In fact, I am a strong advocate of measuring potential from different angles. We often evaluate excellence using a certain number of indicators: for example, how many scientific articles a person has produced and how much funding was associated with them. We look at the person's history and full of admiration, we say this person is excellent. Another person, however, one in less optimal conditions than the first person, may have somewhat lower production. How would we be able to evaluate that excellence and put it in perspective in order to convert it into potential—that is, evaluate whether that person has potential?
So it comes back to what I was saying earlier: I think we need to have appropriate criteria and committees that are aware of these situations.