Archive for the ‘Politics’ category

Is that right? How do we know?

September 24, 2011

Yesterday a story suggesting that “Einstein may be wrong” hit the headlines. Apparently scientists at CERN have done some experiments whose results can only be explained by relativity theory being incorrect. Or by their experiments/interpretation/understanding of results being incorrect/flawed. But they’ve repeated the experiments many times and now they don’t know what to make of it all.

Presumably, being world-class scientists employed at a reputable institution, they’ve tried to find every other possible explanation apart from the one now hitting the headlines, and this is why they’ve opened their results up for debate by the wider community. Saying that one of the kings of physics may have been wrong is one thing, but contradicting a theory that explains almost all that we “understand” of physics is another. Apart from anything else, how embarrassing if they are wrong!

Some people have suggested that of course the CERN scientists must be wrong. But this is hardly a scientific viewpoint, rather, to me, it smacks of the kind of inviolable faith that we see normally in religion; belief despite the evidence or lack of it. I’m not going to talk about science and religion today except to say that when discussing science we should look at it in a scientific way, not a faith-based one.

I certainly don’t know if the experiments concerned are flawed or not, and I never really understood relativity theory anyway. But part of me hopes that their findings cannot be explained by using current theories, and that this is not due to any flaws. After all, this is how theories are improved and science is advanced.

When I was in school, I learned that scientific method consists of first observing, and recording accurately what you observe. You must then try to make inferences about what is occuring based on your observations and then form a hypothesis which can be tested. If your hypothesis stands up to experiment then your theory can be considered adequate, until a new set of observations which do not fit with the theory. Therefore, I’d argue that the only ways in which you can be wrong in science is to incorrectly record something or to hold blindly to a theory which does not fit the observed results.

This discussion is also pertinent to a group of Italian vulcanologists currently being sued for negligence because they failed to correctly predict a catastrophic event in which people died. If you think about it, they are being sued because their theory was incorrect. But if it was based on the best available evidence at the time, then how is this fair? They were surely only negligent if they failed to take into account information that could have been relevant and even then, it would have to have been evident to a third-party expert that the information was relevant as it’s often necessary to exclude outliers and noise in order to formulate an initial theory effectively.

It seems that people expect science to provide black and white answers, whereas in fact all we can ever do is give our best current opinion based on the available evidence. It may be that this fact is not adequately conveyed to the public, in schools, etc. Learning science is not like history, where you learn a set of known events and dates, nor like a language, in which lists of vocabulary and grammatical rules can be learned, along with the exceptions to those rules. Rather it is a way of thinking and understanding things.

Who do you trust? And why?

March 21, 2011

“In God we trust”, or so they say. Nice, if you truly believe that there is some kind of all-knowing, all-powerful being out there who has your best interests at heart, and who can send you signs telling you what is going on. If you don’t believe any of this (and I don’t), then who can you trust? And where can you go to get information that you know is accurate?

Not this blog, that’s for sure.

Not that I would intentionally lie to you, I want to make that clear. But this blog gives my opinion, and those of others who comment on it. Some of this will be backed up by fact. But if you want real, true, hard facts, a blog is the wrong place to go looking for them.

Ok, so you don’t go to a blog. But maybe you look for the answer on the internet? Use a famous search engine or ask a question in a forum. Maybe you look up the answer in a book, or ask a friend. You could ask a teacher, a doctor, a librarian, a scientist or other expert, depending on what your question is about. You could watch a TV programme about it. Or stop someone on the street and ask them.

What I am trying to get at is that obviously there are very many places you could go to get answers to your question. Some of these are probably more trustworthy that others – would you take the answer given to you by a passer-by over that of a teacher? Probably not. But most people would tend to believe their friend over a random stranger. Even if, unbeknownst to them, the random stranger might actually be a top expert in that very subject, whereas their drinking pal is not. It’s probably human nature, we spend time with people we like, we trust them more. We surround ourselves with people who we like and who have similar backgrounds, training, and beliefs to ourselves. And we trust these people over strangers. Which in the end means we trust our own judgement over that of others.

I’ve had countless conversations about various “non-scientific” groups such as climate change deniers and religious groups. Some members of these groups claim that belief is more important than what you can tell from the evidence. This is an inherently unscientific claim as all good scientists know that your hypothesis must be testable and you arrive at it by making educated guesses (inferences) based on your observations. If there is no evidence there is no  inference and no hypothesis to test. But it is not necessarily wrong – there may be things happening in the world for which we (currently) have no reliable evidence. Personally though, I would tend to regard ideas for which there is evidence as being more likely to be correct than beliefs for which there is no evidence.  

Another important side of this is whether you can or should believe someone when they tell you something. Governments tell their people something and expect them to believe and obey – like the Japanese government right now telling the people it is all safe and not to panic. Advertisers tell you that their product is best. Scientists tell you not to believe in ghosts. Your doctor tells you to cut down on fat. Your friend tells you it’s all a big consipracy and not to believe any of them. So who do you believe, and why?

Some people or agencies have earned our respect previously, by doing good work or by making pronouncements that have subsequently been proven to be truthful (particular charities). Some have a more mixed history (governments). Some we just want to believe because the alternative is too awful (climate change deniers).

As a scientist I want to engender trust in science and other scientists. I believe that, in general, what is peer-reviewed and published represents the best of our knowledge about a subject. (I say in general because, as many of us know, peer review and publication do not guarantee trustworthiness – think cold fusion, etc). I put my trust in the community-based checking mechanisms that ensure that only the truth is put out there. If I see a news story about science, I ask “where has this come from, where are the papers published?” and until I know the answer, I reserve judgement. Well mainly, anyway. As a human, if I see a story I want to believe, and think is likely, I will probably believe it anyway, especially if it comes from a source I trust. Except the BBC on April Fool’s Day.

Is Chemistry the Key to Sustainable Living? – A Review

November 28, 2010

This was a debate held by the Royal Society of Chemistry at the flash, newly renovated Chemistry Centre in Burlington House, Piccadilly.

The main speaker was Dr Mike Pitts from the Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network, with Professor Tom Welton (Imperial College) and Bob Crawford (Unilever) backing him up in the subsequent debate.

Obviously his answer to the title question was yes, as Pitts admitted straightaway, otherwise the whole thing would have been rather pointless.

Pitts was a striking speaker, perhaps surprisingly for a scientist; he really knows how to communicate in non-scientific terms,which is just as well as this event was billed as a policy event and hoped to attract a broad audience. In the end, though the Chair of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology was present, there did not seem to be many other notable individuals present, and the audience mainly consisted of RSC staff, interested members and students, and the odd visitor from another learned society. I realise that the RSC deliberately kept the invite list small but the room was half empty in the end and it seemed that the event could have been more widely promoted.

I didn’t learn much new from the talk itself, which went along the lines of “here’s the doom and gloom” then “here are some generic ways in which we can change the way we think about chemistry to solve the doom and gloom”. Pitts focussed on the scarce natural resurces aspect of things; rare earth metals and carbon and other “poorly managed elments”, but also covered water and biodiversity (no explanation of how chemistry can help with the latter, though).

His solution, in general, was an interesting one that will, however require a great deal of change in the way society behaves. He proposed that we should not think so much about individual products and think instead about their overall life cycle. This was not just in terms of those designing them, though he was keen for designers and chemists to collaborate more together, but in terms of what we as society buy. He believes that in the future we will buy a service rather than a product, for example, for the experience of using a washing machine, rather than simply buying and owning a washing machine. This service would then cover “cradle to grave” of the machine rather than the current situation which covers cradle to point of disposal.

Such a way of viewing things would certainly enable and indeed encourage service providers to think more about the way they design products to make them recyclable etc. For the user, such a usage scheme could mean a seamless service even when things go wrong (and encourage longer-lasting products in the first place). But the fundamental tenet of this view is that the users would not be the owners of the “things”, simply the users. It would be like renting your TV in years gone by. As much as I like this idea personally, I am not sure that our highly capitalist, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses society is ready to own less. I’d be interested to see how this could be put to the man on the street in a way that would actually make him buy it.

Chemistry can certainly help to achieve this goal but it is going to take a lot more than chemistry to make it viable. Psychology, marketing, and probably policy decisions in parliament too. Scientists have been trying to change people’s behaviour for years with the dire warnings about global warming etc. It is going to take more than that to get us to alter our comfortable lifestyle in which we own houses, cars, furniture, white goods, etc.

The future of science in parliament – a review

November 20, 2010

I attended the Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy 4th Distinguished Lecture,which was actually a joint presentation between Dr Evan Harris and Dr Julian Huppert. As some of the few scientists in (or previously in, in Harris’ case) parliament, they have a quite unique view of certain things. Some of the events described are almost too shocking to be believeable, and yet you know they are true because of other similar events already well-known and publicised.

A large part of the entertainment value was provided by Harris and Huppert relating stories of how this or that other unfortunate politician (George Bush Jr., Patricia Hewitt, Alan Millburn, and some nameless but doubtless influential politicians) had said something that was quite clearly laughable to anyone with a vaguely scientific background. Paraphrased examples include the following (if you can’t see what’s wrong, you probably aren’t reading this blog):

“By next year all doctors should be performing above average”

“Home childbirth is safe, and we’ve commissioned research to prove it”

“You shouldn’t care about evidence, you should just know what’s right”

“Why would we need a Chief Scientific Advisor?” (from a Treasury official)

Ultimately there was very little content that was new to me but it was interesting to hear Harris and Huppert’s respective points of view on what could be done about the state of things and where to start.

Harris:

  • We need to ensure that politicians understand (or at least respect even if they don’t understand) the need for policy to be made based on evidence that is peer-reviewed and published rather than just commented by an individual.
  • We as scientists should do more “front-foot” campaigning i.e. positively acting on points of mutal concern.
  • Politicians should understand the consequences to them politically in not taking a rational/evidence-based approach (i.e. let your MP know what you think of their actions).

Huppert:

  • Some M.P.s are actively anti-science, but you don’t need a PhD in science in order to get why it is important.
  • Despite the recent cuts, the 4 NHS-funded homeopathic hospitals continue to receive funding.
  • The government are currently having an active “anti-chemist” campaign (the word chemist being associated with one who makes drugs).
  • Science is Vital was successful because everyone worked together – there needs to be more of this from the scientific community. Despite this, until the Sunday before the Spending Review took place, science was still going to be cut.
  • Shortage of science teachers is a real issue.
  • Make sure science is heard, understood, and available.

See also an article by Huppert and George Freeman, M.P., on how science and innovation can save the UK.

In all, the discussion shocked me slightly; it is just hard to believe that there are so many people in the world, especially ones in positison sof power, that understand so little about the world they are in. Science for me is something that is all around and contributes to pretty much anything you care to mention. I just can’tget my head around the Nadine Dorries and David Tredinnicks of this world and their mistaken beliefs, let alone the fact that people actually vote these people into parliament. I mean, I know it is true, but how can it happen?

I did come away feeling a bit more convinced that it is possible to do something to rectify the situation by e.g. speaking to or writing to your M.P. though I still think that the long term answer has to lie in better education for all in this respect. Perhaps science should not be taught as one of an array of subjects that kids learn in school,but rather as an underlying principle running through all of them.

Who should be allowed to dictate what research is carried out?

September 2, 2010

Here is an interesting question. If someone gives you money to do research, to what extent do you and they expect to be able to dictate what direction the research goes in, and who owns the results?

When I was doing my PhD it was quite straightforward – I got some money from a CASE award and any publications had to be run past the company first, to ensure they did not want to patent the results. If they didn’t patent the results, the university could choose to do so if it wished. In any case nothing I personally discovered was of any interest to the company or even for the university to patent, so I just got two papers and one thesis out of it. Possibly the company were disappointed but it is impossible to ask them as they now no longer exist. Basically I got just over half of my funding from them, and they had first dibs on my research.

If an academic researcher is given a grant award by an government agency they get it for a specific project, and they have to at least try to do that project with the money they get. There are usually a few projects running for which there is no official funding, and these are sidelines which the researcher personally finds interesting but can’t convince anyone else of, or are at too early a stage to be able to do so. These will be funded by nonspecific grants or money from the university, or simply by using bits of time/resources not required by the formally funded projects. So in that respect academics are basically bound to do what the grant-awarding agency has awarded the grant for, otherwise they won’t get any more cash from that source. Grant proposals are assessed by peer-review (more on that some other time!) and decisions made on the basis of priority and past reputation of the applicant (in some cases). So the decision could be said to be made by the community or by the government of the day and its determining policies (feel free to argue this point!).

In industry, of course, no-one expects that they can just go and work on something “because I find it interesting” – time must be spent on potentially profitable projects for the company who is employing you. Some companies allow more leeway than others in this respect, and probably those with the most leeway have the longest-term view of research. But a justification of some sort of is always needed. In this case, the company clearly owns the research and often employees contracts are such that the company may also have first claim to any inventions that the employee may make in his/her spare time too. We pay for your time, we own your results, we decide what direction those results will go in.

So what happens if the money comes from another source? This may be less likely but there are e.g. large charities that fund research, and there is also the American model of endowments. The likes of Craig Venter, Bill Gates, and a few other millionaires are fortunately interested enough in science to want to support it financially. But what do they expect to get for their money, and what is it fair to allow them to have?

 I ask this question because there have been a discussions about this recently in different places.

For example, (and I have not been able to verify this) it is claimed on Wikipedia and with a reference to a magazine, that the original project to sequence a human genome carried out at the Venter Institute was intended to be an average of several people’s DNA, but that part way through, Venter intervened and substituted his own DNA alone. If this is true, did he really have the right to do this simply because he was funding it? It could be argued that an average would have provided more useful information for the world as a whole, and I am guessing that the researchers doing the science may have felt this way.  Or maybe they were just grateful to have received enough money to be able to finish the genome. From Venter’s perspective, he was paying for it and so if he wants his genome sequencing he can have it. That information is probably more useful to him personally than a more generic solution. Apparently he has changed his lifestyle as a result of several disease markers that showed up in the sequenced DNA. That could have been an investment that prolongs his life.

More recently, I have been speaking with friends at the Adolphe Merkle Institute (AMI) in Fribourg, Switzerland. The erstwhile Director recently left his post (see press release here). Differences of opinion in the definition of autonomy were cited as his reason for departure. Now if you read the blurb on the AMI homepage they claim to be an “independent center of competence” and to aim to “to stimulate innovation, foster industrial competitiveness and more generally, improve the quality of life”. The AMI was set up following a generous donation from Adolphe Merkel himself but researchers working there are also expected to acquire external funding e.g. from industrial partners and from the state. So to what extent do the foundation running the AMI have the right to dictate the direction that research carried out there will take? Without the initial donation, the institute would not exist and the researchers there would not be able to function. However the money for most of the ongoing projects being carried out by the researchers is provided by other sources. Add in to this the fact that most of the researchers there were top people recruited from elsewhere, and you cannot argue that they would not have been able to do their research at all if it were not for the institute. These top scientists did have jobs elsewhere and could easily get jobs somewhere else again with their reputations. But they did choose to go and work at the AMI, so you have to assume that they accepted the conditions, whatever those were. What happens when the direction that the endowment holder wants to go in is different from the direction of potential funders? Who decides which partners will be acceptable to the institute and where to go for funding? One of the reasons for employing an established scientist is usually because they have a good ability to attract new funding. If you have chosen to employ that person, can you then define where they will go for that funding?

This specific example has not yet shaken down but the question as a whole remains over who has the right to decide what research is done by any single scientist. What is clear is that it is not the scientists themselves as individuals who have that right, and nor should it be. Though most scientists will claim to be working for the greater good, and believe themselves to be doing so, allowing many individuals to make that choice for themselves is chaotic and may well result in wasted time and resources. So someone somewhere needs to have an overview. Each funding agency will have its own priorities and thus its own overview, again this is fair as they have to consider what the money they hold on behalf of their stakeholders is being used for (whether these stakeholders are the taxpayers or a private foundation or individual). But most academic researchers don’t get all their funding from one source, and this can introduce problems. What happens when funding sources conflict in their views and priorities? The individual researchers end up caught in the middle.

One thing I am sure of. I respect and admire the ex-Director of the AMI, Peter Schurtenberger. He is not the sort of person to quit a job half-done and he will have tried to resolve the situation. I believe that he was a victim of a conflict bigger than this single institute; put simply, too many people pulling on the purse strings of research and wanting a piece of it. Whether this sort of model can ever work I do not know. This sort of situation can only become more frequent as government cutbacks force researchers to seek funding from new sources with more of a vested interest in the outcomes.  

Chemistry World have also covered the topic of endowment funding recently here (unfortunately as I write this the content is member-only though I believe that older content becomes free). See what they have to say on the subject too.

Results null but not void

August 31, 2010

There’s been a bit of discussion recently in various forums, perhaps most visibly on Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science blog, about the usefulness or otherwise of null results. I thought I would add my twopennorth to the discussion.

So first of all what is a null result? Mostly when people use this term they are referring to a result that does not tell them anything that they want to know, perhaps it is even a negative result, though I would argue that these two are quite distinct, and that a null result is simply one that does not further the research one way or the other.

In medicine and pharmaceutical trials the null or negative result is clearly of great importance and you can see why companies producing the drugs would be motivated to hide or cover up such results – why would you want to tell the world if the very expensive drug you are hoping to sell to cure cancer is less effective than current treatments? That’s basically saying “don’t buy this drug” and if you are a business that’s not a good advert for your products.

This argument can be extended to anyone with a commercial/financial interest in the outcome of the research (I’ve touched on this in my review of Fiona Godlee’s Sense about Science talk). A way round it might be to make the testers independent of the developers. This is a system that might work in really big industries like pharma, but would not really be feasible for smaller, or niche industries.

I’m thinking of materials development, as a subject close to my heart. I think it is fair to say that if you are an aerospace company buying materials to make your plane with, you are not going to take very seriously the claims of the makers  of any materials you buy in, and will want to do your own tests. A null result means you won’t buy the product, end of story. If you are the company that makes the materials, and your own tests show the material to be worse than previous ones, you will put that project to one side and start again. Time wasted, yes, but probably things learned along the way. Most companies doing research build this in to their research budget. Even pharma companies recognise that only about one in several thousand lead compounds will ever make it to market.

But a world where null and negative results are still of great debate is in academia. As an academic researcher, you get a few grants per year and are expected to produce several publications in reputable journals so that you can continue to receive such grants in the future. The publications show that the grant award had been worthwhile. What is wrong with this?

Well for a start, if your idea doesn’t work as well as you thought it would, you have a problem. You might get a null or or even negative result. What do you do then? All that work and you can’t get a decent publication out of it, which means you can’t get another grant later on. At the very least, you would be encouraged to gloss over the results, carry on to the next thing, change tack. This happened to me during my own PhD. If you were less honest, you might become embroiled in some kind of data fabrication saga, claiming things that were untrue. How else can you salvage anything from those years of work?

The key point here is the phrase “decent publication in reputable journal”, which you need to sustain and continue grants. Most researchers and research agencies judge this by impact factor of the journal, and/or citations to the paper itself. Within this framework there is no room for null or negative results. Why would you spend the time and effort to write up an experiment that did not work out how you hoped, and does not really further understanding? Apart from, of course, to prevent others following the same doomed course of action. This may earn you some brownie points with peers, but no money. So most researchers don’t bother to write up null results. Even if they do bother, publishing them is not straightforward.

In the main journal I used to be Editor of, we used to look for novelty or advance in chemistry or properties of materials. These criteria were used to rule out an awful lot of “low impact” work that was basically “just another” synthesis of a nanomaterial or the like. We knew that these papers would not receive large numbers of citations and so we did not want to publish them in our journal. Most editors would be the same. Null results were obviously not wanted. Negative results would occasionally make it in if they were unexpected or in disagreement with previous work – then there is more chance that people will cite these works.

So it is the journals and their editors who are to blame? Well you could be understood for thinking that. But look deeper. Why do the journals want to publish high impact papers, and exclude those that they believe will not be? Simple really. If my journal does not have a good impact factor and a reasonable amount of content, who will buy it? University and industrial library budgets are being cut all the time and  librarians are looking actively for “unnecessary” journals. How do you decide what is unnecessary? Well normally this is considered to be low impact work, small niche journals, articles that will not be read or cited by their peers. Hmm.

So librarians are to blame? Not really, they are only applying the standards laid out by the academics themselves. The standards imposed by the funding agencies and their ongoing need to be able to measure research outcomes in numerical terms. A null result has a null numerical measure. Null benefit to the world, though? I think not.

Open all areas – thoughts on OA publishing

August 4, 2010

I’ve had quite a few conversations about open access publishing recently, which is odd because I would have thought that I would have this conversation less now that I am not an editor. Funny how things work out.

Perhaps the reason why this topic has come up more recently is because I was working in chemistry publishing, which apparently has the lowest take-up rate of open access (OA) of any discipline (sorry, not sure where I read this so can’t provide any verification of it – anyone who can that would be welcome – my experience is certainly that it is less popular in chemistry than in other related sciences). Now I’m trying to take a broader overview of science in general it becomes more of an issue.

  So what is OA publishing? Basically it means that an article, when published, is free for everyone and anyone who has internet access to read and maybe download. There are various models for doing this. One is that advertisers pay to appear on the site, and no-one else has to pay to publish anything on there. All OA sites can be peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed; for ease of discussion I am going to stick to peer-reviewed sites as anything else is effectively not much more credible than, frankly, a blog (yes that includes mine), i.e. it is unsubstantiated, unchecked opinion. You can discuss this if you like, but for me that’s another blog post, another time. Maybe I’ll get around to it soon, if anyone is interested.

An extension of this type of model is the one whereby a government funds the publisher directly so that no-one using it has to pay. PLoS is an example of this model. Note that a source of money is still needed or the publisher would not be able to operate the site.

Another model of OA is that those who wish to publish pay for the paper to be made accessible to everyone (as opposed to just subscribers) when the article is accepted for publication. Many reputable publishers, including those in chemistry such as RSC and ACS, use this model alongside the subscription-only model in a so-called hybrid system; that is, authors are offered the choice to pay only at acceptance of their article. If they don’t choose to pay then the article is accessible to subscribers of that journal only. The cost of funding this would then come out of an author’s research grant, rather than out of library funds, which is where traditional subscriptions come from usually.

Depending on your exact definition of OA, you could also include things like pre-print servers within open access; these are repositories for articles and discussions about them before the article is published, but the article often remains on the pre-print server in some form even after publication. A popular pre-print server I have come across a lot in my work is arXiv, which is run by Cornell University Library for specific communities such as physics, maths, etc. I’m not sure how this is funded but presumably it doesn’t require so much funding as it is so author-driven and no value (formatting, peer review, enhanced HTML content, etc) is added to the content before it appears.

So far so good then, hopefully you understand how the different models can work. And that if value is to be added, a source of finance is required. Even if no value is added, most researchers want to have their work, once published, held on a secure server that they know will be there “forever”. Even those who use pre-print servers generally still strive to get their work published eventually. And then there is the question of the mark of quality provided by peer review and publication in a respected journal.

There is a movement out there that says that as research is funded by taxpayers, then taxpayers aka the general public should have access to it. Again I think this is part of a larger discussion about who should have access to data – everyone wants to or just those qualified to understand it and use it correctly? But I can certainly see the argument for greater availability of information. Strictly speaking, of course, this means that only research funded by the UK government would be available to UK residents. They would still have to pay to access US-funded research. Not quite what this group are after, probably, as the majority of the world’s research is carried out outside the UK, though arguably the UK may lead the field in some areas.

Then there are some companies and organisations that are quite keen on OA. The Wellcome Trust is a notable example of this. They actually fund research as well, and they do make extra funds available to researchers to allow them to publish their work on an OA basis. But what about those more commercially oriented companies? They may or may not fund some academic research. They certainly would not allow any of their company secrets to be published in the open literature, pay-to-access or not. But it would be of great benefit for them if other people’s research in fields linked to their own were made freely accessible – they would save a small fortune in journal subscriptions, and would not have to pay any publication fees as they do not publish their own research anyway. Perhaps you can see why they would be keen on OA?

My opinion is that if funders want work to be made publicly available then they need to provide the money to allow this to happen, directly to the researchers who can tie the money to the work in question. Otherwise they can’t really object when charges are made for access to the information.

Partly this can be achieved through government research funders allocating a publication budget to sit alongside the research one. This should not be given directly to any single publisher (this will create a monopoly whereby people funded by that government can only publish with a certain publisher or small group of publishers) but should be made available to the researchers or universities themselves.

Another approach to combat the exploitation of OA information by big corporations would be for a government to impose some sort of research tax on any company within its jurisdiction admitting to performing research and development (R&D). This money could then be used to pay the publishers and authors whose work the companies are using. This would not be a popular choice, and I doubt it is one that most governments would hurry to introduce. But where else is the money going to come from?