I can.
I would suggest that what science can do in addressing any question is to provide advice to and provide analysis. As long as the results of that analysis are open and transparently communicated, and the science advice is made plain to decision-makers, to society, to fish processors, and to fishermen and so on, then you can evaluate what is then done with that science advice. In a broad sense, I think the credibility of incorporating science advice depends a great deal on the transparency of that advice.
I would argue that science should determine the limit and the target reference points for a fishery. The harvest control rule, which I haven't defined properly, is a control rule that governs the level of fishing pressure, or the level of fishing mortality, depending on whether the stock is close to the limit or close to the target. That rule can take on various forms, and ideally it is quantitative. That is where I think the fishing industry can come into play, and society can have a role in saying, “Okay, here's the limit and there's the target. How long do we want to reach that target? How long do we want to play things out?” In other words, there are decisions that can be made for which society has a role to impart information as to the speed with which a recovery plan or rebuilding is likely to take place. That is as long as everyone is cognisant of the pros and cons of having a big fishery now or maybe waiting a number of years for another fishery. I think that would be a valuable place where the industry could have a voice.