Thank you.
Madam Mithani, could I ask you this?
You've actually used the terms “market-driven” research versus “discovery” research. Let's put it in the context of the performance reports of the department, which talk about a gap of 645 full-time employees in the last cycle, going back to basically last year. That being the case, I get the piece that you talked about—and Mr. Dreeshen spoke with you as well—about the clusters, the industry, and basically if you lose 645 employees and you do something different with the group over here, you're kind of doing the same. You get the same amount of work done because you've now taken on new partners. That's not a bad thing.
But as you correctly said, in my view, that's market-driven research and it comes at the expense of—in your words—“discovery” research. If we had indeed kept those 645 employees, I don't know what they would be doing. Could they not have been then working on discovery research, which can in some cases—not in all—discover things we don't find we have any need of until later, which we may even need at the end of the day? Might we be losing out on things that might potentially end up in the cluster later on, because we're no longer doing the discovery research to the same degree we were once doing it before?