Absolutely.
I think privacy is always a very sensitive topic, and we're more careful because we know the risks relate to consequences that he can't necessarily take back. It also sets precedent for the future.
When we look at what we've done, the world has moved very conservatively and has either moved forward just a little bit or not moved at all. Because of that, we haven't been able to really see the benefits of data.
Given the particular urgency of this, we've talked to a number of patient groups. We've said, “We want to be able to empower you to contribute to science. We want to be fully transparent with you and say this is the particular dataset we need, and if we can have that under your full consent, it will go to this particular study and will be used to create these particular tools.”
There is huge traction with patient foundations and our patient advocates that this is what they want. They want to be able to contribute. Their data matters. They are valued in the system, and they want to be able to do this for science and for Canada.
I think it's important—we talk about this a lot—that are working with the ecosystem, being across the table with all stakeholders and co-developing with each another. If we do that, then we can ensure that everything we do is within proper guidelines.
We speak to our privacy experts and the appropriate authorities, but there is traction for grassroots contributions and challenge definitions. It's not insurmountable is what I am saying.