Sorry Science, Soap Bubbles Can’t Replace Bees
With bees in decline, a Japanese researcher has found a way to use soap bubbles to pollinate flowers but is it a viable substitute for bees?
“If the bee disappears from the surface of the Earth, man would have no more than four years left to live.”
— Albert Einstein (supposedly)
While it is unlikely that Einstein actually said this, the idea still stands: we rely heavily on bees. About one-third of our diet relies on crop species pollinated by bees. Contributing almost $20 billion to U.S. agriculture, honey bees help farmers increase crop yields and improve quality. While some crops, including cherries and blueberries, rely mostly on pollination by bees, other crops are entirely dependent on them, such as almonds. Bees also pollinate grassy plants such as clover and hay. Fewer bees mean less pollination for these crops which raises the cost of keeping cows, making your milk and beef more expensive. And of course, honey.
Unfortunately, the bee population is in decline. In 2019, U.S. beekeepers lost almost 36% of their bees due to Colony Collapse Disorder. The disorder is caused by viruses, pesticides, and fungicides which weaken the immune disorder of bees, making them susceptible to disease. However, this is not the only cause of bee loss. Other reasons include habitat changes, poor nutrition, invasive pests, and more. The bee industry has spent $2 billion in the last six years in an effort to replace bee hives.
Japanese researcher, Dr. Eijiro Miyako, may have found an alternative way for plants to get pollinated. While watching his son play with soap bubbles, Dr. Miyako was hit with an Einstein-like burst of inspiration. He decided to create “chemically functionalised” bubbles which could deliver 2,000 pollen grains to plans. The results had a success rate similar to hand pollination which is often carried out in the absence of bees (a feather brush is used by hand to manually transfer the pollen from one plant to another).
Before launching into the critique, I would like to acknowledge how whimsical and dreamy this solution is (bees and bubbles, oh my!). It isn’t hard to imagine a future society where nature and technology work in synergy: little fluffy honey bees drifting among rainbow-tinted bubbles, buzzing from flower to flower while I crunch on Californian almonds. Unfortunately, the reality is far less rosy.
Like most technological solutions, Dr. Miyako’s bubbles offer a temporary, band-aid solution that addresses none of the root causes behind bee loss. Dr. Simon Potts at the University of Reading (giggle) shares my sentiment:
“This is yet another piece of smart engineering being shoehorned to solve a problem which can be solved in many much more effective and sustainable ways.”
-Dr. Simon Potts, agro-ecologist
In his paper on why drones cannot replace biodiversity, Dr. Potts and his colleagues outline several reasons why a technological fix won’t solve the bee problem. Although he was specifically addressing the use of robot bees (which might be even cooler than soap bubble bees), many of the same arguments apply.
1. Bubbles can’t replace what bees do best
There are more than 350,000 flower plant species in the world which need pollination, each with its own complex and unique pollination needs. In turn, these plants rely on several species on pollinators to help them reproduce in ways that we don’t yet understand, says Dr. Potts. It is naïve to assume that bubbles can replicate a sophisticated process that is the result of a million years of evolution.
2. It’s costly, both for us and for the environment
Let’s do some quick McKinsey-style math. We know that $2 billion has been spent to save 10 million hives. Compared to this approach, Dr. Potts estimates that using tech, the cost of saving a single bee would be $10 on the low end. Assuming a hive has an average of 60,000 bees, it would cost $6 trillion to save 10 million hives using technology. I acknowledge that my math might be way off but consider the additional costs of upkeep that would be required by bubble maker-carrying drones. Further, such technology would most likely be too expensive for the 2 billion people in developing countries whose livelihoods depend on agriculture; only higher-income countries would benefit from this e-alternative to bees.
Working with drones and plastic bubble makers would take a toll on the environment. From the extraction of raw materials to the expanding landfills where the broken machines will eventually end up, the environmental cost is another factor to take into account, argues Dr. Potts.
3. Even if we solve the bee pollination problem, what about all the other negative effects of pesticides?
By relying on soap bubbles, we would allow humans to continue engaging in the same actions which have proved so destructive to bees. Even if bees can be replaced by bubbles, our practices will still have a destructive impact on the ecosystem in multiple other ways.
Widespread pesticide use has been linked with several negative health and environmental issues. Habitat loss can increase our exposure with deadly pathogens. Fixing the bee problem won’t fix the human problem.
It seems that other researchers agree that it isn’t a good idea to completely replace bees using technological solutions:
— Yu Go, Roboticist
While I’m all for using technology to support sustainable solutions, I worry about funding for conservation efforts. Can good ‘ole bees match the sex appeal of pollinating bubbles strapped to drones who have become the darling of venture capitalists? Even if we manage to save the cute fuzzy bees, what about all the other less attractive pollinators?
We have a tendency to gravitate towards quick fixes rather than dealing with the ugly truth: our actions have consequences for the environment and the species we share it with. Before I get too emotional about humans killing the earth, I would just like to say something to the bees in the iconic words of the Queen herself:
“You’re irreplaceable.”
— Queen Bey
