Okay.
So in two case studies here, we see clearly that this nexus between science and so-called policy decision-making is not working; this overlap, this crossover, is not working. As scientists, you're here to make a plea, I guess, that the essential reform to SARA should be that we have a much clearer distinction between where the beginning, the middle, and the end of science are, and where other questions are applied to the overall decision-making, such as socio-economic, policy, and other considerations.
Is that right? You want to see a clearer delineation or demarcation in the framework to make sure that there is a more robust respect for science.
Dr. Mooers, you actually say in your brief, “Such a separation of scientific input from government response mitigates against conflict of interest...”. What do you mean?