I don't know that autism research is different, so I can't respond to that comment. I will tell you that every one of the grants that I've had funded was an excellent grant, and all the ones that weren't funded were excellent, and how the hell did somebody not recognize that?
The reality is that there is a huge amount of competition for grant funding. CIHR at 20% or 22% is far more generous than NIH, with which I've had experience, which is about 8%. It's a very competitive world.
There are opportunities when a grant that one thinks is excellent is not funded. There are opportunities to go back to refine it using the feedback. I can't argue that there's unfairness. I could tell you that if we had twice as much money, there would be twice as much research.
That may be a point that this committee could let the government know to continue to support and enhance the funding of CIHR, because if there were more money, there would be more grants funded. The most recent grant that we submitted was ranked 16th out of 69. They funded 13. We've gone back. If there were more money, we would have been funded.