The economics of managing evolution.

Troy Day, David A Kennedy, Andrew F Read, David McAdams
Author Information
  1. Troy Day: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. ORCID
  2. David A Kennedy: Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States of America. ORCID
  3. Andrew F Read: Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
  4. David McAdams: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America. ORCID

Abstract

Humans are altering biological systems at unprecedented rates, and these alterations often have longer-term evolutionary impacts. Most obvious is the spread of resistance to pesticides and antibiotics. There are a wide variety of management strategies available to slow this evolution, and there are many reasons for using them. In this paper, we focus on the economic aspects of evolution management and ask: When is it economically beneficial for an individual decision-maker to invest in evolution management? We derive a simple dimensionless inequality showing that it is cost-effective to manage evolution when the percentage increase in the effective life span of the biological resource that management generates is larger than the percentage increase in annual profit that could be obtained by not managing evolution. We show how this inequality can be used to determine optimal investment choices for single decision-makers, to determine Nash equilibrium investment choices for multiple interacting decision-makers, and to examine how these equilibrium choices respond to regulatory interventions aimed at stimulating investment in evolution management. Our results are illustrated with examples involving Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops and antibiotic use in fish farming.

References

  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 23;110(30):12259-64 [PMID: 23836660]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Apr 14;112(15):4606-11 [PMID: 25825719]
  3. Trends Parasitol. 2011 Feb;27(2):67-72 [PMID: 20971040]
  4. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;37(7):852-4 [PMID: 27020133]
  5. Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Jun;31(6):510-21 [PMID: 23752438]
  6. Ambio. 2020 Jan;49(1):1-16 [PMID: 30903512]
  7. J Environ Manage. 2005 Aug;76(3):210-20 [PMID: 15922504]
  8. Science. 2007 Nov 23;318(5854):1247-8 [PMID: 18033868]
  9. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017 Jan;1388(1):5-17 [PMID: 28134444]
  10. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 Jan 19;372(1712): [PMID: 27920381]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jan 17;109(3):775-80 [PMID: 22215605]
  12. Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Dec 22;281(1797): [PMID: 25377456]
  13. Biol Lett. 2006 Jun 22;2(2):198-202 [PMID: 17148361]
  14. Science. 2001 Sep 7;293(5536):1786-90 [PMID: 11546863]
  15. Pest Manag Sci. 2021 Oct;77(10):4262-4273 [PMID: 34041838]
  16. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jun;23(6):327-37 [PMID: 18439706]
  17. Nat Biotechnol. 2017 Oct 11;35(10):926-935 [PMID: 29020006]

Grants

  1. R01 GM140459/NIGMS NIH HHS
  2. R01 GM105244/NIGMS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Bacillus thuringiensis
Biological Evolution
Models, Biological
Plants, Genetically Modified
Zea mays

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0evolutionmanagementinvestmentchoicesbiologicalinequalitypercentageincreasemanagingdeterminedecision-makersequilibriumHumansalteringsystemsunprecedentedratesalterationsoftenlonger-termevolutionaryimpactsobviousspreadresistancepesticidesantibioticswidevarietystrategiesavailableslowmanyreasonsusingpaperfocuseconomicaspectsask:economicallybeneficialindividualdecision-makerinvestmanagement?derivesimpledimensionlessshowingcost-effectivemanageeffectivelifespanresourcegenerateslargerannualprofitobtainedshowcanusedoptimalsingleNashmultipleinteractingexaminerespondregulatoryinterventionsaimedstimulatingresultsillustratedexamplesinvolvingBacillusthuringiensisBtcropsantibioticusefishfarmingeconomics

Similar Articles

Cited By