One day the bees came home. They chose a hive box by the canal that had been abandoned last Fall by a cousin hive. Who knows why was it just right for these sisters now. Honeybees make every decision in a radically social manner; perhaps the most studied of any insect, we humans can simply not grasp how the bees think.
Bees almost choose well with a social intelligence we humans always wrote off as mere instinct. But recent writing suggests we have more in common and more to learn than we thought. A recent article What’s it Like to be a Bee,” notes “the decision-making process is broadly diffused among all the scout bees in a swarm,” and their final choice is “based on the actions of hundreds of individuals, each one an autonomous agent capable of providing unique information for solving the house-hunting problem.”
“As they search independently, widely, and simultaneously, the hundreds of scout bees from a swarm bring back to the group diverse information—knowledge of mediocre, superb, and even lousy sites—which are shared with the other scouts by means of waggle dances. Every discovery of a potential nest site is “freely reported,” and “no scout is stifled.” In this way, “a swarm takes full advantage of its inherently collective nature to assemble rather quickly—often in just a few hours—a profusion of alternatives from which to choose.”
Honeybees have long lived close to humans, but are entirely untamed—less violent, but more wild. We humans may be evolving backwards these days, as we are often tempted to think that somebody smarter, stronger or wiser can be trusted with the wickedly complex decisions of our hostile world. It is hostile even for 10,000 sisters with stingers which is why they make sure all of them are involved in important decisions. Ultimate democrats.
Humans got two things wrong about bees. First, they thought that the largest bee was a king, not a queen. They missed an even more important fact, which is there is no single bee that makes any decision at any consequence. Honeybees make great decisions—solely—because they have no elites of any kind at all. The crucial decisions depend entirely on the integrity and credibility of the scout bees whose only job is to tell the truth. These are the older bees who know the neighborhood; good at finding blossoms; and most likely find a new home.
Scouts knows what to look for, like scientists recognise clean data. Bees want a dry 10 gallon cavity with about a 1” hole, 10-14 feet off the ground, ideally with some old honeycomb. Scout bees rank their findings by the enthusiasm of their “waggle dance.” If compelling, their report encourages until other scouts go, look and give their opinion. Eventually the collective agrees to risk splitting the hive, sending half the bees and old queen to its new world. This is a massive risk only taken after thousands of bees have weighed the decision.
Bees live or die on the quality of this decision process, which is the point I’m heading toward: scientists are the scout bees for humans. Bees need scouts because there is always something new to learn about the neighborhood. Humans need scouts for the same reason. If we screw up the peer review process, we die.
Our scientists trusted to scan our global neighborhood so we can make decisions based on undiluted fact. Although some scientists achieve fame (Salk, Foege, Fauci) they have to earn their trust by integrity and credibility over time. Scout bees have no academic degrees, and everyone has the same mother. Scientists are better than their last waggle and that must be validated by another scout. A hive that disables their scouts is doomed to perish.
As are we.
You could see hive death happening at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) this week. This disease drives a large fraction of early death and vast public cost, nearly all of which is preventable by social and individual behavior choices. One of the older and most validated scout scientists is Dr. Steven Kahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, who also serves as the editor in chief of the association’s flagship journal, Diabetes Care. He was thrown out for handing out one of his editorials protesting NIH abandonment of many preventive policies. This is as close to an enthusiastic waggle as academics get. But very large bumble bee who leads the NIH feared competing waggle dancing so had the ADA throw Dr. Kahn out. Big Bumble Bee Bhattacharya was too timid to waggle himself and sent a lesser bee in his place. Why trust a bee like that? Why trust a professional association afraid of a good waggle?
A more systematic process of hive murder is visible in radically changing the rules governing funding of research. The Office of Management and Budget wants to impose restrictions on the kinds of research that can be funded and give political appointees the authority to deny federal funding for research deemed inconsistent with presidential priorities. As Melissa L. Finucane says in the NY Times, “The proposed rules be “corrupting the conditions under which rigorous science operates for the public good.”
I find many aspects of the current US administration repellent. But the corruption of research will well and truly kill us all. Nothing is more cowardly than suppressing honest data about race, gender, language, sexuality, poverty and ethnicity. Read their proposed rule here: Federal Register :: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. And comment here: open for public comment until July 13.
We will never be able trust our scouts to find home again.
////// Don’t forget to subscribe for free:
