Implications of gain functions in fisheries management

The appealing concept of optimal harvesting is often used in fisheries to obtain new management strategies. However, optimality depends on the objective function, which often varies, reflecting the interests of different groups of people. The aim of maximum sustainable yield is to extract the greatest amount of food from replenishable resources in a sustainable way. Maximum sustainable yield may not be desirable from an economic point of view. Maximum economic yield that maximizes the profit of fishing fleets (harvesting sector) but ignores socio-economic benefits such as employment and other positive externalities. It may be more appropriate to use the maximum economic yield that which is based on the value chain of the overall fishing sector, to reflect better society's interests. How to make more efficient use of a fishery for society rather than fishing operators depends critically on the gain function parameters including multiplier effects and inclusion or exclusion of certain costs. In particular, the optimal effort level based on the overall value chain moves closer to the optimal effort for the maximum sustainable yield because of the multiplier effect. These issues are illustrated using the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery.

Robust estimating functions and bias correction for longitudinal data analysis

Robust methods are useful in making reliable statistical inferences when there are small deviations from the model assumptions. The widely used method of the generalized estimating equations can be "robustified" by replacing the standardized residuals with the M-residuals. If the Pearson residuals are assumed to be unbiased from zero, parameter estimators from the robust approach are asymptotically biased when error distributions are not symmetric. We propose a distribution-free method for correcting this bias. Our extensive numerical studies show that the proposed method can reduce the bias substantially. Examples are given for illustration.

Exploring the post-genomic world: Differing explanatory and manipulatory functions of post-genomic sciences

Richard Lewontin proposed that the ability of a scientific field to create a narrative for public understanding garners it social relevance. This article applies Lewontin's conceptual framework of the functions of science (manipulatory and explanatory) to compare and explain the current differences in perceived societal relevance of genetics/genomics and proteomics. We provide three examples to illustrate the social relevance and strong cultural narrative of genetics/genomics for which no counterpart exists for proteomics. We argue that the major difference between genetics/genomics and proteomics is that genomics has a strong explanatory function, due to the strong cultural narrative of heredity. Based on qualitative interviews and observations of proteomics conferences, we suggest that the nature of proteins, lack of public understanding, and theoretical complexity exacerbates this difference for proteomics. Lewontin's framework suggests that social scientists may find that omics sciences affect social relations in different ways than past analyses of genetics.