I guess what I've heard about R and D is that we should look at it like a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid, the R and D phase probably eats up the least amount of money because it's more in the science, not so much in the application.
The application process, or applying science by taking that patent off the shelf and making it commercially feasible, is at the bottom of the pyramid. It takes longer and it costs more money.
I'm not a finance expert either, but to get something to that phase, there's more emphasis on R and D all the time, with a lot of programs at the provincial level. There are grants. They are usually around $50,000. That's not enough to commercialize something. Maybe the government could spend a smaller portion, like 15% of the study money, on R and D, and more like 40% on the late-stage commercialization pieces.
I think that the problem is—no offence intended to anybody—how you are going to measure which ones to invest in. You need to talk to people at GE and 3M, people who have developed technology and are experts at this gated approach. They kill it if it's not going to go forward, and they have the best scorecards in the world.