Questions arise about bee researcher's ties to pesticide industry

Last week we reported researchers from the University of Montana and the Army had discovered a likely cause for the mysterious colony collapse disorder killing honey bee populations, but now questions have been raised about a possible conflict of interest from the lead researcher in that study. Prior research has pointed to pesticides as a possible cause of CCD and The New York Times story we excerpted did not explore, nor did the study disclose, the relationship between the study's lead author, Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, above, and pesticide company Bayer Crop Science, Katherine Eban of Fortune reports. (Fortune photo via Bromenshenk)

"In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination," Eban writes. "Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant." Bromenshenk also runs a company, Bee Alert Technology, "which is developing hand-held acoustic scanners that use sound to detect various bee ailments" and would "profit more from a finding that disease, and not pesticides, is harming bees," Eban writes.

Bromenshenk counters that the study, pointing to the combination of a fungus and virus as a likely cause of CCD, did not examine pesticide impact because other research had previously done so. He also said his funding from Bayer for previous research had no impact because no Bayer funds were used for this study. "We got no money from Bayer," he told Eban. "We did no work for Bayer; Bayer was sending us warning letters by lawyers."

Times reporter Kirk Johnson told Eban that Bromenshenk didn't "volunteer his funding sources" and notes the study "doesn't say pesticides aren't a cause of the underlying vulnerability that the virus-fungus combo then exploits." Johnson said he tried to portray the caution regarding the findings from the study in his story, but the Knight Science Journalism tracker notes many stories building on the Times' reporting have failed to do so. (Read more)