Thank you, Mr. Tochor. I'd like to start with Mr. Robson.
I will echo some of your comments, as someone who has been to university rather recently, compared to many of my member of Parliament colleagues here.
There is—and for Mr. Kitcher's experience—absolutely much indoctrination that happens in universities. In fact, I was almost terrified to share any of my conservative views in classrooms, until I grew enough confidence to do so and proudly stood up, but most people get shouted out of those rooms and are terrified to express anything other than what the so-called mainstream belief among university students is.
However, I am in no way actually opposed to basic research or some of the more technical research. Mr. Kitcher, you mentioned things like genetic research. I come from an agricultural background. The development of CRISPR technology is going to be an absolute game-changer in terms of agriculture and potentially for pre-existing human conditions that we could help prevent—with those ethical boundaries, certainly, being respected.
My question is, to start with Mr. Robson, how do we evaluate? I think there's the technical and economic-driven research, and Mr. Kitcher mentioned..... How do we measure that? I think we need to look at how much commercialization happens, how many patents emerge and how many jobs are created out of this, versus some of the studies that my colleague Mr. Tochor.... There are numerous ones, and yes, there's only $37,000 here and there, but they are ridiculous studies. How do we do a better job of prioritizing research that's actually going to make a difference to society and to our nation, versus some of these...? I don't even know what you call that type of research.