Lobster traps, whales, and the enforcement of informal property rights

 An experiment to protect whales from becoming entangled in the long ropes that connect lobster traps on the sea floor to buoys on the surface might also change some equilibria among lobster fisherman.

The WSJ has this story:

Endangered Whales Get Lifeline From High-Tech Lobster Traps. Lobstermen are testing equipment designed to help North American right whales avoid deadly entanglements   By Eric Niiler

"Lobstermen have long used buoys to mark the location of their traps. The ropeless systems are designed to limit whales’ risk of entanglement by keeping the buoys and their ropes stowed underwater on the traps until it is time to check the traps. 

...

"Another challenge that could stand in the way of broad use of ropeless gear involves alerting other fishermen to the presence of lobster traps—whose location, in the absence of buoys, can be harder to identify. Conflict between lobstermen with fixed gear and fishermen who drag nets along the seafloor has long been a problem along the New England coast, federal officials said.

"Computer scientists at the Allen Institute for AI—a Seattle-based nonprofit research organization founded by late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen—are developing an app to share the location of ropeless gear with other fishermen and regulators, according to Henry Milliken, supervisory research fishery biologist at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole."

********

Earlier, on a different aspect of the lobstering equilibrium:

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Policing the lobster commons

"Lobsters are caught in traps that sit on the sea floor, marked by (and recovered via) buoys that float above, connected to the trap by a rope. Lobstermen in Maine are known for policing who sets traps where by cutting the lines (or threatening to cut the lines) of lobstermen who set traps outside of their territory. From time to time there's a question about whether the state should limit certain areas to local lobstermen. Now is such a time..."

Lin Ostrom coauthored a paper on this:

Schlager, Edella, and Elinor Ostrom. "Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis." Land economics (1992): 249-262.

"The enforcement of the de facto proprietor rights was borne entirely by the lobstermen of each village. The sanction that  they used against anyone who violated communal rules was gear destruction. ...The easiest means of destroying traps is to cut the rope by which the traps are attached to buoys."

More on the looming shortage of new antibiotics

 From Medpage Today:

Superbugs Are Getting Stronger— Our defenses are getting weaker  by David Thomas, MS, and Emily Wheeler 

"There are only 64 antibacterial therapeutics currently in clinical development. That's compared to 1,300 treatments in development for various cancers. Over one-third of antibacterial drug candidates target just two bacteria: Clostridioides difficile and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. That leaves only 44 drugs to target all other pathogenic bacteria.

"In other words, the antibacterial pipeline is grievously small. And it's shrinking compared to previous decades. In the last 35 years, just one antibacterial with a novel way to target bacteria has been approved. Comparatively, 18 new antibacterials with novel targets were approved by the FDA between 1940 and 1990.

"Meanwhile, superbugs continue to grow stronger. New research estimates they claimed 1.27 million lives in 2019 -- more than twice the estimated number of annual deaths just 5 years prior.

...

"Every time we use an antimicrobial, the target microbes have a chance to survive and become resistant. So, clinicians prescribe them only when needed. But this sound medical practice makes for poor economic incentives for private companies in a market system.

"Take the experience of the biotech firm Achaogen, which secured FDA approval in 2018 for its novel antibiotic plazomicin (Zemdri), after 15 years of development. The medication treats infections caused by one of the most challenging superbugs, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

"While important for the overall armamentarium, such novel antimicrobials are used particularly sparingly to prevent dangerous pathogens from developing resistance to our strongest medications. As a result, clinicians hold novel antibiotics like plazomicin in reserve, using them judiciously to preserve effectiveness. That means companies like Achaogen don't sell large quantities of the drugs they develop -- or earn back the capital they invested in the research and development process.

"Achaogen filed for bankruptcy in 2019. In the 3 years since, several other small biotech companies that successfully cleared the clinical pipeline with FDA-approved antibacterials have seen a similar fate.

"The market conditions for antimicrobials are so discouraging that most large biopharmaceutical companies have pulled out of the sector entirely. Small companies discovered over 80% of the antibacterial therapeutics currently in clinical trials.

"These dynamics are causing investors to vacate the antimicrobial sector, too. Venture capital funding for biotech firms focusing on antibacterial research declined over the last decade, while other areas such as oncology rose 700%.

... 

"One solution is the bipartisan, bicameral Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions To End Upsurging Resistance (PASTEUR) Act, which would change the current dose-based payment model for certain antimicrobials. Under PASTEUR, the government would offer developers of the most critically needed antimicrobials between $750 million and $3 billion up front in exchange for access to their medications once they hit the market.

...

"Another bill under consideration is the Developing an Innovative Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms (DISARM) Act. The legislation would increase Medicare reimbursements for certain antimicrobials"

************

I don't know how I should feel about the fact that proposed legislation is named with clever acronyms (and I'm not sure that DISARM sends the right message...)

Fishery regulation involves onboard observers at sea--a very dangerous job

 Next time you eat a salt water fish, spare a thought for how fisheries are regulated to keep them viable as a common pool resource.  There are catch limits, whose enforcement requires deep sea fishing boats to have onboard inspectors, called observers.  Apparently that's a dangerous job.

The Guardian has the story:

Death at sea: the fisheries inspectors who never came home.  by Bernadette Carreon 

"Being an observer, which involves monitoring fishing practices and catches to make sure boats follow the rules, is a dangerous job that can put observers in conflict with the crews on the vessels on which they are working, often hundreds, or even thousands, of kilometres from the nearest port.

"According to the Association of Professional Observers, there have been over a dozen cases of observers dying on the job since 2009 alone, including three involving Kiribati nationals."

***********

The Association of Professional Observers maintains a site that includes a page on Observer Deaths and Disappearances, as well as one on Harassment of observers, for example in ways that may compromise their data. 

The economics of antibiotics

Penicillin changed the world, it gave us a weapon against disease causing bacteria. Other antibiotics followed. But then evolution changed bacteria--natural selection in an antibiotic rich environment helped them become drug resistant.  Today, the bacteria are sometimes winning--there are some drug resistant bacteria that seem able to resist all available antibiotics. But drug discovery of antibiotics is slowing. What's going on?

Drugs (including antibiotics) are expensive to develop, test for safety and effectiveness, and bring to market.  Part of the problem is that there isn't likely to be a big market for a new super antibiotic. The reason is that, if it is oversubscribed, it will stop being super--bacteria will become resistant.  So a new super antibiotic would be used sparingly, as a drug of last resort.  That's another way of saying that it wouldn't have big sales.

The NY Times has a story:

Drug Giants Create Fund to Bolster Struggling Antibiotic Start-Ups
"New medicines are desperately needed to treat a growing number of drug-resistant infections, but many companies developing the drugs are short on cash and investments."
By Andrew Jacobs, July 9, 2020

"Twenty of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies on Thursday announced the creation of a $1 billion fund to buoy financially strapped biotech start-ups that are developing new antibiotics to treat the mounting number of drug-resistant infections responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

"The fund, created in partnership with the World Health Organization and financed by drug behemoths that include Roche, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson, will offer a short-term but desperately needed lifeline for some of the three dozen small antibiotic companies, many of them based in the United States, that have been struggling to draw investment amid a collapsing antibiotics industry.
...
"“Antibiotics are the mortar that holds the entire health care system together,” said David A. Ricks, the chief executive of Eli Lilly, who helped spearhead the effort. “We make drugs for diabetes, cancer and immunological conditions, but you couldn’t treat any of them without effective antibiotics.”

"In an interview, Mr. Ricks said he was well aware of the irony that Eli Lilly and many of the other companies contributing to the fund were once the giants of antibiotic development but have long since abandoned the field because of their inability to earn money on the drugs. “We know firsthand how broken the system is,” he said.

"The crisis stems from the peculiar economics and biochemical quirks of drugs that kill bacteria and fungi. The more often antimicrobial drugs are used, the more likely they are to lose their efficacy as pathogens survive and mutate. Efforts to promote antibiotic stewardship mean that new drugs are used as a last resort, limiting the ability of companies to earn back the billions of dollars it can take to create a new product.
...
"Between 1980 and 2009, the Food and Drug Administration approved 61 new antibiotics for systemic use; over the past decade that number has shrunk to 15, and a third of the companies behind those medicines have since gone belly up.  Those backing the fund acknowledge that the effort is largely a stopgap measure. Industry executives and public health experts say that fixing the broken marketplace for antibiotics would require sweeping government intervention to create financial incentives for drug companies, including policy changes that would increase reimbursements for lifesaving drugs kept under lock and key and used only when existing therapies fail."

Human Challenge Trials for COVID-19 vaccines

Yesterday I blogged about trying to speed up vaccine development and distribution by taking some of the risk out of it for pharma companies via an advanced market commitment, and today let's consider again one of the proposals being discussed  for speeding up the testing process.

Here's a white paper proposing some steps to further consider and prepare for human challenge trials (aka controlled human infection studies)  to speed up the testing of potential Covid-19 vaccines.It is put out by the organization 1 Day Sooner, which seeks to promote such trials, and has started assembling a list of volunteers in case challenge trials should become practical, to help vaccines become available sooner.

Evaluating use cases for human challenge trials in accelerating COVID-19 vaccine development
Linh Chi Nguyen , Christopher W Bakerlee, T. Greg McKelvey, Sophie M Rose, Alexander J Norman, Nicholas Joseph, David Manheim,, Michael R McLaren, Steven Jiang, Conor F Barnes, Megan Kinniment, Derek Foster, Thomas C Darton, Josh Morrison; for the 1Day Sooner Research Team

Abstract: Recently, human challenge trials (HCTs) have been proposed as a means to accelerate the development of an effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In this paper, we discuss the potential role forsuch studies in the current COVID-19 pandemic. First, we present three scenarios in which HCTs could be useful: evaluating efficacy, converging on correlates of protection, and improving understanding of pathogenesis and the human immune response. We go on to outline the practical limitations of HCTs in these scenarios. We conclude that, while currently limited in their application, there are scenarios in which HCTs would be vastly beneficial and, thus, the option of using HCTs to accelerate COVID-19 vaccine development should be preserved. To this end, we recommend an immediate, coordinated effort by all stakeholders to (1) establish ethical and practical guidelines for the use of HCTs for COVID-19; (2) take the first steps toward an HCT, including preparing challenge virus under GMP and making preliminary logistical arrangements; and (3) commit to periodically re-evaluating the utility of HCTs amid the evolving pandemic.

Here's the main experimental design element:

"In HCTs, a relatively small number of healthy volunteer participants are administered a vaccine candidate or a placebo. However, unlike in conventional trials, consenting HCT participants are then administered an infectious dose of pathogen, and the outcomes of this infection is tracked. By challenging participants with pathogens under close observation in a clinical setting, HCTs can provide a unique opportunity to assess efficacy of a vaccine candidate."

And here are their concluding recommendations:

"To preserve the option to implement HCTs in scenarios such as this, we recommend an immediate, coordinated effort by all stakeholders to address the considerations outlined in this manuscript and make the necessary preparations. These include:
 1. Convening experts to discuss the ethical and practical considerations associated with HCTs for COVID-19, concluding in a set of  recommendations and guidelines for their use in the present pandemic and their role in the licensure process (which, notably, could provide guidance that is broadly useful in the event of future pandemics, too),
2. Taking the first practical steps toward an HCT, including preparing challenge virus under GMP and making preliminary arrangements with volunteers, vaccine developers, regulators, academic institutions, and clinical researchers to run HCTs in situations where they are expected to be highly useful,
3. Keeping informed of the evolving situation, periodically conducting a systematic reevaluation, and adjusting course based on the progress of the pandemic and the outcomes of the first drug and vaccine trials.

"HCTs have the potential to considerably shorten the COVID-19 pandemic, saving many lives and enabling economies and societies to return to normality. But we must act now to ensure this opportunity is not missed."
********

It's an admirably careful and balanced paper for one with a policy recommendation, and it sets the stage for a useful and timely debate.

As an experimenter,  I have one reservation about the proposed controls. In the passage I quoted above, they said " healthy volunteer participants are administered a vaccine candidate or a placebo," i.e. the control is a placebo.  That strikes me as potentially controversial given that the next step of the experiment is to infect the participants with Covid-19.  I might prefer a study in which the control for one vaccine was a different potential vaccine, so that no subjects were (relatively) sure to contract the disease.

But this doesn't detract from the usefulness of the preparations they recommend: conducting further discussions, and taking initial practical steps.
********
Here is my earlier post on this subject:

Friday, May 8, 2020 

Human Challenge Trials (aka Controlled Human Infection studies) for corona virus vaccines

*********

Here's a similar in spirit paper, considering when and why human challenge trials might be appropriate, put out by the World Health Organization

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies
WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19
Authors:  WHO

"Overview: This document aims to provide guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policy-makers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining key criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable."
*******

Here's a news story from CNN, complete with some anecdotes about the sometimes sketchy history of human challenge trials:

Thousands of people want to be exposed to Covid-19 for science
By Robert Kuznia

"Human challenge studies date all the way back to the first vaccine, for the highly lethal smallpox disease. The vaccine was developed in the late 18th century by physician Edward Jenner, who aimed to put a piece of folklore to the test: that milkmaids seemed to contract a milder form of the disease, called cowpox.
"In an experiment that today would warrant steep criminal charges, Jenner took pus from the scab of a milkmaid and inserted it into an incision on the arm of an 8-year-old boy. The child, James Phipps, developed a headache, chills and other mild symptoms, but when directly exposed to smallpox -- again through incisions on the arm -- he proved impervious."
**********

Here's an op-ed from the Washington Post, by the philosophers Richard Yetter Chappell and Peter Singer:

Pandemic ethics: The case for experiments on human volunteers

They conclude:
"We are ethicists, not medical or biological scientists. When it comes to factual beliefs about the pandemic, we defer to expert scientific opinion, as everyone should. But what we ought to do with the facts we have, and how we should go about seeking facts we still lack, are ethical questions. Ethicists have a crucial role to play in this debate.

"There is too much that we don’t know about covid-19. The longer we take to find it out, the more lives will be lost. (That’s why the website asking for vaccine volunteers is called “1 Day Sooner.”) If healthy volunteers, fully informed about the risks, are willing to help fight the pandemic by aiding promising research, there are strong moral reasons to gratefully accept their help. To refuse it would implicitly subject others to still graver risks."
***********

And here's a  post  from the Volokh Conspiracy (pointed out to me by Frank McCormick) focusing on the question of paying volunteers for human challenge trials:

The Moral Case for Testing Coronavirus Vaccines through "Challenge Trials" on Paid Healthy Volunteers
Doing so can potentially save many thousands of lives. And moral objections to this practice are weak. The issues here are very similar to the longstanding debate over whether we legalize organ markets.  by ILYA SOMIN .

He concludes:
"Like others who risk their lives to benefit others, challenge trial volunteers deserve our gratitude, and proper compensation for their efforts. And there is no good moral justification for forbidding them to take those risks. To the contrary, we should move ahead with challenge trials as soon as feasible. Every day of delay could literally be a matter of life and death—a great many lives and deaths."

Human Challenge Trials (aka Controlled Human Infection studies) for corona virus vaccines

What do we want?  A vaccine for covid-19.

When do we want it?  After clinical trials and peer review.

How can we get it faster?  By asking healthy young (not at too much risk) volunteers to permit themselves to get infected with covid-19, so we can try out vaccine candidates.

Is that crazy?  Well, maybe not. (But not everyone is sure of that.)

Here's a recent paper considering the proposal.

Human Challenge Studies to Accelerate Coronavirus Vaccine Licensure 
Nir Eyal, Marc Lipsitch, Peter G Smith
The Journal of Infectious Diseases, jiaa152, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa152
Published: 31 March 2020

Abstract: Controlled human challenge trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates could accelerate the testing and potential rollout of efficacious vaccines. By replacing conventional phase 3 testing of vaccine candidates, such trials may subtract many months from the licensure process, making efficacious vaccines available more quickly. Obviously, challenging volunteers with this live virus risks inducing severe disease and possibly even death. However, we argue that such studies, by accelerating vaccine evaluation, could reduce the global burden of coronavirus-related mortality and morbidity. Volunteers in such studies could autonomously authorize the risks to themselves, and their net risk could be acceptable if participants comprise healthy young adults, who are at relatively low risk of serious disease following natural infection, if they have a high baseline risk of natural infection, and if during the trial they receive frequent monitoring and, following any infection, the best available care.
*************

Here's another paper, in Science, 07 May 2020, by a big group of authors consisting of medical ethicists and physicians: they think it might be ok.

Ethics of controlled human infection to study COVID-19
Seema K. Shah, Franklin G. Miller, Thomas C. Darton, Devan Duenas, Claudia Emerson, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Euzebiusz Jamrozik, Nancy S. Jecker, Dorcas Kamuya, Melissa Kapulu, Jonathan Kimmelman, Douglas MacKay, Matthew J. Memoli, Sean C. Murphy, Ricardo Palacios, Thomas L. Richie, Meta Roestenberg, Abha Saxena, Katherine Saylor, Michael J. Selgelid, Vina Vaswani, Annette Rid

 Abstract: High social value is fundamental to justifying these studies

 Here are the articles opening lines:

"Development of an effective vaccine is the clearest path to controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To accelerate vaccine development, some researchers are pursuing, and thousands of people have expressed interest in participating in, controlled human infection studies (CHIs) with severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (1, 2). In CHIs, a small number of participants are deliberately exposed to a pathogen to study infection and gather preliminary efficacy data on experimental vaccines or treatments. We have been developing a comprehensive, state-of-the-art ethical framework for CHIs that emphasizes their social value as fundamental to justifying these studies. The ethics of CHIs in general are underexplored (3, 4), and ethical examinations of SARS-CoV-2 CHIs have largely focused on whether the risks are acceptable and participants could give valid informed consent (1). The high social value of such CHIs has generally been assumed. Based on our framework, we agree on the ethical conditions for conducting SARS-CoV-2 CHIs (see the table). We differ on whether the social value of such CHIs is sufficient to justify the risks at present, given uncertainty about both in a rapidly evolving situation; yet we see none of our disagreements as insurmountable. We provide ethical guidance for research sponsors, communities, participants, and the essential independent reviewers considering SARS-CoV-2 CHIs."

Kim Krawiec points out to me that, among the things the authors disagree about among themselves is compensation to donors:
"Members of our group disagree about the ethical permissibility of offering payment to CHI participants, and there may be relevant regulatory limits in different jurisdictions. Nevertheless, as SARS-CoV-2 CHIs require confinement and follow-up, fairness seems to demand offering participants compensation for their time. This may total several thousand dollars in the United States, assuming compensation at a fair minimum wage for unskilled labor, as in other CHIs. By contrast, incentives beyond compensation could be avoided, given the number of people already indicating willingness to participate. Concerns that the undue influence of monetary compensation compromises risk judgments are unsupported by the available data, as financial motivations are associated with greater attention to risk (15). Moreover, a rigorous informed consent process could maximize understanding. In case payment tempts participants to withhold disqualifying information, eligibility criteria should be objectively verifiable."
************

And here is a group of activists, at an organization called 1 Day Sooner.
You can sign up here*,

COVID-19 Human Challenge Trials
"Human challenge trials deliberately expose participants to infection, in order to study diseases and test vaccines or treatments. They have been used for influenza, malaria, typhoid, dengue fever, and cholera. Researchers are exploring whether human challenge trials could speed up the development of a vaccine for COVID-19, saving thousands or even millions of lives."

*"Sign up here if you may wish to participate in a human challenge trial for COVID-19 if one were to occur, and, potentially, advocate for safe and rapid vaccine development. "

Christine Exley is an EconomicRockstar: on the Economics of Volunteering, Market Failure in the Homeless Dog Market and Wagaroo

The Economic Rockstar podcast interviews  Christine Exley on the Economics of Volunteering, Market Failure in the Homeless Dog Market and Wagaroo

Here is Christine's web page: https://sites.google.com/site/clexley/

Climate negotiation design

Axel Ockenfels writes:

David MacKay, Peter Cramton, Steven Stoft and I published a comment on climate negotiation design today in Nature (my stay in Stanford way extremely useful in this respect ;-). 

Here is a link: http://www.nature.com/news/price-carbon-i-will-if-you-will-1.18538

And here is a link to an ebook that we compiled, which has lots of background material by us and others, including Tirole, Stiglitz, Weitzman, and Nordhaus: http://carbon-price.com/

There have been a couple of newspaper articles on that (and more are coming), too, such as:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34489266
["If you know a carbon price will apply to all other countries as well as you, it now comes in your self interest to advocate a high carbon price" David MacKay, University of Cambridge]

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepolitik/oekonomen-sehen-den-klimagipfel-in-paris-zum-scheitern-verurteilt-13851185.html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/klimagipfel-scheitern-mit-ansage-1.2692393"
*****************

The Nature comment comes with a picture to illustrate the problem of all pulling together...

Price carbon — I will if you will  David J. C. MacKay, Peter Cramton, Axel Ockenfels& Steven Stoft ,12 October 2015

"Negotiations at the United Nations climate summit in Paris this December will adopt a 'pledge and review' approach to cutting global carbon emissions. Countries will promise to reduce their emissions by amounts that will be revised later. The narrative is that this will “enable an upward spiral of ambition over time”1. History and the science of cooperation predict that quite the opposite will happen.

...

"Success requires a common commitment, not a patchwork of individual ones. Negotiations need to be designed to realign self-interests and promote cooperation. A common commitment can assure participants that others will match their efforts and not free-ride. A strategy of “I will if you will” stabilizes higher levels of cooperation. It is the most robust pattern of cooperation seen in laboratory and field studies of situations open to free-riding"

...

"We, and others, propose an alternative: a global carbon-price commitment7. Each country would commit to place charges on carbon emissions from fossil-fuel use (by taxes or cap-and-trade schemes, for example) sufficient to match an agreed global price, which could be set by voting — by a super-majority rule that would produce a coalition of the willing.

"A uniform carbon price is widely accepted as the most cost-effective way to curb emissions. Carbon pricing is flexible, allowing fossil taxes, cap-and-trade, hybrid schemes and other national policies to be used (unlike a global carbon tax). All that is required of a country is that its average carbon price — cost per unit of greenhouse gas emitted — be at least as high as the agreed global carbon price.

"Unlike global cap-and-trade, carbon pricing allows countries to keep all carbon revenues, eliminating the risk of needing to buy expensive credits from a rival country. Taxes need not rise if a nation performs a green tax shift — reducing taxes on good things such as employment by charging for pollution. Shifting taxes from good things to bad things could mean there is no net social cost to pricing carbon, even before counting climate benefits"

Fires and the market for fire fighters

We are winning our ancient battle against fire: it turns out that fighting fires with fire fighters, and with fire-resistant construction is working, and big urban fires are becoming increasingly rare.  Leon Neyfakh of the Boston Globe has the story.

Plenty of firefighters, but where are the fires? As ‘emergency’ changes its meaning, some critics are arguing it’s time to revisit a century-old system

"as a recent Globe story reported, city records show that major fires are becoming vanishingly rare. In 1975, there were 417 of them. Last year, there were 40. That’s a decline of more than 90 percent. A city that was once a tinderbox of wooden houses has become—thanks to better building codes, automatic sprinkler systems, and more careful behavior—a much less vulnerable place.

As this has happened, however, the number of professional firefighters in Boston has dropped only slightly, from around 1,600 in the 1980s to just over 1,400 today. The cost of running the department, meanwhile, has increased by almost $43 million over the past decade, and currently stands at $185 million, or around 7.5 percent of the city’s total budget.
...
"FIRE USED TO routinely devastate America’s towns and cities. It wiped out almost all of Detroit in 1805, a vast swath of Chicago in 1871, and much of Boston’s downtown in 1872. Boston, as it happens, was the site of the first volunteer firefighting force in the New World: A group of about 20 neighbors who pledged in 1718 to protect one another’s homes as part of a so-called Mutual Fire Society. More formal volunteer organizations started cropping up after 1736, when Benjamin Franklin founded the Union Fire Company in Philadelphia. Before long, many American cities were home to multiple volunteer fire crews, which competed to be first on the scene to collect bonuses from local governments and insurance companies. According to historians, these bonuses ultimately proved to be the undoing of the volunteer firefighter movement. By the mid-19th century, street brawling between rival companies became so common that cities started shutting them down and replacing them with professional, municipally operated fire departments."

Prisoner's dilemma, exam grading, and social media

Long long ago I wrote an undergraduate exam that included a prisoner's dilemma question framed as the question of whether to study or not for a particular exam, with your payoff on the exam depending in part on what other people did.  Here is that story brought to life, complete with how it was organized by social media, and enforced by a contingent strategy that depended on mutual observation. (The url is more informative than the headline:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/12/students-boycott-final-challenge-professors-grading-policy-and-get


"Since he started teaching at Johns Hopkins University in 2005, Professor Peter Fröhlich has maintained a grading curve in which each class’s highest grade on the final counts as an A, with all other scores adjusted accordingly. So if a midterm is worth 40 points, and the highest actual score is 36 points, "that person gets 100 percent and everybody else gets a percentage relative to it,” said Fröhlich.

"This approach, Fröhlich said, is the "most predictable and consistent way" of comparing students' work to their peers', and it worked well.

"At least it did until the end of the fall term at Hopkins, that is.

"As the semester ended in December, students in Fröhlich’s "Intermediate Programming", "Computer Science Fundamentals," and "Introduction to Programming for Scientists and Engineers" classes decided to test the limits of the policy, and collectively planned to boycott the final. Because they all did, a zero was the highest score in each of the three classes, which, by the rules of Fröhlich’s curve, meant every student received an A.

“The students refused to come into the room and take the exam, so we sat there for a while: me on the inside, they on the outside,” Fröhlich said. “After about 20-30 minutes I would give up.... Then we all left.” The students waited outside the rooms to make sure that others honored the boycott, and were poised to go in if someone had. No one did, though.

"Andrew Kelly, a student in Fröhlich’s Introduction to Programming class who was one of the boycott’s key organizers, explained the logic of the students' decision via e-mail: "Handing out 0's to your classmates will not improve your performance in this course," Kelly said.
"So if you can walk in with 100 percent confidence of answering every question correctly, then your payoff would be the same for either decision. Just consider the impact on your other exam performances if you studied for [the final] at the level required to guarantee yourself 100. Otherwise, it's best to work with your colleagues to ensure a 100 for all and a very pleasant start to the holidays."

"Kelly said the boycott was made possible through a variety of technological and social media tools. Students used a spreadsheet on Google Drive to keep track of who had agreed to the boycott, for instance. And social networks were key to "get 100 percent confidence that you have 100 percent of the people on board" in a big class.

"Fröhlich took a surprisingly philosophical view of his students' machinations, crediting their collaborative spirit. "The students learned that by coming together, they can achieve something that individually they could never have done," he said via e-mail. “At a school that is known (perhaps unjustly) for competitiveness I didn't expect that reaching such an agreement was possible.”
Although Fröhlich conceded that he did not include such a “loophole” in the policy “with the goal of students exploiting it,” he decided to honor it after the boycott.

"Despite awarding As to all the students who participated in the boycott, the experience has led Fröhlich to alter his long-held grading policy.
“I have changed my grading scheme to include ‘everybody has 0 points means that everybody gets 0 percent,’ ” Fröhlich said,  “and I also added a clause stating that I reserve the right to give everybody 0 percent if I get the impression that the students are trying to ‘game’  the system again.”

Fishery management in ancient Hawaii

Ancient Civilizations Reveal Ways to Manage Fisheries for Sustainability

"The authors of the study, titled "Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coral reef fisheries in Hawai‘i and Florida", point to the U.S. National Ocean Policy as an example of emerging attempts to manage ocean ecosystems more holistically, and local fisheries co-management as a modern way of including community members in designing effective fishing regulations. However, the authors caution that effective enforcement needs to go hand in hand with the development of local governance. “The ancient Hawaiians punished transgressors with corporal punishment,” observed Kittinger. “Clearly, we don’t recommend this, but it’s easy to see there’s room to tighten up today’s enforcement efforts.”

HT: Ben Greiner

A public good of a sort: a community gun

The NY Times reports: In a Mailbox: A Shared Gun, Just for the Asking

"Hidden and shared by a small group of people who use them when needed, and are always sure to return them, such guns appear to be rising in number in New York, according to the police. It is unclear why. The economy? Times are tough — not everyone can afford a gun.

“The gangs are younger, and their resources are less,” said Ed Talty, an assistant district attorney in the Bronx.

"The police believe that a community gun is now in play in a series of gang-related shootings in East New York, Brooklyn, between the Rock Starz and their colorfully named rivals, the Very Crispy Gangsters.

 "Sharing guns predates the Wild West, but the sophistication of maintaining today’s community gun can be striking. “You call it a community gun, so that name has to be able to market itself,” Senator Smith said. “You have a business model behind this concept, a schedule, which is a shame. If they used that intellect for something positive, who knows how successful that person could be?”

 "Sometimes the hiding place is human. “One guy will hold the gun down,” Captain Dee said. “They call him the ‘holster.’ Often, it’s a female. Someone who is above suspicion.”

Design of enforcement mechanisms: policing versus gunfighting

A new addition to the experimental literature on how the possibility of punishment influences the efficient provision of public goods (and the inefficient provision of punishments):

Gun For Hire: Does Delegated Enforcement Crowd out Peer Punishment in Giving to Public Goods? -- by James Andreoni, Laura K. Gee

from NBER Working Papers

This paper compares two methods to encourage socially optimal provision of a public good. We compare the efficacy of vigilante justice, as represented by peer-to-peer punishment, to delegated policing, as represented by the "hired gun" mechanism, to deter free riding and improve group welfare. The "hired gun" mechanism (Andreoni and Gee, 2011) is an example of a low cost device that promotes complete compliances and minimal enforcement as the unique Nash equilibrium. We find that subjects are willing to pay to hire a delegated policing mechanism over 70% of the time, and that this mechanism increases welfare between 15% to 40%. Moreover, the lion's share of the welfare gain comes because the hired gun crowds out vigilante peer-to-peer punishments.

The Hired Gun Mechanism -- by James Andreoni, Laura K. Gee

from NBER Working Papers

We present and experimentally test a mechanism that provides a simple, natural, low cost, and realistic solution to the problem of compliance with socially determined efficient actions, such as contributing to a public good. We note that small self-governing organizations often place enforcement in the hands of an appointed leader-the department chair, the building superintendent, the team captain. This hired gun, we show, need only punish the least compliant group member, and then only punish this person enough so that the person would have rather been the second least compliant. We show experimentally this mechanism, despite having very small penalties out of equilibrium, reaches the full compliance equilibrium almost instantly.

Pro-social behavior of all kinds: Judd Kessler

Judd Kessler defended his dissertation yesterday (successfully, I should add:).

His work includes lab and field investigations of charitable giving, of provision of public goods, of cooperation in the presence or absence of contracts, of team production when pay is equal or unequal, and of the decision to be an organ donor.

His job market paper, “Signals of Support and Public Good Provision,” is unusual in the way it combines experiments both in the field and in the lab. The field experiment involves a big national charity’s regional campaign in about 200 firms, covering around 25,000 employees. One of the treatment conditions involved giving out buttons to all employees, which they could wear if they wished to express support for the charity. This turned out to have a surprisingly large effect on giving: it increased the number of donations and the amount donated by about a third. Another treatment involved giving out raffle tickets to those who contributed, and this did not have a positive effect on giving. The hypothesis is that the buttons (unlike the raffle tickets) provide information to coworkers about the level of support the charity enjoys, and that when they receive positive information about this they are more likely to contribute themselves.

But a field experiment is by nature imperfectly controlled, so Judd also conducted a lab experiment modeled on the field experiment (in which subjects also had an opportunity to contribute to a charity), but with careful controls in place to test for alternative hypotheses. The treatments in the field experiments already suggested that we aren’t seeing increased contributions because of gift exchange (i.e. the button isn’t regarded as a gift, as the raffle tickets might be), and what Judd finds in the lab is that the major effect of seeing another subject who has chosen to wear the button is that it increases a subject’s estimate of what the other subject will give, and this appears to be the mechanism through which contributions are increased. (Subjects also contribute more when wearing a pin, so this is a rational expectation.)

Judd’s field experiment and lab experiment complement each other; the lab experiment couldn’t have given a reliable prediction of the magnitude of the effect Judd observes in the field, while the field experiment leaves open many more hypotheses about the cause of this effect than does the lab experiment.

Welcome to the club, Judd.

A danceable economic experiment on public good provision

Lights! Dancers! Economics!

"If Milton Friedman and Martha Graham had a love child, it might look something like the "Tragedy of the Commons."

"Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, and his sister, Jenefer Davies, an assistant professor of dance at Washington and Lee University, staged the experimental production this month at Washington and Lee to demonstrate a key principle of economics. The tragedy of the commons, enunciated in an essay of the same name in 1968 by the ecologist Garrett Hardin, states that when a resource is held jointly, its owners will deplete it more quickly than when individuals own equal and private portions of the same resource.
...
"In the performance, five volunteers from the audience individually controlled spotlights that illuminated each of five dancers onstage. Volunteers were told that they should try to keep their dancers illuminated as long as possible but that the light was a limited resource: The first performance began with 30 seconds of light in the communal "light bank," and audience members drained that bank when they illuminated their dancers. Turning the light off, however, would slowly replenish the time in the bank.


"Immediately after the first performance with the communal bank, the dancers began a second performance. But this time the five volunteers drew light from—and restored it to—private banks, up to six seconds per volunteer.
...
"The economic theory played out as anticipated. The volunteers generated more light during the second leg of each of the three performances, with their individual "light banks," than they did while sharing time from the communal bank. Mr. Davies was relieved."

You can see the dance here: econ dance performance

Cheating on CS homeworks, and social pressure

The Temptation to Cheat in Computer Science Classes at Stanford is apparently great (just cut and paste some code if your assignment isn't running as the deadline nears), but the tools for catching this kind of cheating are also effectively automated.

"The number of honor code violations have prompted Professor Roberts to implement a new system. Describing this method as a “collective incentive” for students to maintain academic standards, the professor said he will add 5 percent for every honor-code violation in his class to the weight of the final exam, which is currently 15 percent of the class grade.
In other words, if one person cheats, the whole class will face more pressure on the final exam, because it will make up a greater portion of a person’s grade. Whether the scorn of fellow students is a bigger deterrent to cheating than being personally disciplined by the university remains to be seen."

Deceased organ donation: advice from Steve Jobs

Here's a 2-minute CNN video, at the beginning of which Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who recently received a deceased donor liver, advises us all to register to become donors.

If you have a Massachusetts driver's license you can register online to be an organ donor, right now, right here.

Policing the lobster commons

Lobsters are caught in traps that sit on the sea floor, marked by (and recovered via) buoys that float above, connected to the trap by a rope. Lobstermen in Maine are known for policing who sets traps where by cutting the lines (or threatening to cut the lines) of lobstermen who set traps outside of their territory. From time to time there's a question about whether the state should limit certain areas to local lobstermen. Now is such a time:

In Maine, Tensions Over Ailing Lobster Industry
"Officially, anyone with a Maine lobster license can set traps almost anywhere in state waters. Most lobstermen are allowed 800 traps each, making for a crowded ocean floor.
But unofficially, each harbor has its own boundaries, determined by local lobstermen over the decades. Newcomers often find their buoys snatched or their trap lines cut. The lobstermen who live on Maine’s rugged islands are especially territorial and known for practicing frontier justice; in one notorious case in 2000, two lobstermen fought over turf with a pitchfork and a fish gaff."
...
"The idea of a resident-only lobstering zone is not without precedent. The state approved a two-mile “conservation zone” around Monhegan Island in 1998, restricting access to local lobstermen, who had complained about interlopers from the mainland. "
...
"George Lapointe, the state’s commissioner of marine resources, said he had not yet decided whether to endorse a resident-only zone for Matinicus and had to consider the constitutional rights of all of the state’s roughly 5,800 licensed lobstermen.
“I’ve had three other islands say they’re interested in getting their own zone if we create one for Matinicus,” Mr. Lapointe said. “One of the concerns is the balkanization of lobster territories along the coast.”
He said that enforcing the zone around Monhegan had proved expensive for the state, and that while the shooting on Matinicus had put the island’s problems under a magnifying glass, lobstermen up and down Maine’s coast were hurting."

Medical data as an underprovided public good

Evidence based medicine requires data that are often difficult to assemble. Since drugs and medical devices are regulated, regulators have the option of requiring data to be collected. But data collection costs money (particularly in light of stringent laws that require the privacy of individual patients to be protected), and so it is often difficult to study the effect of medical interventions by following up on the health of patients.

A recent story summarized the issue succinctly: Heart Device Dispute Renews Push for User Registry

"Conflicting data this week about the failure rate of a critical and widely used Medtronic heart device has set off a debate among researchers who want to understand the discrepancies and the implications for patient care.
But some experts say that debate would not be occurring if federal officials, medical device makers and more doctors had thrown their weight more fully behind efforts to develop a national database of patients who get heart devices.
The Obama administration has announced plans to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into studies to compare the effectiveness of competing medical treatments and devices. Monitoring patients’ outcomes through registries could be part of that process.
But setting up such registries in this country has proved difficult so far. "

It seems that Medicare mandated the establishment of such a registry for defibrillators, but didn't fund it.

"And while defibrillator makers did help support the $3 million annual cost of operating the registry in its first year, they have since cut back that financing... Dr. Alan Kadish ... said he did not think that manufacturers believed that they would “be fulfilling their fiduciary obligations to shareholders by funding” studies that compare the effectiveness of their devices to those of competitors. " "

HT Scott Kominers

Sustainable fisheries

Nowhere is the "tragedy of the commons" clearer than in ocean fisheries, which are difficult to regulate and maintain in a sustainable way. A recent article, Fish Shares and Sharing Fish describes the problem well. (From a market design perspective, one difficulty is that fishermen have large strategy sets, so changing the rules of the game often changes behavior in unanticipated ways.)

In national waters, regulations involve law enforcement, and the Washington Post has an illuminating story about a criminal investigation involving the sale of illegally large rockfish (striped bass), which the law requires must be thrown back so that the breeding pool should not be selected to consist of only small fish. Swimming in Intrigue in Backwoods of Md.: Four-Year Undercover Probe Led to Charges of Rockfish Trafficking.
Some quick quotes from that story:
"Cheating is an old vice around the Chesapeake, with watermen sneaking in extra bushels of oysters or undersized perch. "
"The fish -- a key predator and a beloved sport fish, also known as striped bass -- has rebounded from desperate lows in the 1980s, in part because of restrictions on fishing."
"Many of the fish were tagged as having been caught with hooks and lines, but the agents suspected they had actually been caught in a large net and should have been subject to different restrictions.
To prove it, they turned to a fish coroner. "

In October 2007 I hosted a conference at Harvard organized by Ecotrust on Market Design for Limited Access Programs in U.S. Fisheries. One consequence of that is that, together with some students and colleagues, I occasionally get to talk to Paul Parker of the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, about contemporary market design problems in the Cape Cod scallop and ground fish fisheries. His concern is with how regulations on fishing may impact the composition of the fishing fleet; and how the makeup of the fleet (specifically the relationship between big factory ships and the small day boats that are the constituency of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association) will in turn impact the fish.