 Rice diversity and update on the gene bank, that's time for some questions and answers. Speaking of the IP issues, what's your take on people looking into putting patents or IPs on genes? That's a difficult one. There is language in the SMTA about that, but the lawyers still disagree with what it means. Whatever it does mean is what we have to follow, because we can't. What we consider biased and not competent in a legal sense to make decisions on the screen. What it says in the SMTA is that you're not allowed to protect anything about material receiving or genetic components in the form receipt. So I can tell you my interpretation of that. If you try to patent the gene itself, you haven't changed its form, you can't do that because that goes against the SMTA. But actually you don't ever do that. You put the gene together with a package of DNA surrounding it, some markers, a way of using it. And if you do that, you can patent your product that includes the gene. There was a quite interesting case recently when Thailand patented the Aroma gene. There was a lot of publicity in the Thai literature. I wondered if it was in Thailand that it was protected this gene. And actually when you looked at what they protected, they hadn't protected the gene. They'd protected the whole package of what made it useful, made their knowledge useful. And that's much more than just knowledge in the sequence. And that's up to you. At least that's why I interpreted it in this sense. You can protect your own intellectual property, which is the package that you put together, but you can't protect someone else's property, which is the original sequence person. Rory, nice overview of the THC and also you've opened something on the post CBD. And 60% of that metadata which you showed that it's not being utilized and it's very obvious. We also know why we are not using that. Being the, I think the wisest man in the general plan, in the eerie, can you say that how we can go ahead with that? Probably because in the coming new IP structure, it's coming in a PBGP, you also part of that, it's going to be more complicated. How we can open up that so that we can utilize more that type of data in our business stuff without disturbing the IP issues and other things? Actually what I put up there was only material that you can now freely use. It's under the treaty and under the treaty there are no more worries about reasoning. All that material is coming either from countries that are now members of the treaty or even some from countries that are not members of the treaty but gave us permission to put the material under the treaty. So we no longer have to worry about the CBD. The CBD is no longer relevant to that. The fact that so much of that has not yet been evaluated is just because of the worry of the eerie breeders at that time. At that time, if you look at the rate of transplants from PBGP back in the late 1990s, it went almost down to zero. That was because of our concern about the possible influence of the CBD. But the treaty has provided the solution. So if you want that material, there's nothing at all stopping that. One final question. He said to her keeping all those accessions when only a very small part is being actively used? Is it worth it? Yes. The idea is it's worth it. It kind of goes back to the period that there's a famous illusion about this called artificial. Who published what he called the fundamental theory of natural selection. The rate at which you can respond to a new selection pressure is proportional to the genetic barriers for fitness and in an agricultural context that means the more genetic variation we have the more likely we are to be able to respond to any challenge. And the reason only 5% of media throw into crosses is just because the methods available to us to date have not been able to identify the particular genes and importance and motion for us. We just haven't had the technology. Although they've screened, the readers have screened almost as much as they possibly can do. Just at phenotypic screening is not enough to identify much right. So, I don't see any problem with the fact that we only got 5% into the breeding program so far through crossing. I'd expect A with new technologies we can increase that a lot. And we need to keep for tomorrow's challenges even the material that is not appropriate to A in the case. So with that, I would like just to add a comment. One thing that would really help in deciding in the decision making process when requests come in or material that people want. Iris invested a lot over the years various groups screening material but the information doesn't feed back to the gene bank. So, if you would be willing to share your phenotyping results with us so that we could get it into the system it would go a long way to increasing the value of the system too. So, on that note, let us thank Rory and give him the now routine, certificate of appreciation.