»nature«

Fascinating as ever to read a piece by Natalie Angier in the NY Times (20.2.2007), this time on being a mammal.

Farmers are worried about the fate of bees. Their hives were hit by further strikes of the "varroa destructor - a parasitic mite that feeds off the bodily fluids of bees," writes Robin McKie in the Guardian (30.4.2006). Also often overlooked bees bring agriculture and nature huge benefits by pollinating fruit trees, flowers and other plants.

As ever, a must-read piece by Natalie Angier in the NY Times (12.12.2006). This time on the life of turtles and the threat of extinction.

Jürgen Kaube is delighted about this week's publications on bees (FAZ, 26.10.2006). Four major scientific journals published on them, the same day (Science, Nature, PNAS, Genome Research), to announce the decoding of the DNA of apis mellifera, coll. the bee.
Where does the enthusiasm come from? Well, for Kaube it's an example on our interest and fascination in pure science (not the applied thing). "You can talk on honey bees without an end - and you won't boost our business location, open a new perspective, won't make it to a panel discussion, foster our competitive position. We won't get any healthier by research into bees and unraveling the makings of a beehive won't help us to sustain in future. Hence, why do we have an interest into it? " asks Kaube. Well, must be something related to the fact that we are no bees and draw honey from fruits that are of no simple use.

Robin McKie points out in the Guardian (22.1.2006) that indeed chemical products for foods or medicine are better known (regarding effects and side-effects) than natural products. Well, that's a very general hypothesis. But the image of chemical is bad, while that of natural remedies (they are also chemicals!) is good. British chemists and toxicologists highlight growing fears about people's misconceptions about chemicals in everyday life in a paper called Making Sense of Chemical Stories.