Programs: Science and Policy
Science and Technology in Congress
Note: In order to bring you more of our Science Policy coverage, we've started providing the Agency Updates section with developments from relevant Executive Branch agencies. Our reports section no longer contains summaries--please do consult the executive summaries contained within the reports for quick coverage. We welcome any comments on our new format!
Research Funding Flat in 2009 as Federal Budget Stalls
Fiscal year (FY) 2009 began on October 1 with final budget decisions for most federal agencies postponed into the new year. To keep the government operating, lawmakers combined three final appropriations bill into a continuing resolution (CR) that extends funding for all programs in the remaining unsigned 2009 appropriations bills at 2008 funding levels through March 6. President Bush signed the measure, H.R. 2638, into law on September 30.
The CR contains final FY 2009 appropriations for the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA); all three receive substantial increases for their R&D portfolios. Other federal agencies covered by the remaining appropriations bills will be operating temporarily at or below 2008 funding levels for several months. The CR excludes from its FY 2008 base most supplemental appropriations; thus agencies that received additional funds through the mid-year supplemental, including the National Institutes of Health, NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, will see a decrease under the CR. The CR, however, does allow the FDA to count the $150 million FY 2008 supplemental it received as part of its base.
The CR provides $2.5 billion for the Pell Grant program, which gives aid to college students, and $5.1 billion for low-income heating assistance. A $25 billion loan program for the auto industry is also part of the CR, as is $22.9 billion in disaster relief funding.
Overall, the federal government enters FY 2009 with an R&D portfolio of $147.3 billion, an increase of $2.9 billion or 2.0 percent due entirely to a large increase for DOD's R&D. Defense R&D gains strongly with a 3.6 percent or $3.0 billion boost to $86.1 billion in 2009, nearly all of which is final, but the flat-funding formula of the CR results in a $61.2 billion total for nondefense R&D at the start of FY 2009, a cut of 0.1 percent compared to 2008.
Taking out development funds, the federal investment in basic and applied research could decline for the fifth year in a row in 2009 after adjusting for inflation if the CR's funding levels hold for the entire year.
The flat funding levels of the CR put requested increases for the three agencies in the Bush Administration's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) on hold. Although congressional appropriators had endorsed and even added to large requested increases for NSF, DOE Office of Science, and Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories (NIST) in early versions of the 2009 appropriations bills, the next Congress may have to start all over again. In the meantime, the three key physical sciences agencies begin FY 2009 with funding levels at or slightly below 2008.
A full update on FY09 appropriations - including tables - is available on the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program website.
-- Kei Koizumi
As NASA reflected on its 50 year anniversary, Congress advanced a bill that examines its future. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063) was sent to the President for his signature on October 6 after passing both chambers with broad bipartisan support. The bill authorizes $20.2 billion for FY 2009, far more than the $17.1 billion appropriated to the agency in the FY 2009 continuing resolution.
H.R. 6063 was introduced on May 15 by Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Mark Udall (D-CO) and was originally co-sponsored by the Science and Technology Committee’s Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Tom Feeney (R-FL). It initially passed the House on June 18 by a vote of 409 to 15. After passing the Senate with minor modifications, the final bill passed the House by unanimous consent.
The measure notes the important role a balanced and adequately funded science program at NASA plays in the nation's innovation agenda. The bill authorizes an 11 percent increase over the President's request in scientific research and strengthens NASA's earth science, space science, and aeronautics programs. The bill contains provisions on scientific integrity, expressing "the sense of Congress that NASA should not dilute, distort, suppress, or impede scientific research or the dissemination thereof.” The bill includes a plan for continuation of the Landsat remote-sensing satellite program and re-authorizes the Glory mission to examine the effects of aerosols and solar energy on Earth’s climate.
H.R. 6063 continues NASA’s path toward completing the International Space Station and transitioning from the Space Shuttle to the new Constellation launch systems. The legislation authorizes the agency to fly two additional Shuttle missions to service the International Space Station and a third flight to launch a DOE experiment to study charged particles in cosmic rays.
The Senate version of the bill added language that directs NASA to suspend any activities between now and April 30, 2009 that could preclude operation of the Space Shuttle after 2010 to provide an opportunity to the incoming Presidential Administration to evaluate the Space Shuttle’s retirement, providing another opportunity for reassessment and redirection of the agency.
-- Kasey White
Two weeks before National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni announced his resignation from the post he’s held since 2002, he spent a busy week on Capitol Hill, testifying in two separate House hearings.
One hearing, held by the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on September 11, examined a new bill—H.R. 6845, dubbed the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act—designed to overturn the NIH Public Access Policy. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) is the bill’s sponsor.
NIH began implementing the current Public Access Policy, which requires NIH-funded researchers to submit copies of peer-reviewed journal manuscripts to a publicly accessible digital archive, in April after it was included in the FY08 appropriations bill. Prior to that, the policy was voluntary for two and a half years, but participation rates reportedly hovered at a percentile in the single digits.
Testifying in support of NIH’s policy was Zerhouni and Heather Joseph, executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), a library advocacy organization. On the other side of the issue were Martin Frank, head of the American Physiological Society and a group of scientific publishers called the DC Principles Coalition, and George Washington University law professor Ralph Oman.
The appropriations language states that NIH’s policy must be implemented in a manner consistent with copyright law, but witnesses disagreed about whether that is happening. While Zerhouni maintained that the NIH is not taking away copyright, Oman said that the policy dilutes copyright because it will cause the publishing community to lose money and, in turn, its ability to provide its services.
Two days before the public access hearing, Zerhouni was the only witness tasked with providing members of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel a progress report on the NIH Reform Act, which passed two years ago [see STC December 2006] and reauthorized the agency. Some of the Reform Act provisions that Zerhouni discussed were the Common Fund, which is designed for trans-NIH research; new programs for high-risk research; the switch to a uniform coding system to identify research grants and activities; and the Scientific Management Review Board, assigned to assess NIH’s organizational structure. Zerhouni took the opportunity to announce a new grant program designed for “out-of-the-box” research, known as a T-R01 award (“T” designating “transformative”), and to name the first members of the Scientific Management Review Board.
-- Erin Heath
As the 110th Congress wraps up, legislators are already looking ahead to the next session, releasing drafts of climate change proposals they hope to advance. On October 7, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair John Dingell (D-MI) and Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Chair Rick Boucher (D-VA) released a new proposal for a cap-and-trade system to control U.S. greenhouse emissions. The draft bill would cap emissions at 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, more aggressive than the Lieberman-Warner bill (S.3036) that garnered a great deal of attention earlier this year (See June 2008 STC Newsletter for more details).
Many of the bill’s provisions are similar to Lieberman-Warner in terms of the mechanisms by which emissions would be controlled. This includes the creation of a market-based system of emissions permits that can be traded from one firm to another in order to remain within the cap set by the government, which would decline each year until reaching its ultimate reduction goal in 2050. The bill would give control of the carbon permit allocation process to the EPA, although the draft bill does not settle upon a means of determining permit price. Instead, it offers four possible scenarios, ranging from initially offering the permits for free to limit burdens on covered firms to a proposal to use the allowance values entirely as rebates for consumers. Regardless of the option chosen, the proposal would invest in energy efficiency and clean energy technology, return value from permits back to low-income consumers, and auction all permits after 2026.
The draft bill would permit purchasing of EPA-approved domestic and international carbon offset credits, although firms would be limited to offsetting only 5 percent of their emissions in the first five years, eventually increasing to 35 percent in 2024. The Lieberman-Warner bill would have permitted 15 percent of emissions to be offset with domestic carbon offset credits and up to 5 percent with international credits, but not until after 2012.
The Energy and Commerce bill is one of several that have emerged from either the House or Senate in recent days, demonstrating the significant interest in crafting legislation that will make it through Congress in the next session. An outline of principles for climate change legislation, based on adhering to greenhouse gas reductions that will limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, was sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) by a group of 152 representatives, led by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), and Edward Markey (D-MA). These recommendations include a cap on carbon emissions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, more rapid policy responses to climate science, better international cooperation, investment in clean energy technology, and economic measures to protect both consumers and domestic industries. Rep. Markey is Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and released his own climate change bill (H.R.6186) earlier this year. He issued a press release on October 7 welcoming the Dingell-Boucher bill and said that “The draft legislation lays out a range of options for structuring a cap and trade system that are likely to trigger a vigorous and healthy debate about how best to reduce global warming pollution.”
In the Senate, a group of 16 Democrats known as the “Gang of 16” are attempting to craft a new bill that will address concerns that arose during the debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill, namely the distribution process for emissions allowances and how to use low-carbon energy development to stimulate job creation.
The new Senate proposal, according to its drafters, would look to focus on critical areas of concern, namely examining carbon offsets, containing the costs of abatement, and protecting consumers. Provisions addressing these issues include creating incentives for farmers to produce marketable offset credits, investing in low-carbon energy technology such as clean-coal, providing flexibility for businesses if new technology is not available or too expensive, and providing energy assistance to low income families on order to offset any rise in energy costs that result from the legislation. Measures such as these reflect growing interest in Congress to address the broad spectrum of concerns so that a successful compromise may be reached.
On September 24, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) unveiled legislation to revamp the patent process. The bill (S. 3600) was introduced as an alternative to a measure (S. 1145) sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Although the Leahy/Hatch bill was placed on the Senate calendar it was not voted on and continued to elicit objections from the biotechnology community.
Kyl’s legislation, embraced by the biotech industry, would retain one of the primary purposes of the Leahy/Hatch bill, namely shifting from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file provision. Supporters of this change argue that it would lead to a more efficient patent system by removing an expensive and time-consuming process of determining who conceived of an invention first. More importantly, it would bring the U.S. system into line with the patent systems of its major trading partners, leading to greater legal certainty within innovative industries by providing a definite and readily determined date of priority of invention.
Kyl’s proposal does diverge from the Leahy/Hatch proposal in a number of important areas. For example, it would change the method for calculating damages in patent lawsuits by requiring that standardized economic analyses be utilized to determine damages. In contrast, the Leahy/Hatch proposal requires that damages be calculated either by the value of the entire product or an apportionment of that product (ie, the value of the specific component or element that makes up the patent).
The bill also would change the post-grant review process by allowing ‘two windows’ of opportunity for an individual or entity to provide evidence in order to challenge a patent claim. The first window would expire nine months after a patent has been awarded, and limits claims during the second window to evidence that address novelty or obviousness (e.g., prior publications).
Finally, Kyl’s legislation would shift the responsibility of “final determination” of an applicant’s ‘inequitable conduct’ or intent to mislead from the courts to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), allowing the USPTO to conduct reexaminations of patent claims without the associated higher costs of litigation. However, the courts must first determine whether there is sufficient evidence against the patent owner for a reexamination by the USPTO.
For additional information on these issues, please reference the AAAS Patent Reform Policy Brief.
-- Joanne Carney
In a September 18 hearing that echoed recurring concerns on Capitol Hill about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific review processes, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations heard testimony on recent changes to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the EPA’s process for evaluating and listing potentially toxic chemicals. In April, the EPA began using a revamped IRIS process that includes several additional steps, including added interagency reviews at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The lengthier reviews and reduction in transparency in the process were identified as problematic in a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that was the subject of a May 21 hearing of the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. GAO report author John B. Stephenson testified that the new process slows and reduces the transparency of IRIS reviews because it adds two additional OMB coordinated interagency review steps in which the comments are not made publicly available, the first of which is for draft assessments that have not yet been provided to external peer review panels. Stephenson explained that agencies or industries with an interest in keeping a chemical off the IRIS list could have an influence on the review process without public knowledge and that whether such influence is occurring or not, the process must be transparent in order to be valid.
Stephenson provided examples from the GAO report of cases in which political influence could have affected the outcome of an IRIS review or delayed its conclusion. Among these was a review of trichloroethylene, commonly known as TCE, which is used as a degreaser by industry and by several government agencies. A draft IRIS review of TCE, released by the EPA in 2001, found that it had a high likelihood of causing cancer in humans. This finding was questioned during peer review and several government agencies sponsored a National Academies review of the findings. The Academies’ conclusion, released in 2006, was that the evidence of TCE’s link to cancer had only strengthened since the IRIS report and it recommended that the EPA expedite finalization of the review. However, due to additional comments, the analysis of TCE returned to the draft development stage of IRIS and is not expected to be complete until 2010, over ten years after it began.
The lengthy reviews and complicated process drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in the hearing, just as it did in the May 21 hearing. Referring to new IRIS process, Ranking Member John Shimkus (R-IL) said “No one’s going to try and defend this,” and said that it needs to be simplified, a sentiment that was expressed by many of the subcommittee’s members on both sides of the aisle.
However the title of the September 18 hearing, “Science Under Siege: Scientific Integrity at the Environmental Protection Agency,” revealed the broader implications of IRIS that some of the subcommittee’s members were seeking to evaluate, and which became a matter of considerable disagreement during the hearing. Opinions diverged on the subject of undue political influence upon the EPA’s handling of science and its decision making. Questions from Democrats indicated their belief that the new IRIS process was a mechanism for OMB to impose the wishes of other agencies on the EPA’s reviews while Republicans defended the necessity of interagency review and questioned whether evidence for such tampering existed.
The subcommittee heard testimony on that matter from Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She described the findings of a UCS survey that found many EPA scientists felt that undermining of science is a serious problem at the agency. While Democrats embraced these findings as confirmation of their suspicions about the EPA, Republicans questioned the survey’s methodology and validity.
Testifying on behalf of the EPA was Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, who has defended the EPA’s integrity and transparency in several congressional hearings, including the May 21 hearing. In reference to IRIS, Gray said that the EPA has a “very strong peer review program to ensure that only high-quality science is released or used.” While Democrats were skeptical that this was the case, Republicans maintained that the facts were insufficient to make such assertions and echoed Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Joe Barton’s (R-TX) remark earlier in the hearing that to adequately establish such a case against the EPA, the hearing “should have been scheduled two years ago…and not at the last week of a regular session when there’s no time to find facts.”
-- Lucas Adin
Though most of the fall energy policy debate in Congress centered on expanding offshore drilling and renewable tax incentives, both of which were approved in the waning days of the 110th Congress, legislators also examined the role of energy research and development (R&D) in advancing the nation’s energy independence.
The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a September 10 hearing where witnesses testified about the importance of a broad portfolio of energy R&D to meet the challenges of energy security, climate change, and U.S. competitiveness.
Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) opened the hearing by noting that over the past 25 years, energy R&D has fallen from 10 percent of total R&D spending to only 2 percent, an amount Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) called “pathetic.” The witnesses all agreed on the need for additional funds for energy R&D, with estimates ranging from 3 to 10 times as much as current funding.
Susan Hockfield, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified about the importance of investments in energy to students and universities: “The students' interest is absolutely deafening, and one of my fears is that if we don't fund the kind of research that will fuel innovation, these very brilliant students will see that a bright future actually lies elsewhere." University of Michigan Vice President of Research Stephen Forrest echoed her sentiments about the willingness of the university community to join industry and government to discover solutions to address energy security. He called on Congress to fully fund ARPA-E, a program targeting high-risk energy research authorized in the America COMPETES Act. Meanwhile, Dan Kammen, University of California- Berkeley, explained the role of federal R&D in sparking private-sector investment, stating government funding is necessary to “prime the pump” before industry will increase R&D.
In addition to hearing testimony, legislators have received input from a variety of sources: the Council on Competitiveness released a “100 Day Action Plan” for the next Administration that calls for increased investment in R&D as well as the creation of a $200 billion National Clean Energy Bank. In addition, more than 70 universities and scientific societies under the umbrella of the Energy Science Coalition released a petition to presidential candidates highlighting the importance of basic energy research in addressing energy issues. At a press conference hosted by the Science Coalition and the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, leaders from universities, industry and national labs described the role energy research and development can play in achieving America’s energy independence.
Presidential candidates, too, are weighing in on energy research. Republican nominee John McCain has proposed a new national energy strategy known as the “Lexington Project” to achieve independence from foreign oil by 2025. He also has declared a commitment to ”becoming the world leader in green technologies” and announced plans for a $300 million prize for development of a next-generation battery package. Democratic nominee Barack Obama released his New Energy for America plan and proposed a series of programs that would represent $150 billion in federal investment over the next ten years in clean energy research, development, and deployment. His plan includes basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals, new vehicle technology, and next-generation nuclear facilities.
Despite calls from across parties lines and chambers of Congress, increased levels of funding for energy research are not included in the continuing resolution. However, Congress did address several energy issues through provisions in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill (H.R. 1424) includes extensions of the investment tax credit for solar energy, production tax credits for wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, and expands the residential energy-efficient property credit. It also includes tax credits for oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid fuels, areas that may spur energy security and economic competitiveness but are at odds with addressing climate change – illustrating some of the difficulty in meeting these intertwined challenges.
-- Kasey White
Quick status reports to keep you up to date on recent S&T bills and hearings.
Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mike Castle (R-DE) have released their latest version of a bill to enhance federal funding of stem cell research in anticipation for next year. H.R. 7141 keeps the same basic provisions as the previous Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act but would require the National Institutes of Health to revisit guidelines it develops for human stem cell research every three years. DeGette also introduced a bill, H.R. 7140, regarding the protection of human research subjects.
House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark (D-CA) has introduced a bill to encourage the nationwide adoption of health information technology. H.R. 6898 joins bills sponsored by leaders of the House Energy and Commerce (H.R. 6357) and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees (S. 1693).
The National Sea Grant College Programs Amendment Act of 2008 (H.R. 5618) was passed by the Senate on September 26 and has been sent to the President for his approval. The bill aims to provide grants and contracts to support education, research, training, and management of the oceans, coastal areas, and major lakes.
The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship passed a bill to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs for an additional fourteen years. S.3362 would change the formula of allocating 2.5 percent of a participating R&D agency’s budget to support the SBIR program, increasing 0.01 percent per year for ten years until it reached 3.5 percent of the agency’s R&D budget. The formula change, however, does not apply to NIH. A similar bill (H.R. 5819) passed the House in April that does not change the 2.5% set-aside formula.
BACK TO TOP
The Food and Drug Administration released draft guidelines last week on genetic modification of animals. The purpose of such research is often to develop safer or healthier foods or to produce medically useful substances. The guidelines are open for comment until November 18.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its 2009-2014 Strategic Plan Change Document for a 60-day public comment period ending November 30. Required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the document provides a side-by-side comparison of the Agency’s current (2006-2011) and proposed (2009-2014) performance measure framework, including the Agency’s goals, objectives, and strategic measures.
- EPA released for public comment its finding that perchlorate, a chemical in rocket fuel that has been found in drinking water, will not be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Technology Innovation Program (RS22815)
- Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies (ISBN-13: 978-0-309-12547-5)
- Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (ISBN-13: 978-0-309-12543-7)
- Science and Technology for America's Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration (ISBN-13: 978-0-309-12680-9)
- A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program:A Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program (ISBN-13: 978-0-309-12583-3)
- Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How? (ISBN-13: 978-0-309-12461-4)
Energy Future = Think Efficiency
American Physical Society
Saving Science From Politics
Center for Progressive Reform
Global Water Futures: A Roadmap for Future U.S. Policy
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
EPA’s Report on the Environment Highlights of National TrendsBACK TO TOP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AAAS Comments on Human Subjects Protection Training
AAAS submitted public comments to the Office for Human Research Protections in response to its request for information on the implementation of human subjects protection training and education programs. The comments encouraged OHRP to take a leadership role in supporting studies on the effectiveness of such training programs and urged the agency to take into account the needs of different types of research professionals when issuing guidance.
AAAS Comments on Endangered Species Act
On September 15, AAAS submitted public comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding changes to "Interagency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species Act" that could affect independent scientific review of federal projects. Citing the importance of independent scientific review in assessing impacts of federal activities on endangered and threatened species, AAAS CEO Alan Leshner noted that the process underlying the Endangered Species Act would be weakened by these changes.
Visit the Science and Technology in the 2008 Presidential Election Website
AAAS, in partnership with the Association of American Universities and the Richard Lounsbery Foundation, has created a Web site devoted to science and technology issues in the 2008 presidential campaign. Updates include the candidates' positions on the major science and technology issues; relevant news stories and published commentaries; survey information; and white papers and other reports from policy organizations.
Mark Your Calendar:
The AAAS Science and Human Rights Program, Washington Statistical Society, and Capital Area Social Psychological Association invite you to the first event of the Coalition's "Service to the Human Rights Community" working group. The event will highlight the value of science and scientific expertise for human rights work by featuring three teams of scientists and human rights practitioners who have worked together on projects that yielded important outcomes and lessons. Also, AAAS will unveil a new project and web-based tool to facilitate partnerships between human rights organizations requiring scientific expertise, and scientists prepared, on a pro bono basis, to respond.
Science and Society: Global Challenges Discussion Series
6:00 pm to 7:30 pm; A reception will start at 5:00 pm.
AAAS Auditorium (1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington DC)
No powerpoint. No notes.
Just candid conversations with leading scientists, economists, and politicians hosted by award-winning NPR reporters.
October 20th: Containing the Spread of WMDs
Experts:Robert Gallucci, Dean, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and Richard Wagner, Senior Staff, Los Alamos National Lab
Host: David Kestenbaum
October 27th: Solving the Malaria Epidemic
Experts: Steven Phillips, Medical Director, ExxonMobil; Ripley Ballou, Deputy Director, Infectious Diseases, Gates Foundation; and Paul Roepe, Department of Chemistry, Georgetown University
Host: Richard Harris
Sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Georgetown University Program on Science in the Public Interest and the Smithsonian's Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation.
Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled information from over 11,000 fisheries from 1950 to 2003. The researchers found that the fisheries that allocate rights to fishermen to catch a certain number of fish during the season were in much better shape than the other fisheries. The longer a fishery was managed in this way (known as “catch share”), the less likely the fish populations there were to disappear.
Costello, Christopher, Steven D. Gaines, and John Lynham, “Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse?” Science 19 September 2008: 1678-1681.