I think it's a bit of a circular question, but we're not in bad shape with respect to the balance. I think we are lucky to be in a country that has a general respect for the fact—it wasn't true 15 years ago, but it is today—that if you don't have that pipeline of basic or fundamental discovery-oriented research, you will not get any benefits, whether in the commercial domain or policy domain. So you simply need that balance.
I would agree totally with Howard, and I like the way he put it, in favour of having the majority of the public investment in fundamental discovery-oriented research and scholarship, and then a significant minority investment in targeted research in the areas Canada shows promise in.
Maybe I wanted a question to be asked before about the four areas chosen on the basis of our empirical progress in those four fundamental areas and their importance to the country. So it's both about taking areas where we've demonstrated excellence and impact and are recognized for that on the world stage, increasing the critical mass of outstanding targeted research based on that pipeline of basic research, and thereby have Canada advance even further.
If I could add one last comment, I would say that just as important as the pipeline in fundamental research, as against targeted research, is to have the range of disciplinary fields covered, because if you don't have the social sciences and humanities translated to the human factor side, you can have all the robust technology in the world, but you won't know enough about how to get the uptake to have an impact on society.