Frequently in the development of new methodologies and new information, you do have differences of opinion in science. Nonetheless, in fully objective science and dialogue, you work through those differences because, if it's a difference in methodology, you can evaluate it through research.
We frequently jump to conclusions that they are opposed because they are different groups with different opinions, but that's not how science should progress. It really progresses from starting with an understanding. Now if we have a difference of opinion, then the scientific methodology established globally allows you to study through research, and to develop the hypothesis and the question and the methodology, and to conduct the research and to draw your conclusions.
One of the things that we found through the risk assessment is that this notion of consensus in science is very bad. If it evolves from good information, then that's a benefit, but you should not force a consensus in any way. That is doing a huge disservice to the ministers of fisheries or forestry and anything else. They have the responsibility to understand the uncertainties, as well. That's where the management of policy comes into play, not in the science.