Thank you.
Thank you, both, for your very helpful presentations as we get started in trying to get our minds around this expansive issue. I was just saying to my staff that I wish there were more people under 30 around the table because some of us who are my age, with all due respect, are struggling to even get our minds around some of the concepts that you're introducing to us.
You've been very good about pointing out some of the commercial opportunities, the business elements to this, but I start from a fundamental principle that the public has a right to know what their government is doing with their money. The public has a right to see research done by the government. It was their tax dollars that paid for it and it was their permission given to the government to create it, and therefore it shouldn't be hoarded. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth trying to get information out of the government, but that has been the experience, and not just with this government. That's been the pattern. Secrecy is an important default position of government and information is to be rationed out in a very selective way.
So my question to you is, when we do adopt the default position of openness rather than the default position of secrecy, who's going to make sure that everything is being released? Who's to say that government still doesn't hold back a research paper that they did that might be contrary to some of their policies, or embarrassing even? I'm not saying they should release cabinet confidences and private information, but there's a lot of research done and there have been accusations that a lot of scientists have been muzzled recently if the results of their research aren't quite what the government wanted to hear.
Should there be an independent third body somewhere that makes sure that it's truly open and that information is being released?
Ray, I see you're nodding with interest in that.