I think they'll have slightly different answers than mine, because I want to talk a bit more about process.
The kinds of things that I was talking about—design, the content piece, the things that really make technologies sing, that create the disruptions—quite often are not regarded in this society as research per se. It's quite interesting. If you think about design, I have this iPhone. It's my own iPhone, and it makes a great flashlight until you start to get into it and see what I have in there. I have books, movies, music, and a lot of cultural products and content. That all was added to the element to kind of make it sing.
Some of the research they do, and particularly within companies, for example, in marketing and international markets and design, quite often, is not recognized as research per se. I can bet you it's not counted as an investment in research by our public accounts.
I know for example—and this is without comment—that our industrial tax credit system does not count research that would be done for business planning or marketing or content or design as an eligible expense for a tax credit. I said I would say this without comment, so I would just suggest that we need to start thinking a lot more about these elements in terms of managing and promoting disruptive technologies, or creating disruptive technologies from technologies that one might not consider so, as viable elements of the research process, value them, fund them, support them, and value them in industry. I think that's going to take us down the road.