I think for the biotech model, you have a disparity. You have the 20% that are the really super-big companies, such as the pharmaceuticals, which require a great deal of regulatory lobbying and a great deal of advocacy on their part. That's a great deal of what the member associations do for them.
The smaller ones, which are the vast 80% of the biotechnology industry, the member associations don't serve particularly well, because they're very much into the top 20%. The bottom 80% are the ones that require the HR direction to manage the skills gaps. They're the ones that benefit directly and are the most numerous. They're also the ones that drive the bio-economy. They're the ones that produce the drugs the bigger companies buy. They're the companies the other companies partner with to advance their R and D.
Which model works? Right now I would say, unquestionably.... Should BioTalent Canada have been more plugged into the industry associations at the top end? Absolutely. I think we're realizing that it was short-sighted on behalf of our particular organization.