My comment is what I just said. There isn't any question that what you're referring to has been a very substantial evolution in the methodology of studying fish health. There is a classical approach to fish health, where we see the expression of disease and we go back and try to determine the cause of that disease. The SSHI used, really, tools that were developed by the human genome program, where we seldom have expression of disease without a vector, so we should be able to sample for the vectors that we know. We use DNA technologies that are state of the art, and we can sample huge numbers of fish to look at the role of disease in populations. We start by understanding the distribution of the causes of disease.
I would still say that, if there are differences within the outcome or methodologies within DFO, the DFO scientists are perfectly capable of working this out. You do it through methodological approaches to study those differences. You have to have the facilities for that, and you have to have the resources, but very seldom is one scientist dead wrong. There are famous examples of this, where people are wrong or have misled others. That is not the case of what you're talking about here. There is just emerging technologies and knowledge that have to be taken into account as information changes through time—and as the environment changes. Climate change is going to introduce new issues for us.