We think we punch above our weight in a number of these areas when, for instance, you get, in our case, one of the top two scientific discoveries in the world and, for six months of 2003, the most citations by other scientists in the whole field of physics for our results. That's significant on the world scene.
When you asked about how one should make decisions, one of the things that one wants to keep in mind is balance. We want to have return on investment in this case, but you have to also have the opportunity to let creativity happen. There's a reason Albert Einstein was chosen by Time magazine as the man of the 20th century. It's not because he ever built a laser or because he ever built a computer. But the things he did were absolutely essential in terms of people's perception of how to do science in the applied way.
So you need a balance of basic science—and you really want to select the best when you're doing it, and we think our peer review system does an excellent job of that—and strategic programs, but not all of one and not all of the other.
Right now, I think we have a reasonable balance. We're pointing out to you one area that is certainly out of balance, which is operating support for basic science. There is a tendency to move that directly towards the programs that we see in place or ones that are aimed more at applied. That balance is something you want to maintain, and if you do, you'll have the ability to have return on investment not only five years from now but fifty years from now.