for years to come."

    Wow, that's going to be one super busy bee.

    But isn't that putting all our gets in one basket? I mean, maybe we want *two* of them just in case one dies?

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    1. Re:Just one? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Hey, if Superman can be put to work as a clean energy source, then SuperBee can be put to work pollinating our crops.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  44. They're being bred in Winnipeg by Reed+Solomon · · Score: 1

    Bee colony confirmed as first round pick in next years NHL draft by Chicago Blackhawks.

  45. I for one welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new honey bee overlords.

  46. The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    The widely-quoted "90% of the world's crops depend on bees" is simply wrong.

    The vast majority of the world's caloric intake comes from grains, legumes, and tubers, the vast majority of which require do not bee pollination.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees

    1. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Clearly people are not drinking enough Mead. Think of the Vikings!

    2. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. Corn, wheat, rice, sorghum, cassava, and potatoes, among others, can get by just fine without bees. Notice anything about those crops? They're the most important staples. A world without bees would certainty suck, it would limit the ability to produce certain fruits (like apples) and increase the cost of seed production for non-fruit vegetables (like onions), but I doubt it would be the apocalypse that it is made out to be. Worst case scenario is an increased need for parthenocarpic & self fertilizing crops and an increased cost for those that don't. Again, not an ideal situation, but it is those staple crops that are the most important, not the tasty produce ones..granted, they are the nutrient dense ones, but still.

    3. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      and as someone who has been investigating getting some apple trees... apples need for a pollinator can be diminished by grafting different/compatible varieties to the same tree... physically reducing the distance that pollen needs to travel.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      Don't see Hot Pockets on that list. Winning!

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    5. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has also been shown that bumble bees, birds and other insects have been readily picking up the slack left by missing bees.

      I'm not that worried, I'd be worried if nature didn't know how to replace systems and adapt to changes, but that is just not the case.

      That being said I don't think anyone has said it yet.

      I for one welcome our new insect overlords!

    6. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      and as someone who has been investigating getting some apple trees... apples need for a pollinator can be diminished by grafting different/compatible varieties to the same tree... physically reducing the distance that pollen needs to travel.

      That's OK then. Obviously mankind can hack its way round every conceivable side effect of bees dying out because your apple trees are all right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we lost watermelon, kiwi, passionfruit, macadamia, cocoa, and vanilla, life wouldn't be worth living.

    8. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes...thats exactly what I said, way to read between the lines....as they head right off the page and out into space. Clearly any notion that there is anything that could be worked around is nothing less than a total dismissal of the entire problem! How could i tbe any other way.... certainly not an interesting side note on the discussion. That would be just...silly.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  47. Patented Bees by liquidweaver · · Score: 1

    Hey, Monsanto effectively owns the US soy industry by patenting soy DNA; couldn't these bees' get DNA get patented, in turn making their breeding (even unintentional) a licensing violation?

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
  48. Next step from Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next step is easy to guess, Monsanto will fund scientists so they engineer genetically modified humans that are resistant to Monsanto corruption awareness.

  49. Already been done (by Chrysler) by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1
    --
    No sig? Sigh...
  50. Gratuitous Post by krgallagher · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Super Bee overlords!

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  51. I, for one, welcome our new bee overlords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All hail king stingy.

  52. easier solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just stop killing the bees we have?

    http://wemustknow.net/2010/12/wikileaks-reveals-to-world-that-epa-allowed-the-killing-of-honey-bees/

  53. I for one Welcome our new Insect Masters by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

    Especially if they pay us in sweet sweet honey!

  54. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's AFAIK almost certainly a particular pesticide called [clothianidin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothianidin#Environmental_impact) \(and probably several other chemically similar [neonicotinoid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid) pesticides like [imidacloprid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid)\).

    http://www.google.com/search?q=clothianidin+bee

    In the USA with its even-more-than-usually-corporate-controlled news sources and government agencies, the especially bee-damaging effects of these pesticides is less well-known or discussed.

  55. Industrialization of beekeeping an undue effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many reasons for the bee decline.

    One huge factor is our industrialized approach to both pollination and production of honey.
    1. Hives are constantly moved from place to place to pollinate different crops in different seasons. Trucking them across the country causes undue stress.

    2. Bees are fed sugar water that has no nutritional content, causing a boost in numbers but leading to unhealthy broods.

    3. Hives are designed to be stacked and transported, not for the wellbeeing of the bees. In nature they have unique structures which have been developed through the evolutionary ages. I believe a natural (honey) beehive is larger at the top than at the bottom. It allows them to overwinter better as it captures heat in the upper portion.

    4. The combs that people design and insert into the hive and which form the foundations of the combs that the bee's will build are of a uniform size and shape. Bees naturally have varying sizes... the chambers which house larvae are smaller which allow the workers to actually hear (or somehow sense) when they become infested with mites. They can then tear it open and throw the larvae and mites out of the hive.

    5. Breeding. Just like any other domesticated animal, many bees are no longer suitable to thrive in the wild. I read about some Russian bees that can take a Russian winter and are non aggressive compared to the african bees, which by the way are the ancestors of our domesticated bees.

    6. Pet honeybadgers.

  56. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://inhabitat.com/its-official-cell-phones-are-killing-bees/

  57. welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I, for one, welcome our new honeybee overlords.

  58. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Probably for the same reason we can't figure out what is causing the rise in Autism: $$$

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  59. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    Yea but if we don't figure out Autism, it sucks, but only for the Autistic.

    If we don't figure out this, millions of people may die from lack of crops. So it sucks for everyone.

  60. Great Idea, until... by confused+one · · Score: 1

    This is a Great idea! That is, until the new super bees decide humans taste better than pollen and nectar.

  61. Rumor has it... by goonsquizzle · · Score: 1

    ...they're huge and they're sting crazy. Your firearms are useless against them.

  62. Remove the sting too! by wall0645 · · Score: 1

    As someone who is allergic to bees, I'd greatly appreciate it if they could also remove the ability of these bees to sting, or perhaps remove the venom/poison. Then I wouldn't care if they made the things indestructible and faster than a cheetah.

  63. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Yes, but most of them are poor people. Look how much everyone cared when Goldman Sachs speculation on food futures caused them to starve and see how much they'll care when lack of bees makes the same demographic starve for another reason. Turns out, you don't get to control a lot of capital as a result of empathy or compassion (well, except by exploiting them in the non-sociopath segment of the population).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  64. Didn't they do this in the '80s? by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1

    Only the '80s version had loud guitars and were called Stryper. They pollinated with Bibles, which might have helped churches but didn't do much for crops....

  65. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new super honey bee overlords

  66. If I get stung by a genetically modified bee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... what superpowers will I get?

  67. Direct link to the article. by antdude · · Score: 1
    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  68. can by blackbeak · · Score: 1

    Just feed some bee colonies with straight Roundup and house them in giant cell phones. The survivors will be Super Bees for sure.

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  69. Stop using pesticides by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hmm. Maybe if you stop spraying all that shit on out food we (and the bees) wouldn't be in such a mess.

  70. 90% figure is bollocks. by AC-x · · Score: 1

    bees pollinate 90% of the world’s food crops

    Bullshit. The most important staple crops like rice and wheat are wind pollinated, at most 30% of world food output depends on bees (the highest figure I could find, the lowest was 6%)

    The main effect that losing bees would have is that a lot of fruits, such as apples, would die out.

    If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

    Yes what could go wrong if you create a new bee strain that out competes all natural bees, becomes a monoculture and then becomes susceptible to a newly evolved disease that it has no resistance to?

  71. What could go wrong? by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 2

    NEWS FLASH!

    Transgenic bees found able to crossbreed with dragonflies!

    The resulting insects have five to six inch wingspans, stingers able to pierce Kevlar and really nasty dispositions.

    Scientists have dubbed them "dragonbees" and are said to be feverishly at work on a transgenic predator to combat the problem.

    More at 6:00PM

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:What could go wrong? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Don't worry. The LizardFrogs will eat the DragonBees. And the BirdSnakes will eat the LizardFrogs. The GorillaBears will eat the BirdSnakes and then will die when winter rolls around.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  72. I know what you mean, and am already there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists have never, in the history of mankind, ever contributed anything in terms of progress other than to synthesize and industrialize a solution derived from their allopathic lineage. When you refer to "medicine", you are ignoring the fact that your modern "medicine" has nothing to do with remedy and more to tamper the metabolic and neurologic balances rather than heal the source of the problem: take for instance Aspirin is derived from the bark of a Willow Tree and completely non-harmful in it's natural dosage of soaking the bark into a hot tea, and how the only thing that scientists have contributed is their kind of synthetic Aspirin that kills your liver. The internet likewise is nothing more than an abridged mail route of Post letters-close and letters-open, computers have historically been the mathematicians that resolved personal accounting in contrast to the rate of taxation (criminals^ahhem government demands money and normal people try to remove the threats using efficient calculations in terms of measured productivity and cost of living). You should know that in-between bee keeping I was a cattle rancher and horticultural plantation owner, so your caustic notion to avoid all "domestic" animals and such is nothing more than your political ranting in favor of non-productive "government" regulations. Synthetic fibers are the cause of much skin allergies, as opposed to natural hemp, flying is something birds have done without government intervention for untold years perhaps even older than God made the Earth, and then your suggestion that I should not drive my cattle is proof enough that you have neglected to read your State legislature concerning the definition of "driving" to be a regulation of the appearance of Commerce of compensation and profit and hire for any movements of unpaid property down Federal and private roads (it's not lawful to sell unpaid property from the street, per regulation).

    Quite a broad brush to paint everyone you have there, if you don't trust scientists or do not like things that are unnatural then may I suggest that you stop,using any medicine, using the Internet and computers in general, eating any domesticated animal(they are all selectively bred after all), using synthetic fibers or plastic, flying , driving..........

    Scientists and government are to explicitly blame for non-native INVASIVE species spreading across the continent: I grow natural organic heirloom tomato TREES, they are 5 years old and each 20-feet tall and bare 50lbs of tomatoes 4 times per year, and the reason I always get half of them these ugly mis-formed shit-tasting tomatoes is because government approved HYBRID tomatoes are planted by some idiots a mile away in their "topsy-turvy" that spread pollen from wind or bees. The same happens to organic soy farmers when some idiot plants GMO-soy from Monsanto, and if you actually read into the documentation then you will discover that there are entire Counties filled with organic soy farmers out in the mid-west where Monsanta was caught intentionally driving a truck through the farm roads and paths to use dispensers to inject their GMO'd soy pollen into surrounding organic soy crops and then Monsanto would hire investigators to file lawsuits that farmers planted illegally-obtained soy when it was EVIDENCE MANUFACTURING and THEFT by Monsantoa. Lots of luck trying to protect these bastards, pal. The difference between a RESEARCHER that you describe as opposed to a farmer, is a RESEARCHER has no experience running a farm to make a living because they are too busy studying to invent ways to make the world more dependent on their research, while the poor farmer has to be his own meterologist and soil tactician to know when is good to plant or lay fallow and how to get most yield and quality while balancing his budget and puting his kids through their studies and lifestyle. A researcher is in worse shape because their debt is foreign, while a farmer is most-likely a religious man that wouldn't dare demand payment for k

    1. Re:I know what you mean, and am already there. by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      I grow natural organic heirloom tomato TREES, they are 5 years old and each 20-feet tall and bare 50lbs of tomatoes 4 times per year

      I would love to see such a plant... alas, google has no images of anything quite like that.

    2. Re:I know what you mean, and am already there. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I grow natural organic heirloom tomato TREES, they are 5 years old and each 20-feet tall and bare 50lbs of tomatoes 4 times per year

      I would love to see such a plant... alas, google has no images of anything quite like that.

      Seven or eight feet is about the maximum height for normal tomato plants, and even supported on canes they're basically falling down under their own weight, their stems aren't that strong.

      I have never heard of a tomato tree 20 feet tall, pics or it didn't happen.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  73. What could possibly go wrong ? by bisscuitt · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new super bee overlords

  74. So this is the way the world ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not with a bang but a BZZZZZZZ.

  75. Our Flower Overlords. by badass+fish · · Score: 1

    Let's face it we as primates are in a symbiotic relationship with our food crops and well the bees too. We have evolved together in a symbiotic triangle. To the point that to insure future generation of species of plants that ensure life as we know it; we will go to almost godlike lengths to preserve the bees that insure the next generation of flowering food plants. This means that we cant get along without them;but if we did not pollute the environment,and put bees in numbers to insure cross-infections of hives the plants would get along fine without us. Making them the top of the triangle.

  76. Really, no one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I, I shall be the first to bow to our new bee overlords.

  77. Great reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    In order to save these extremely important insects, scientists are working on breeding a new super honey bee that they hope will be resistant to cold, disease, mites and pesticides.

    Resistant to cold? But, but, but... anybody hear of Global Warming???

    Maybe they should be looking into farming techniques that use less pesticides. It's well known that increased usage of pesticides (such as Bayers' brews) has been killing off bees and making the mites that prey on bees tougher. Idiots.

  78. Death to Bees by yokljo · · Score: 1

    KILL THEM WITH FIRE O.O

  79. Natural selection by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 2

    I don't understand this fetishism with "natural selection" by salt of the earth types every time genetic engineering comes up. Natural selection is random, meaning you can equally get "desirable" traits as well as "undesirable" traits (from the point of view of humans). Genetic engineering increases the chances that you can produce "desirable" traits and with proper precautions, reduce the chances of undesirable traits. With Africanised bees, it is not even the fault of modern genetic engineering. It was the fault of "traditional" breeding of two bee strains. That's right. The same acceptable and ancient method used to breed modern cows,bananas, carrots etc. is also capable of creating Frankensteins. The fear of genetic engineering has been drummed into the public by certain Greenie groups with their own agenda. It is unwarranted. When you put safeties in place to prevent accidental cross breeding of GM animals/plants and wild animals/plants by making them infertile, you are accused of money grabbing and playing God. If you don't do it, then you are accused of endangering "natural" genetic populations.

    1. Re:Natural selection by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      with "natural" selection, when selecting for desired traits, you kill/destroy/neuter those with undesired traits before they can pass them on...

      When you put safeties in place to prevent accidental cross breeding of GM animals/plants and wild animals/plants by making them infertile, you are accused of money grabbing and playing God. If you don't do it, then you are accused of endangering "natural" genetic populations.

      and rightly fucking so...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  80. Hey yeah by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

    I'm the one that you wanted. Hey yeah, I'm your super bees.

  81. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new bee overlords ....

  82. The Green Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Frank Herbert write something about this?

  83. a worthless band aid on a systemic problem by australopithecus · · Score: 2

    most of the issues with honeybee susceptibility to mites, etc. comes from the desire to turn beehives into reproducible factories. much like antibiotic resistant bacteria, we are developing insecticide resistant mites. how about a return to more traditional beekeeping methods, which would result in jobs being created as more care is needed to manage the hives?

  84. Invasive species from europe by ron-l-j · · Score: 2

    The honey bee is invasive it originated in Europe and has been spread around the world by man. I did a report on this in my environmental science class in college last year. Where I live we have natural bees that do more pollination than any small collection of honey bees in hives. SCCD or Sudden colony collapse disorder when the queen leave the nest for no apparent reason is not going to affect us at all. Maybe the American Indians couldn't grow corn before the European honey bee was introduced in america. There are plenty of healthy native bees out there doing the job. But I would lie about some garbage to get scientific funding too..... The whole Idea is insane.

  85. Humans greed is the bee killer by lsatenstein · · Score: 2

    When you start doing biological gene modification to the plants that bees go to pollinate, so that farmers will have to purchase seed, because the one they have is sterile, or genetically modified to be toxic to insects and bees, then this is the price we pay. In other words, get back to regular seeds that were in use before the modified ones were forced on the cultivators of flowers, grain, vegetables, fruits.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  86. I for one... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    welcome our super bee overlords!

  87. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new bee overlords.

  88. It's how you fertilize and prune, while aging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys, many of you would say the same about a Rose Tree, but what none of you realize about Tomatoe bushes is that after 1 year their stem becomes woody.

    All you need to do is use a juicer on sea kelp, save the juice for your own diluted beverages, and throw the pulp into the mulch that you used to grow the Tomato bush in; then use a pole to tie the apical stem of that future Tomato Tree onto and simply don't allow any lateral branches and fruiting flowers to happen. After 1st year you will have a oddball 5-foot tall Tomato Tree with ugly zig-zag pruning, but as long as you protect that primary apical stem and bud from damage then it will continue growing upwards.

    While you prune later apical stems and buds, you can replant those in the ground, so in-effect you can ungraft/layer an acre of Tomato bushes into the ground just as you work your Tomato Tree to grow straight upwards. The Tomato Tree will never be able to support itself in the 1st year and maybe even the 2nd because it grows too fast and it's base trunk is simpyl not "woody" enough yet, and like a Rose Tree it simply takes time. Hybrid Tomato bushes can't realy be relied upon to be pruned because all in their lifestyle they over-produce fruits that simply over-weight the plant regardless of the orientation, whereas heirloom Tomato bushes grow at their own pace and capacity.

    Just keep it pruned, or better yet after 3 years allow the Hornworms to do the pruning for you and they'll never be top-heavy.

  89. Not sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the same species of bees are localized and prevented from inter-breeding, then they "speciate" into divergent trees of genome. It usually takes untold years, where going back to the fossil record on general animals it could be either as early as a couple hundred years of hyber-breeding behavior as soon as they are mature and the parents are isolated from ever contributing any further to the genetic make-up. In the wild, this could be as early as a thousand years of regular competition, but for farmers this would take only a little longer than a bio-tech.

    Denmark Black Bee might be just that in terms of difference to the Nordic Black Bee. Likewise, African honey bees are nearly physically the same as European honey bees in that they only have slightly different wing veins and are measureably smaller in average size only due to their quicker growth. The African honey bees don't have any winter period in which they sit in their hives to sustain for months on their honey reserves or die, whereas European honey bees must do just that in many of their climates throughout those regions, and that is the primary genome selection that drove these two genomes to speciate divergent from eachother; sure they are compatible for cross-breeding, but the Africanized are simply mis-placed and destructive in the wrong habitat but they don't know that other than live and die trying no matter what.

    There is no tolerance here. Both of the European and African honey bees have social customs of replacing the queens of competing hives, and raping eachother, but the African and Africanized hone bees are simply the most aggressive short-lived tactical retards of the entire sub-species that their soul-less expansion is against their own nature and against all that is purposed for anti-social social insects. It's not getting any better, and there is no way to breed them back into a better lineage: and every fraction of their DNA into neighboring non-Africanized down to the last drop will always result in a hive that is destructive to it's own end. African honey bee genome is as though they are terminator genes.

    It's as thouhg Loki put them there just to test the faith of bee keepers.

  90. Back in Lab 257 on Plumb Island. ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, the execs are the one's doing it, but remember that much of the research work is always sub-managed by someone that is more in tune with their CEO and the disclosed goals while the others are compartmentalized to never see much of the motivation to persue their work.

    Consider that USDA shared Plumb Island with US Army engineers and they worked together to experiment on animals and be the ones that first imported former NAZI scientists to continue enriching the US bio-warfare projects and the initial blame for Lime disease harmonized onto mites. Really bad, that even a compartmentalized project has full disclosure yet everyone just continues knowing full-well what they are doing and why. Yea sure, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and I use a Katana to cut butter onto my toasted bread.

  91. Insecticide is obsolete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any poison focused on one insect group is simply bad ethics, imo. Have you ever tried a Dial liquid soap in a squirt bottle? It knocks all winged insects out of the air in 5 to 10 seconds after use, and kills them within 90 seconds regardless of race. Whatever is in Dial liquid soap is a worse neuro toxin and killer. The way it works is flying insects inhale and exhale their lungs on every cycle they beat their wings, and so that means they have no choice but breathe as they fly: bam, they are gone.

    Sure it kills everything, but you only want to kill the ones that are trying to actively fly at to sting you alone: you'ld only be killing the African and Africanized ones.

  92. They must have short memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "scientists are working on breeding a new super honey bee that they hope will be resistant to cold, disease, mites and pesticides"

    And what about all the reports of bees dying from cell phone radiation? Is that just another joke, or are bees dying from that as well? And if they are, what's the point of even making these super bees if they are gonna get fried by all our chatter?