That's true. An increase in the accessibility of scientific data is obviously an important thing, but it also needs some interpretation. The problem is that we have some areas—and it reminds me a bit of the binders of data that some of my colleagues talk about that they get from monitoring programs—where it's basically binders of data. Then people do not have the resources to actually analyze that data to find out if the environment is changing, getting better or getting worse. The data access is critical for peer review, so that people can assess whether or not the people are capable of assessing—perhaps university people or others—whether it's being collected in a scientifically sound manner.
But then, especially when it gets to the general public, they need some interpretation of that data, done by an independent body. I believe that the government, again, is the logical place to do that, not necessarily the proponents who are in the industry. I think that is the main role for the government, to take the data, to actually use the data that it has mandated as required, and to use it in some meaningful manner. One of those meaningful products is to explain to the public what's actually happening.
Even for people like me who are scientists, who see these data, it would take a year to analyze even a possible trend, because it just hasn't been done to that level. If the data is never going to be used, then you wonder why we are collecting it.