Okay. I understand the question.
Thank you. That is a fantastic question. It's one answer to one of our previous questions about some of the differences between indigenous knowledge and Eurocentric or western science. Eurocentric or western science tends to consider itself devoid of values, beliefs and spirituality. Indigenous knowledge captures that all together. It's inclusive of values and spirituality. That is one of the very big differences.
Western science or Eurocentric science has also been criticized. Often many of the biases and beliefs that western scientists have, although we say they're objective, are influenced by our lens of looking at things. That speaks to what Bruce was saying earlier, and what Russ was identifying too. When you bring these knowledge systems together and identify the different values that people hold, I think that's where some of the opportunity space is for policy development.
Policies certainly are and should be informed by evidence and science, but they're also, whether we are explicit about it or not, guided by values. As K_ii'iljuus mentioned, many of our policies do not explicitly address that, like the Species at Risk Act. They're definitely driven typically by Eurocentric values. That influences western science and Eurocentric science in the questions we ask, the data we use and what we actually deem as legitimate. The more we recognize that and are very transparent [Technical difficulty—Editor] for policy.
I hope that was clear. Did I answer your question?