I'll give you a concrete example. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory borrowed $300 million worth of heavy water for use in its facility. We have met all of our scientific objectives and, as of last year, we returned that money. We now have a facility that has significant capabilities, and we have identified a future use of it—but for different science. We are perfectly happy to be peer reviewed on that.
I think this enables me to reiterate something that I said before, which is that if you're going to deal with big science facilities, whereas operations right now are the problem for them, you should have a mechanism that decides in the first place what is the best of the new facilities being forward, that deals with the construction and the commissioning, and then deals with the operations, but finally, one that also asks these facilities continually to be accountable for whether or not what they're doing is still relevant and whether they have already met their objectives.
We have no problem with being accountable. We do it yearly to our peers, and we're happy to do it in this case.