Research agendas for profitable invasive species

Management of natural resources with uncertain net benefits presents an
interdisciplinary challenge; economists often must rely on other disciplines
to advise and evaluate policies. Net benefits may be uncertain due to
absent, inconclusive or contradictory scientific findings. Economics must
interpret uncertainties and ground policy recommendations in this
context. Understanding biases in primary research agendas and the
roles of vertical and horizontal integration in knowledge production and
management are essential to prevent sub-optimal allocations across
time and space, including avoiding recommendations of excess or
insufficient harvest. We empirically investigate these biases by
comparing disparate scientific literature and management decisions
across vested interests to uncover how economic incentives
systematically vary across research investments. The Barents Sea Red
King Crab, a simultaneously profitable and invasive species with
different net benefits across stakeholders, provides the empirical
evidence. We find that scientific consensus is harder to achieve even for
primary research when economic incentives differ across research
institutions and that research agendas shift over time in response to
changes in relative trade-offs between ecological consequences and
financial benefits from the resource’s presence. Impacts on management
are accentuated by integration of the scientific research programmes
and management decisions; broadening research participation and
agendas may alleviate bias.