Show simple item record

Files in this item


Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorSchick, Robert S.
dc.contributor.authorGreenwood, Jeremy J. D.
dc.contributor.authorBuckland, Stephen T.
dc.identifier.citationSchick , R S , Greenwood , J J D & Buckland , S T 2017 , ' An experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honeybees : the value of a formal analysis of the data ' , Environmental Sciences Europe , vol. 29 , 4 .
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 248651479
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: e8f778c3-f847-46f3-8a29-5e7bbdb2c219
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85010660429
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000392612200001
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-9939-709X/work/73701060
dc.descriptionThis work received funding from the MASTS pooling initiative (The Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland) and their support is gratefully acknowledged. MASTS is funded by the Scottish Funding Council (Grant reference HR09011) and contributing institutions.en
dc.description.abstractBackground: We assess the analysis of the data resulting from a field experiment conducted by Pilling et al. (2013) on the potential effects of thiamethoxam on honey bees. The experiment had low levels of replication, so Pilling et al. concluded that formal statistical analysis would be misleading. This would be true if such an analysis merely comprised tests of statistical significance and if the investigators concluded that lack of significance meant little or no effect. However, an analysis that includes estimation of the size of any effects—with confidence limits—allows one to reach conclusions that are not misleading and that produce useful insights. Main Body: For the data of Pilling et al. we use straightforward statistical analysis to show that the confidence limits are generally so wide that any effects of thiamethoxam could have been large without being statistically significant. Instead of formal analysis, Pilling et al. simply inspected the data and concluded that they provided no evidence of detrimental effects and from this that thiamethoxam poses a “low risk” to bees. Conclusions: Conclusions derived from inspection of the data were not just misleading in this case but are unacceptable in principle, for if data are inadequate for a formal analysis (or only good enough to provide estimates with wide confidence intervals) then they are bound to be inadequate as a basis for reaching any sound conclusions. Given that the data in this case are largely uninformative with respect to the treatment effect, any conclusions reached from such informal approaches can do little more than reflect the prior beliefs of those involved.
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironmental Sciences Europeen
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.en
dc.subjectField experimenten
dc.subjectCritical reviewen
dc.subjectGE Environmental Sciencesen
dc.subjectS Agricultureen
dc.titleAn experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honeybees : the value of a formal analysis of the dataen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for Research into Ecological & Environmental Modellingen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Mathematics and Statisticsen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Marine Alliance for Science & Technology Scotlanden
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record