First, I would make very clear that the panel will be reporting to the minister, not to AECL. So I think the minister is certainly looking to get their best advice, and I don't think the minister is starting from any presupposition about what may be the best alternative.
That said, in 2008 the government had to make a very hard decision, based on the evidence presented to it at the time about the MAPLEs, and face the situation where there were considerable further costs to be incurred, considerable uncertainty, and timelines that made it no longer attractive to pursue that option. If the panel comes back and suggests that on the basis of evidence presented to it, this is worth another look, I'm sure the minister will be looking at that.
As regards the other technologies, I should make two points of clarification. The minister has not explicitly asked the panel to advise on MAPLEs. The minister has asked the panel to look at the proposals submitted to it, and we expect—and there is, obviously—some proposal related to the MAPLEs. There is, therefore, an expectation that the panel will take that under advisement.
Second, you mentioned other technologies, and in terms of what we heard from the medical authority earlier, I want to make a distinction. I was talking about different technologies to produce technetium, which could be done through accelerators, cyclotrons, or another research reactor, so not the alternatives to technetium for medical purposes.