 Well, I think the overall challenge is, it's a challenge probably not only for Erie, but for other centers as well. In the early days, the mandate was fairly simple and straightforward, increased rice production in Asia, and so the focus and the priority was there. Since that time, we've gone from food security to environment and poverty and other areas and so forth. So in many ways, the mandates of Erie and the other centers have tended to expand and the real challenge that is faced now is being sure that your area, Erie operates in the area where it has the greatest comparative advantage and so forth. Now for example, that means upstream the challenge is to have the appropriate connection with biotechnology and with the advanced institutions and for developing biotechnology research. And downstream it means in part the ability to transfer some of that biotechnology expertise down, but it also means focusing downstream on those areas that are going to complement what the NARS are doing. The NARS now, I mean one of the things to recognize, of course, is that the NARS now are much more competent than they were back in, say, 1960, so that they can handle a lot of the traditional work that Erie was doing in agronomy and things like that. So the challenge is to find that niche and be able to set the priorities so that, as one person told me, a friend of mine told me, Erie or any of the other centers should be noted not for what the research they intend to do, but for the research that they won't do. What is it that Erie won't do that someone else has the comparative advantage and so forth? And I think it's not only Erie but the other centers as well that face that kind of problem. I think that in economics it's pretty much the same sort of question, the decision of what you decide to work on. Now in the beginning, just to take you through, when I first came to Erie in 1966, it was just before IR8, and people at that time looked at Erie and said, that's a nice set of buildings but I don't think anybody's going to produce anything out of this work. There was a real skepticism locally and probably nationally about whether Erie would ever amount to anything and whatnot. And coming to Erie it was like buying into a cheap stock that all of a sudden it took off and there you were sort of riding that and so forth on that extreme. And I think that over time that challenge has broadened, the mandate has broadened and the challenge has become more difficult. And I was then going, you mentioned the constraints project, in that middle 1970s we had really two focuses. One was constraints and the other was consequences. Why weren't they adopting? If they did adopt, who benefited? Those were the simple questions that we could really focus on. Now even in economics we're moving into areas of gender equity and other issues and so forth, and as you say, one looks at the strategic plans, I think it would be interesting to look over time at the history of these plans because I think in the beginning there was a very sharp, narrow focus and this has expanded. So this really is the challenge that I think faces any department at Erie and Erie in general is keeping the mandate sufficient so that you can focus the research on those issues where you have a comparative advantage where nobody else can do the same thing.