Abdallah, Patrízia Raggi

Abe, Keita

Addo, Kwasi A

Adelsheim, Julia

Adewumi, Ibukun J

Adeyemo, Olanike K

Adger, Neil

Adotey, Joshua

Advani, Sahir

Afrin, Zahidah

Aheto, Denis

Akintola, Shehu L

Akpalu, Wisdom

Alam, Lubna

Alava, Juan José

Allison, Edward H

Amon, Diva J

Anderies, John M

Anderson, Christopher M

Andrews, Evan

Angelini, Ronaldo

Anna, Zuzy

Antweiler, Werner

Arizi, Evans K

Armitage, Derek

Arthur, Robert I

Asare, Noble

Asche, Frank

Asiedu, Berchie

Asuquo, Francis

Badmus, Lanre

Bailey, Megan

Ban, Natalie

Barbier, Edward B

Barley, Shanta

Barnes, Colin

Barrett, Scott

Basurto, Xavier

Belhabib, Dyhia

Bennett, Elena

Bennett, Nathan J

Benzaken, Dominique

Blasiak, Robert

Bohorquez, John J

Bordehore, Cesar

Bornarel, Virginie

Boyd, David R

Breitburg, Denise

Brooks, Cassandra

Brotz, Lucas

Burnside, Duncan

Campbell, Donovan

Cannon, Sara

Cao, Ling

Cardenas Campo, Juan C

Carpenter, Griffin

Carpenter, Steve

Carson, Richard T

Carvalho, Adriana R

Castrejón, Mauricio

Caveen, Alex J

Chabi, M Nicole

Chan, Kai MA

Chapin, F Stuart

Charles, Tony

Cheung, William

Christensen, Villy

Chuku, Ernest O

Church, Trevor

Cisneros-Montemayor, Andrés M

Clark, Colin

Clarke, Tayler M

Cojocaru, Andreea L

Copeland, Brian

Crawford, Brian

Crowder, Larry B

Crépin, Anne-Sophie

Cury, Philippe

Cutting, Allison N

Da-Rocha, Jose Maria

Daily, Gretchen C

Das, Abhipsita

de la Puente, Santiago

de Zeeuw, Aart

Deikumah, Savior KS

Deith, Mairin

Dewitte, Boris

Doubleday, Nancy

Duarte, Carlos M

Dulvy, Nicholas K

Eddy, Tyler

Efford, Meaghan

Ehrlich, Paul R

Elsler, Laura G

Fakoya, Kafayat A

Schuhbauer, Anna

Sinan, Hussain

Skerritt, Daniel J

Sumaila, U Rashid

Villasante, Sebastian

eScholarship - University of California

UC San DiegoUC San Diego Previously Published WorksTitleWTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidiesPermalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vb903rdJournalScience, 374(6567)ISSN0036-8075AuthorsSumaila, U RashidSkerritt, Daniel JSchuhbauer, Annaet al.Publication Date2021-10-29DOI10.1126/science.abm1680 Peer reviewedeScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of Californialow-impact gears or that fish for subsis-tence, but only if decoupled from incentiv-izing overfishing (6). An effective agreement must eliminate subsidies for fuel (7), distant-water and destructive fishing fleets (4, 5), and ille-gal and unregulated vessels in line with the aims of Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 (8). To ensure accountability, it should also support low-income countries’ efforts to meet their commitments and transition to sustainable management. Finally, the agreement should require transparent data documentation and enforcement measures (9).We call on the heads of state of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement—who have already committed to eliminating harmful subsidies (10–12)—as well as other trade blocs and individual countries, to declare their support now for an agreement that enshrines these recommendations. WTO members must harness their politi-cal mandate to protect the health of the ocean and the well-being of society.  U. Rashid. Sumaila1,2, Daniel Skerritt1, Anna Schuhbauer1, Sebastian Villasante3, Andres. M. Cisneros-Montemayor4, Hussain Sinan5, Duncan Burnside2, and 289 additional authors†1Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. 2School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. 3Cross-Research in Environmental Technologies, Department of Applied Economics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, 15782, Spain. 4School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada. 5Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada. *Corresponding author. Email: r.sumaila@oceans.ubc.ca†Full list of authors and affiliations can be found atwww.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm1680.REFERENCES AND NOTES1. D. Pauly et al., Nature 418, 689 (2002).2. U. R. Sumaila et al., Mar. Pol. 109, 103695 (2019).3. WTO, Negotiations on fisheries subsidies (2021);www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/fish_e.htm.4. D. Tickler et al., Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3279 (2018).5. E. Sala et al., Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2504 (2018).6. A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor et al., Mar. Pol. 69, 229 (2016).7. U. R. Sumaila et al., ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65, 832 (2008).8. United Nations General Assembly, “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (2015).9. M. D. Smith, Science 364, 34 (2019).1 0.  High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, “Transformations for a sustainable ocean economy: A vision for production, protection and prosperity” (2020); www.oceanpanel.org/ocean-action/files/transformations-sustainable-ocean-economy-eng.pdf.11. M. A. Khan et al., J. Econ. Struct. 7, 1 (2018).12. A. M. Villarreal, I. F. Fergusson, “NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)” (Congressional Research Service Report, 2020).COMPETING INTERESTSU.R.S. is an unpaid member of the Board of Directors of Oceana and Science Advisory Board Member of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Global Ocean Legacy Programme and has received funding from the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy and Oceana. S.V. has received funding from the “EQUALSEA—Transformative adaptation towards Ocean Equity” Project, under the European Horizon 2020 Program.10.1126/science.abm1680Alzheimer’s drugs: Does reducing amyloid work?In his Perspective “Treatments for Alzheimer’s disease emerge” (6 August, p. 624), D. J. Selkoe asserts that sometrials testing potential treatments forAlzheimer’s disease have shown “evidenceof disease modification.” He cites reduc-tions in amyloid plaques (hypothesized tocause cognitive decline) and some modestreductions in cognitive decline shown infour potential drugs that target amyloid.However, hardly any trials have shownan effect, and even the trials with statisti-cally significant results show effects thatare too small to be clinically significant orto justify moving forward with the treat-ments. b-amyloid antibodies can loweramyloid plaques (extracellular aggregatedinsoluble b-amyloid), but available datashow that decreasing amyloid plaquesdoes not in itself lead to reduction in cog-nitive decline.544    29 OCTOBER 2021 • VOL 374 ISSUE 6567 science.org  SCIENCEPHOTO: XIE MINGFEI/VCG/GETTY IMAGESEdited by Jennifer SillsWTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidiesSustainably managed wild fisheries sup-port food and nutritional security, liveli-hoods, and cultures (1). Harmful fisheries subsidies—government payments that incentivize overcapacity and lead to over-fishing—undermine these benefits yet are increasing globally (2). World Trade Organization (WTO) members have a unique opportunity at their ministerial meeting in November to reach an agree-ment that eliminates harmful subsidies (3). We—a group of scientists spanning 46 countries and 6 continents—urge the WTO to make this commitment.To curb overfishing, biodiversity deg-radation and loss, and CO2 emissions, and to safeguard food and livelihoods, WTO members must prohibit fisheries subsidies that cause harm, such as those that lower the cost of fuel and vessel construction and those that provide price support to keep market prices artificially high (2). Subsidies to distant-water fish-ing fleets must be eliminated to prevent overfishing on the high seas and in waters under national jurisdiction. Such subsi-dies threaten low-income countries that rely on fish for food sovereignty (4, 5). Exceptions to the rules—known as special and differential treatment—should be considered for small-scale fishers that use LETTERS Global fishing subsidies can contribute to overfishing.EMBARGOED UNTIL 2:00 PM ET THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER 202129 OCTOBER 2021 • VOL 374 ISSUE 6567    545SCIENCE   science.orgThe data from six phase 2 or 3 trials of the four medications cited by Selkoe are available in peer-reviewed articles. Four trials were stopped for futility and one trial, lecanemab, was negative (1). Only one trial hit its primary endpoint (for donanemab) (2). The negative lecanemab trial did not meet its primary endpoint at 12 months, despite the potential advan-tage of a protocol change that created an imbalance in APOE4 carriers, who experi-ence faster cognitive decline. With only 30% of the treatment cohort composed of APOE4 carriers compared with 71% of the placebo group, the placebo group would be expected to decline more quickly (3, 4). Selkoe claims that one gantenerumab phase 2 trial reduced amyloid and cogni-tive decline, but both reported phase 3 gantenerumab trials were stopped for futility and had no significant effects on primary or secondary outcomes (5) at 2 years. Selkoe characterizes a small trial of donanemab as “markedly” decreasing amyloid and “significantly” slowing cogni-tive decline. However, this trial showed only a 3.2-point benefit on a 144-point scale—half the trial team’s designated minimally clinically significant effect size (2)—and no significant effects on second-ary cognitive and functional outcomes (6). One aducanumab trial, EMERGE (NCT02484547), showed a 0.39-point (23%) better outcome for the treatment group on the primary Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR-SB) scale outcome at 18 months, but the identical ENGAGE trial showed a 0.03-point (2%) worsening with treatment (7). Selkoe speculates several reasons for failures of past trials but ignores what might be the most obvious: The treatment target (b-amyloid) itself may be wrong. Just as removing smoke does not extin-guish a fire, reducing amyloid plaques may not affect the course of Alzheimer’s disease. Certainly, trial data do not sup-port any clinical benefit of amyloid plaque reduction (8). Neither donanemab nor aducanumab trialists reported an associa-tion between amyloid reduction and indi-vidual participant clinical outcomes (2, 7). No comparable published results are available for lecanemab or gantenerumab. Furthermore, the amyloid cascade hypoth-esis proposes β-amyloid aggregation as an early disease trigger, preceding tau phosphorylation and accumulation (9). However, despite reducing amyloid plaques, donanemab failed to lower tau and also increased brain atrophy (10).Alzheimer’s disease antibody trials represent the definitive test of the amy-loid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Objective appraisal of the clinical out-comes data suggests more a failure of hypothesis confirmation than successful translation of this disease model. Madhav Thambisetty1, Robert Howard2, M. Maria Glymour3, Lon S. Schneider41Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section, Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 2Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London W1T 7NF, UK. 3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA. 4Department of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences, Department of Neurology, and the USC Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.*Corresponding author. Email: thambisettym@mail.nih.govREFERENCES AND NOTES 1.  C. J. Swanson et al., Alzheimers Res. Ther. 13, 80 (2021). 2.  M. A. Mintun et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1691 (2021). 3.  K. R. Murphy et al., Neuroimage 78, 474 (2013). 4.  J. Qian, R. A. Betensky, B. T. Hyman, A. Serrano-Pozo, Neurology 96, e2414 (2021). 5.  S. Ostrowitzki et al., Alzheimers Res. Ther. 9, 95 (2017). 6.  A. I. Levey, N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1762 (2021). 7.  U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Drug Approval Package: Aduhelm (aducanumab-avwa). Statistical Review and Evaluation NDA/BLA #: 761178” (2021); www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2021/761178Orig1s000StatR_Redacted.pdf. 8. S. F. Ackley et al., BMJ 372, n156 (2021). 9.  E. S. Musiek, D. M. Holtzman, Nat. Neurosci. 18,  800 (2015). 10.  S. Ayton, Eur. J. Neurol. 28, e67 (2021).COMPETING INTERESTSL.S.S. has received consulting or advisory fees within the past 3 years from Cortexyme, Cognition Inc, Eisai, Eli Lilly, IBC Ltd, Merck, Neurim Ltd, Roche/Genentech, Samus, Takeda, UCB; and has received grants or contracts from Biogen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Novartis related to the subject matter of this correspondence.10.1126/science.abl8366ResponseThambisetty et al.’s assertion that “trial data do not support any clinical benefit of amyloid plaque reduction” in Alzheimer’s disease is not supported by close analysis of all publicly available trial data. Some amyloid-b (Ab) antibodies but not others have decreased amyloid deposits in brain regions serving cognition, accompanied by slowing of decline on some tests of cognition and activities of daily living. The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Clinical Pharmacology Review of aducanumab concluded that its reduction of amyloid plaques correlated with slowing of cognitive decline and that this “is con-sistent across all 6 other programs of Ab antibodies over the past decade” [(1), p. 30, see Fig. 5]. The FDA said the negative adu-canumab ENGAGE trial (NCT02477800) was the only exception to this relationship, suggesting it was a “potential outlier or chance finding” [(1), p. 29]. The positive aducanumab EMERGE trial (NCT02484547) showed significantly less (–23%) cognitive decline on 10 mg/kg than placebo (P = 0.0120) at 18 months. Statistically significant treatment effects were also observed for all three ranked sec-ondary clinical endpoints and the tertiary endpoint. This was supported by statisti-cally significant dose-dependent reductions of amyloid plaques and of cerebrospinal fluid phosphotau, a marker of tangles that correlate with cognitive decline [(2), pp. 1–2]. In post-hoc analyses of EMERGE, all chosen comparisons showed a positive effect of aducanumab over placebo (3).In the negative (and non-identical) adu-canumab ENGAGE trial (NCT02477800), the FDA noted that patients with the high-est drug exposure had benefits on cognition and activities of daily living, like patients in the EMERGE trial with comparable drug exposure [(2), p. 3]. The FDA Clinical Pharmacology team did extensive trial sim-ulations and concluded that the probability of the high dose group in EMERGE being a false positive was very low. They sug-gested that the negative high dose group in ENGAGE was likely a chance finding driven in part by the numerous patients who were enrolled before a late protocol amendment allowed APOE4 carriers to receive the high-est dose (10 mg/kg) of aducanumab. The FDA said the probability of observing the overall aducanumab findings under an assumption that the agent was equal to pla-cebo “was extremely low” [(2), p. 5].Thambisetty et al. point out that for don-anemab and aducanumab, there was no association between amyloid lowering and individual patient clinical outcomes. But the FDA has stated that randomizing patients into specific dose groups is highly likely to achieve a balance across dose groups (i.e., at group-level) of known and unknown prognostic factors that could influence outcomes. If patients are randomized at group-level (as they were) but the relation-ships between endpoints are assessed at individual-level within a dose group, “such a balance (in prognostic factors) can no lon-ger be guaranteed” [(1), p. 27]. So, variability among Alzheimer’s disease patients may be too great to expect consistent individual correlations with outcomes, but correlations were seen at group level.The lecanemab Phase 2b trial used Bayesian design and narrowly missed its ambitious 12-month primary outcome, but at 18-months, it showed favorable drug-placebo differences of 27% less decline on one Alzheimer’s disease cognitive test and 56% less on another (4). However, during enrollment, the regulator prohibited APOE4 carriers from receiving the highest dose. To EMBARGOED UNTIL 2:00 PM ET THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER 2021science.org  SCIENCEadjust for this, the highest and next-highest dose groups were analyzed together, thereby achieving APOE4 balance between treat-ment and placebo groups, and now the first cognitive measure showed 20% less decline on the drug (at a nearly significant P = 0.053). Moreover, lecanemab reduced cogni-tive decline more in APOE4 carriers than in patients without APOE4 (4), suggesting potentially greater overall benefit if more APOE4 carriers had been allowed to take the highest dose.Donanemab in a phase 2 trial robustly lowered amyloid plaques and achieved its primary endpoint on a composite score of cognition and activities of daily living at 18 months (P = 0.04), with nominal posi-tive trends for two secondary cognitive outcomes. Prespecified analyses of Tau–positron emission tomography showed less tau accumulation in frontal and temporal cortices, an important marker of cognitive decline (5, 6).Thambisetty et al. question the clinical meaningfulness of the findings across the trials of these antibodies, but the Alzheimer’s disease field has no established quantita-tive guidelines for what constitutes clinical meaningfulness from a patient and family perspective. In one study of clinically mean-ingful change, a 1- to 2-point worsening in the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR-SB) scale was the average change across cognitively normal to moderately severe dementia, but at the level of mild cognitive impairment, a rise in CDR-SB of <1 (.98) was deemed meaningful by judgment of clinicians (not of patients or caregivers) (7).Based on 3 decades of Alzheimer’s dis-ease genetics, Ab accumulation is the fire, not the smoke. Clearing amyloid in other diseases (e.g., transthyretin) slows organ failure (8), and the above trial results sug-gest we are starting to see this happen in Alzheimer’s disease. Thambisetty et al. sug-gest not moving forward with amyloid-tar-geted treatments despite growing evidence that these agents can benefit patients, even if only modestly as used so far.Dennis J. Selkoe Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Email: dselkoe@bwh.harvard.eduREFERENCES AND NOTES 1. FDA, “FDA clinical pharmacology review” (2021); www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2021/761178Orig1s000ClinPharm_Redacted.pdf.  2. FDA, “Office of Neurology’s summary review memo-randum” (2021); www.accessdata.fda.gov/drug-satfda_docs/nda/2021/Aducanumab_BLA761178_Dunn_2021_06_07.pdf. 3. Biogen, “Aducanumab ADPD 2021 efficacy presenta-tion” (2021), p. 13; https://investors.biogen.com/static-files/74641e1b-cd23-495e-8f29-f4ecac0a1126. 4. C. J. Swanson et al., Alzheimers Res. Ther. 13,  80 (2021). 5. J. S. Sanchez et al., Sci. Transl. Med. 13, eabc0655 (2021). 6. M. A. Busche, B. T. Hyman, Nat. Neurosci. 23,  1183 (2020). 7. J. S. Andrews et al., Alzheimers Dement. 5, 354 (2019). 8. D. Adams, M. Slama, Curr. Opin. Neurol. 33, 553 (2020).10.1126/science.abm3288NEXTGEN VOICES: SUBMIT NOWPost-pandemic adjustmentsAdd your voice to Science! In this NextGen Voices survey, a reader asks for your advice! Have you been in this situation or one like it? Do you have any tips that you would like to share? Become a NextGen Voices peer mentor by contributing your thoughts!Dear NextGen Voices peer mentors,I am so excited that my university is finally allowing us to come back to work in a semi-normal way this year. However, I know that some of my labmates have been exceptionally productive during our time working remotely, publishing papers and finding new grants. Meanwhile, I have been overwhelmed by the stress of being away from my family, who live in a poorer country that has been hit especially hard, while also trying to care for my young children. I haven’t published anything, and applying for grants feels impossible.  As we move forward, how can I get my already sparse early-career CV (and life!) back on track and compete with all the people who have been so productive during this difficult time?Sincerely, Playing CatchupTo submit, go to www.sciencemag.org/nextgen-voicesDeadline for submissions is 5 November. A selection of the best responses will be published in the 7 January issue of Science. Submissions should be 150 words or less. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.INSIGHTS   |   LETTERSAD TKEMBARGOED UNTIL 2:00 PM ET THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER 2021

English

WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vb903rd

WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies.

WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eScholarship - University of California