Thank you, Chair.
I want to again thank everybody for coming out here this morning.
You know, the biotech study was something that both Mr. Valeriote and I agreed that we needed to do, just because there are so many misconceptions around biotechnology, what it is and what it consists of. If you review the history of our testimony, you'll see that the first thing a lot of our witnesses want to do is talk about GMOs. They seem to think that's biotechnology. For some reason, they seem to think that biotechnology must be genetically modified organisms.
That's the point I was trying to make to you, Ms. Young. I didn't mean any disrespect. It's just that when we have a study on biotechnology, that's where I expect us to go. I don't expect us to just go to one specific part of biotechnology, but to encompass the whole issue of biotechnology. It's a big enough issue on its own.
I think I'm going to go to you, Ms. Park, because I really like the idea of what you're saying with regard to the Science Media Centre. One of the problems I saw in Europe was that there were so many misconceptions and rumours, and actually blatant lies, published just based on the ability to sell a paper or create a story. Nobody was giving good, proper, balanced science information.
The concern I have with your organization...and it's just a concern; I don't know it well enough to say it's good or bad. How do you get good, proper information that has good, proper peer review that is science-based without one of your advisers having a personal interest in the story? Then, how do you inform that reporter of this information and still guarantee that the reporter writes it in that format?
Have you any comments on that?