Thank you. There are a couple of comments I would make.
First, industry does believe it has a robust monitoring system in place. Having said that, we must be open to, and we should be open to, improvement in that. What we've said very clearly is that with the third-party review process that is under way—we would have preferred that it be one review rather than two, but we have the two different panels in operation—if they advise us and highlight that there are opportunities to improve that, then clearly industry needs to take that on board.
I think we do need to be open and transparent about data. There's no question about that. I think the whole notion of third-party review and validation by independent scientists makes a lot of sense, in any monitoring program. We should not be debating the basic data. We should have confidence, I think collectively, that we have good data that gives us confidence we are in fact measuring the right things, measuring them consistently and appropriately, and that we're very transparent about the results.