 Dr. Ross Brooks is a recent graduate of the Center for Medical Humanities at Oxford Brooks University. Ross has published several articles on queer themes in the history of biology and eugenics and leading history of science, technology and medicine journals. In June 2019, he acted as contributing editor for the first queer themed edition of Viewpoint, the magazine of the British Society for the History of Science. He is the recipient of the Stern Student Essay Prize. In his lecture entitled Elliot Slater, Homosexuality and the Origins of Queer Science, Dr. Brooks outlines how in both the United States and Britain homosexuality after the Second World War became an object of genetic investigation. He outlines how such investigations were intimately connected to worldwide eugenics movements and the development of human genetics. Thank you very much indeed to Chris, Brittany, Marius and to all the speakers for putting together such a fantastic event and inviting me to be part of it. It really is a great pleasure to be here. Thank you. This event and my paper is certainly happening at a very interesting time, certainly in terms of changing concepts of sexuality and the way that medical and biological sciences consider aspects of sex differences, sexualities, sexual behaviours. It is a time of great change, which is of great interest to me, being a bit older, having grown up gay in the 1970s and 80s. When anything to do with science, biology, biologists was absolute anathema. It was the enemy, the most horrendous biological and psychological interventions for gay men, such as myself and many others, transvestites, trans people. This was the intellectual environment in which I grew up gay within. I put a few examples here just to show that that has not gone away by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly the newspaper article that I've put on this slide from the Daily Mail on 16th of July 1993 shows the kind of popular discourse that surrounded notions of gay brains and gay genes that were circulating at the time emanating from major studies, which I'm sure people listening will be familiar with, and intense political debates focused so sharply on homosexuality and very often male homosexuality, which ignited especially amid the global unprecedented media for all. Surrounding the British American neuroscientist Simon LeBain's claim, which he reported in August 1991, if I remember correctly, the difference in the structure of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. This was followed by the claims of the American geneticist, Dean Hamer, who in July 1993 claims have identified a genetic marker of male homosexuality. Now, the science of this is very interesting, but it's really only part of the story. So you can see a huge media for all in which gay lives, such as my own, and it felt like one's very existence was just being debated in ways that were often quite horrifying. And this discourse about whether a genetic link to homosexuality and other trans bodies, minds, and behaviors might lead to some kind of biological interventions, which raise people such as myself from the human population still continue to this day. But on the other hand, things are changing by no means ubiquitous link. And often ways, a lot of the discourse is carried on through popular and semi-popular platforms and is often highly questionable and deeply problematic. But at the same time, there's a very genuine sense that the people who conduct science, biological research, LGBTQ plus scientists now have platforms to express themselves and do so in the most wonderful and productive, positive ways. I've just put a few examples here. I won't go through them all. But certainly, examples of a new discourse, a newly emerging discourse, and I really say it really is very, very to be knew within my lifetime, within the past few years, have this has grown exponentially from scientists having new perspectives on the biology of sex differences and sexual orientation. And so you can see, you can even get a DNA rainbow pin badge now. I mean, who would buy such a thing as that? The huge, I mean, it really is incredible. I think many people perhaps don't understand or have much knowledge of the sheer scale of what is apparently called queer science. Or if you look here, there's the psychobiology of sex orientation, no less. It is a massive set of studies, popular and scholarly, that's grown very much since the early 1990s. It's always staggering to me how the focus, even where there's claims that are more inclusive approach, the primary focus is on homosexuality. There is simply no science of sexual orientation more generally. It really is a science of queer people. And understanding that, understanding why, is where historical perspectives on all the debates that are happening now and have been for the past couple of decades, historical perspectives on understanding where this has come from, I think, are absolutely critical importance in why an event such as this is so amazing and so important. There is simply no getting away from the fact that this so-called queer science or psychobiology of sex orientation, whatever you want to call it, is deeply embedded in eugenics. And I'm sure most people will understand that's not a revolution. That's not something I come up with. And even if you read the works of Simon Levé, for example, in his queer science book, he approaches that issue to a certain extent, particularly with his discussion of Gunter Duener, a German neuroendocrinologist who was profoundly influential in establishing today's queer science explicitly in a eugenic context. But there's so much more work for historians to do in order to elucidate and what that means and how this came about. Historically, the pursuit of eugenics has had ambiguous associations with changing concepts of sexual inversion, homosexuality, bisexuality, intersexuality, trans phenomena, and other queer bodies, minds, sexualities, and sexual behaviors. While it is incontrovertibly the case that innumerable eugenicists have treated queer people with disdain and sorts atrocious interventions to try to eliminate us from the human population, this has not consistently been the case. Elsewhere, many queer people have embraced eugenics while homosexuality has sometimes been considered a useful eugenic method for limiting reproduction. Exploring the complexities and ambiguities that have long characterized the relationship between eugenics and queer bodies and sexualities is a growing area within historiography and is especially useful for underscoring an important lesson from that historiography. The eugenic theories and practices are largely, if not wholly, matters of mainly elite opinion, prejudice, and politics. Now, my slides are very much given some pointers to this historiography and some fantastic enlightening works that have been published and will be published by some brilliant historians. My work to date has looked at the very earliest stages of the development of modern biology. Earlier this year marked the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's descent of man. I included some discussion. This is in the Zoological Journal of the Linane Society, it's on open access, really able to be read. And it's very interesting with Darwin when his most overt discussion of eugenics is actually occasioned at the point in his text where he starts talking or avoiding the subject. He begins to talk about queer bodies, not necessarily human, but then he quickly descends into a discussion of eugenics as a very interesting aspect of his writing. I've also looked, as have other historians at the very early history of genetics, which is absolutely fascinating. The extent to which the first geneticists looked to occurrences of intersexualities, transformations of sex, and non-reproductive sexual behaviors is much greater than generally appreciated. Certainly in the Anglo-American world, texts by leading American and British eugenicists, as well as English translations of continental eugenic texts, provided litany as a physical and psychological ailments which their authors believed could and should be willfully bred out of the human population. Abnormatives of the sex organs featured among these, and I just included an example here by the prominent American eugenicist, Charles Benedict Davenport, who placed three pathologies of the reproductive organs among many other pathologies of heredity in his book, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, which was originally published in the United States in 1911 and then in Britain in 1912. Although prevailing concepts of sexual inversion and homosexuality at that time were often understood as sex integrates and might therefore be implicitly included within such categories as hermaphroditism and eugenic discourse, they tended either not to be explicitly referred to in such texts or afforded little attention. In his notorious trait book, 1912, Davenport included nymphomania, sex immorality and sex perversion within a category labelled constitutional psychopathic state. Hermaphroditism was listed elsewhere under the category reproductive system, which carries subdivisions and consists of numerous other sex-related entries, including impotence and masturbation. In the second 1919 edition of the work, Davenport elaborated his list of the sex logical anomalies that appeared under the banner constitutional psychopathic state to include nymphomania, sex immorality, promiscuity, voluntary prostitution, there's a long list, I won't read them all out, but homosexuality is there with sex perversion and fetishism. It seems that these categories have been directly imported with little by way of elucidation, probably from late 19th century sex logical texts. There's one 1886, which really does ring with Davenport's texts, which is Richard Boncroft, Ebbing's psychopathic sexualist. And it's very interesting that while passionately advocating eugenics in their major works, leading biologists were generally cagey even more than Davenport about delineating precisely which characteristics, especially psychological and behavioral, they wanted eliminated from the population, preferring instead to deploy more emotive and vague euphemisms and other such terms such as vice and criminality. But in this way, so-called sexual perversions became eugenicized almost by default. Just to give an example, addressing the 74th annual meeting of the British Association in Cambridge in August 1904, William Bateson, one of the very early pioneers of mentalism and genetics, he spoke of the ability of a competent breeder to breed out several morbid diacases. He continued, as we have got rid of rabies and pleuronumonia, so could we exterminate the simpler vices? Well, the remark is vague, but his subsequent sentence strongly suggests that his simpler vices included those which infringed prevailing moral standards. And this is something he repeated in a striking eugenic vision, a veritable call to arms that concludes his 1909 book, Mendel's Principles of Heredity. And he wrote, some serious physical and mental defects, almost certainly also some morbid diacases and some of the forms of vice and criminality could be eradicated if society so determined. Well, the section and the main part of his book concluded, thus, genetic knowledge must certainly lead to new conceptions of justice. And it is by no means impossible that in the light of such knowledge, public opinion will welcome measures likely to do more for the extinction of the criminal and degenerate than has been accomplished by ages of penal enactment. Well, criminals and degenerates came in many forms in Edwardian Britain, but for many, homosexuals were chief among them. To jump ahead, again, just to offer some pointers of some fantastic work that has been done on queer aspects of the history of eugenics and the history of biology. Again, I'm sure this is something that many people listening will be familiar with, that the specific issue of homosexuality emerged as a leading concern of Nazi eugenicists and their interlocutors through the interwar period. Largely through the pursuit of twin studies, a highly problematic method of determining genetic traits initially developed by Francis Gotten in the 1870s, the so-called father of eugenics. Historian Garland E. Allen has previously discussed how homosexuality became established as an object of eugenically infused twin studies in the United States through the immediate post-war era. Largely through the interventions of the German emigrate psychiatrist, new genocist, Franz Joseph Kalman. Allen describes how Kalman was a student of the Swiss born German psychiatrist, geneticist and Nazi racial hygienist earned through down. And in collaboration with his brother-in-law and architect of Nazi racial hygiene, Alfred Flutes, Rudan co-founded the German Society for Racial Hygiene as a member of a committee on racial hygiene headed by Heinrich Himmler. And this played a major role in drafting the German sterilization law for psychiatric patients which were promulgated with murderous results in July 1933. Following the earlier example of Goulton, Kalman developed the use of twin studies in an effort to identify familial lineages of schizophrenia, suicide and other psychiatric conditions urging that the Nazi program of forcibly sterilizing patients be extended to their family members who exhibited and I quote, minor anomalies. But were not otherwise unaffected. Nonetheless, Kalman's Jewish ancestry compelled him to leave Germany for the United States in 1935 where he pursued a prestigious career within the New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University. And he was his director from 1955. And he was a co-founder of the American Society of Human Genetics. The irony of his persecution appears to have had little impact on his approach towards the genetics of psychiatry. He remained a committed eugenicist and is a very important figure in the continuity of eugenics in the post 1945 post-war West. Beginning in 1947, Kalman began to compare monozygotic with dizygotic twin subjects and other family relationships for concordance for homosexuality. Kalman's studies remained anchored in Nazi genetic and eugenic psychiatry which had situated homosexuality, ipso facto as a psychiatric condition on part with schizophrenia. And as Alan shows in his article about Kalman, it's an assumption that forms the basis of this study but has no elucidation in and of itself. It's the pathological rendering of homosexuality is just simply assumed. The subjects of his twin studies were drawn from psychiatric correctional and charitable institutions in New York. And also, and I quote, through direct contact with the clandestine homosexual world. He reported a remarkable concordance, reporting a 100% concordance rate for homosexuality among the monozygotic twin pairs, i.e. both twins were home section. And just over 60% concordance for the dizygotic twins. He ended his major studies, there's two major studies that he published in American medical journals. One was the Journal of Nervous Mental Diseases, the other the American Journal of Human Genetics. He always ended with pleas for more funds and continued study on genetic aspects of homosexuality and endeavor he considered to be pressing. For example, in the German, sorry, for example, in the American Journal of Human Genetics, he wrote, the urgency of such work is undeniable as long as this aberrant type of behavior continues to be an inexhaustible source of unhappiness, discontentment and a distorted sense of human values. His work on homosexuality was enormously influential even as it was profoundly influenced by his eugenic agenda and influenced other eugenicists. So I just want to move on now on to my own research and which I've been pursuing. I'm concerning the prominent English psychiatrist and eugenicist, Eliot Slater, himself associated with Nazi psychiatrists. Slater firmly established homosexuality as an object of study within British neuro-psychiatry, widening the formative focus on twin studies to include personality testing, as well as studies of maternal age, Sibs and birth order. And anyone who is familiar with what Simon Lake who was queer science with the psychobiology of sex orientation today will start to see how that takes shape because these are the kind of studies that are still pursued in terms of pertaining to human sexuality. And it is with Slater that things start to become quite familiar. But again, as with Kalman, his unquestioning assumption that homosexuality was per se a pathological condition underlies most of his work. But as I do want to show, it was not accepted by all his contemporaries but even in that situation, he shaped the development of queer science as it was subsequently pursued in Britain and elsewhere. The subject of homosexuality with Slater and others fully emerged as a serious concern of certain British psychiatrists and their interlocutors only through the late 1940s and early 1950s. This is really important because this is precisely the time and this is not a coincidence when calls for reform of the law relating to gay sex began to gain pace. Such calls and the sensational reporting of legal cases concerning gross indecency as homosexual relations between them were turned in law, which is sure involving well-known public figures and aristocrats eventually led to the convening of the Home Office's historic departmental committee on homosexual offences and prostitution in August 1954. Now the committee's famous 1957 report commonly known as the Warfenden reports after its chairperson, Don Warfenden, recommended the partial legalization of male homosexual acts as well as establishing an age of consent for males as already existed in law for females. And these recommendations were eventually realized by the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Much of the intense debates that surrounded the subject of homosexuality in post-war Britain and centred on medical and scientific models of sexualities. Highly contested and almost comically contradictory when viewed together, such models were increasingly challenged by growing recognition that homosexuality in and of itself was a natural variation of human sexuality. The notion, little expressed in Britain before 1945, gained ground, especially following this sensational publication in the United States and Britain globally of sexual behavior in the human male in 1948 and sexual behavior in the human female in 1953, together known as the Kinsey report after its main author, the famous American zoologist and sexologist Alfred C. Kinsey and his associates. The Kinsey report was enormously influential but its findings of the high prevalence of homosexual behavior among Americans is a currents in non-human animals and Kinsey's insistence upon its normality also prompted some vicious responses and the period of the Kinsey report's publication and global reception also witnessed a punitive intensification of pathological models of homosexuality and queer sexualities and bodies and behaviors more generally, including the development of supposed therapists and so-called gay cures. It really is very interesting that these really become intensified in Britain only following ever-louder courts for reform of the law and new ways of looking at homosexuality as normal and natural. Most significantly, Kalman's work on homosexuality and his ideological rhetorical approach more generally and his eugenics and the eugenic grounding of his studies on homosexuality was echoed by Eliot Slater. He was a specialist in the genetics of mental disorders and he was editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, advice chair of the eugenics society between 1963 and 1966. Slater's checkered ideological and professional credentials are well-known to certain historians. In 1934, as a young medical officer at London's Maudsley Hospital, he visited Munich to study psychiatric genetics with and through Dan and his associates at the German Research Institute for Psychiatry. Now, of course, the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry supported by Travelling Fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation. Slater visited other Nazi-run psychiatric institutions in Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden and again visited Rudan's Institute in 1937. The notoriously equivocal article on German eugenics in practice published in the eugenics review in January, 1936 reflected dispassionately on the first year of compulsory sterilization in Nazi Germany. Despite his later protestations and repudiations of Nazism, Slater was ambiguous about his commitment to eugenics and he remained explicitly committed to his acquaintances in Nazi Germany throughout his career. And his caiginess about eugenics has often been reflected in scholarship about him and his work. A hagiographic appraisal was published in 1996 and collections of his publications are highly selective. His commitment to eugenics, as well as the influence of Kalman is clearly apparent in his writings on homosexuality that were and remain enormously influential. Slater was responsible for rendering much of the relevant German literature on the subject in English through his own studies and writings several of which concerned homosexuality. So for example, from 1944 he made various reports about genetic studies of German, genetic studies of homosexuality for the Journal of Mental Science, the British Journal of Psychiatry changed his name. And elsewhere he further perpetuated pathological, psychiatric, genetic ideology and studies of homosexuality in his major publications. Which have such works as psychotic and neurotic illnesses in twins, 1953, clinical psychiatry and the genetics of mental disorders. That there's various others. There's another one, an introduction to physical methods of treatment in psychiatry where he briefly comments on the fact that he was involved in the bottoming operations on queer men, along with his statistician brother, Patrick Slater, Elliot Slater applied a new test in an attempt to assess homosexual traits, as he called them. Although it used a psychological measure, the slaters were clear that in their view, the psychological measure would accurately reflect an underlying constitutional genetic condition. In their words, good grounds are to be found in genetic theory for expecting that psychological traits which differentiate men from women would also differentiate constitutionally different types of men from one another. But at this point of time, Slater was given credence to a long outdated genetic theory of sex differentiation, whereby sex differences were considered quantitatively rather than as the sharply qualitative one that was commonly considered. Psychological traits, as Slater's believed, reflected this underlying corporeal masculinity or femininity in all its gradations and a profoundly gendered psychological test, they believed, could act therefore as a useful measure of intersex differences as well as differences between males and females. So in this scenario, homosexuality was taken as a measure of an underlying genetic femininity in men and masculinity in women. Although the slaters made no study of lesbians or bisexuals. Their joint study on homosexuality was published in the British Journal of Medical Psychology in March, 1947. Again, precisely when debates about homosexuality were beginning to rage in an unprecedented volume in Britain's newspapers and elsewhere. And the desirability of law reform was being debated in Parliament, in intellectual journals, and as I say in newspapers. But in that article, the slaters stated that the origins of their tests dated back to the publication of a book called Sex and Personality Studies in Masculinity and Femininity published in 1936 by American psychologists, Louis M. Terman and Catherine Cox-Miles. And this promulgated an experimental analysis of masculinity and femininity through the use of highly gendered personality testing. Around that time, in 1937, Patrick Slater was engaged as a research psychologist at the Institute for Scientific Treatment and Delinquency, now the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, where numerous sex offenders were sent for medical treatments. The slaters wrote, many of the delinquents referred to this clinic, even if they were not overt homosexuals were charged with offenses into which a homosexual component might have entered. Whilst they thought that Terman and Miles' test might have some use in such cases, the slaters considered it too long, expensive and cumbersome. They also most interestingly recognised its cultural specificity, that it contained numerous items that were obviously topical to the United States, that's their term. They also recognised that if respondents knew what the test was for, they might easily fake their responses. The basis for their alternative tests was initially suggested by the occupational psychologist, Mary B. Stott, who, while developing vocabulary tests, noted that some words were more familiar to children of one sex than the other of the same mental age. That Stott's suggestion led to the development of Patrick Slater's selective vocabulary tests, initially published in 1944. This test comprises of lists of words of which subjects are asked the meaning. As an exercise in gender stereotyping, this test is truly astonishing. So, for example, words listed as being associated with dressmaking, such as bobbin, crochet or haberdashery, were, according to the slaters, better known to girls than boys. In their logic, recognition of these words by boys was therefore taken as an indication of the genetic homosexual trait, not erudition. Well, in their joint study, the slaters applied the vocabulary tests to a group of 37 homosexual men who had been referred to the neurological wing of the Sutton EMS Hospital for treatment. Their results were compared to those of a group of 50 normal men. A short class of their case studies, along with their test scores, were published in a lengthened table. And from the results, the slaters determined that the group was significantly more heterogeneous than normal men, a result they viewed as supporting this model of genetic sex that allowed for a degrees of constitutional and psychological overlap between the sexes. The slaters wrote, the more we magnify the no man's land between the sexes, the more diversified we may expect the behavior to appear to those whose spiritual home is there. And this appears to be what has happened. We have developed an instrument for observing the differences between the sexes in psychological terms. Well, like most of the slaters innovations in the medical scientific study of homosexuality, his use of vocabulary tests was enormously influential, especially in Britain. And as late as 1984, it was used in a study of trans individuals referred to as transsexuals at the time at the University of Manchester's Department of Psychiatry. His peculiar view that homosexuality should be considered and medically treated as pathological, despite simultaneously arguing that it was produced from the natural distribution of genes in humans was not universally shared by other psychiatrists. So I'd just like to discuss a single text. The literature is large and complicated, but I think I can demonstrate this just in the use of one single document. Which is a very insightful text from 1955. And it shows just how complex, varied and often contradictory attitudes towards homosexuality were in post-law British psychiatry. In that year, a special committee of the Council of the British Medical Association produced a major report on homosexuality, which was published in December, 1955. And it was also preceded in the British Medical Journal. And the purpose of this document really was to be submitted as expert evidence to the Wolfenden Committee. The wide-ranging reports includes a chapter titled Ethiological Factors, which was subdivided into various categories, such as the case for a genetic basis, endocrine factors and early and later environmental influences with specialists in each area asked to contribute. Slater contributed to the section The Case for a Genetic Basis, along with the English psychiatrist and eugenicists. I'm at Meinle Sharples Penrose, another very influential psychiatrist who was influential in establishing a particularly genetic psychiatry. He was also a Goldson Professor of Eugenics between 1945 and 1965, and Professor of Human Genetics between 1963 and 1963, and 1965 at the University of London. As its header suggests by the epithets The Case Four, Penrose and Slater were cautious and indeed equivocal in their claims. The report stating that it must be admitted, however, that the case for a genetic basis is not acceptable to all observers. Homosexuality, the text argues, was an unsuitable trait for precise genetic study as it was so complex. Still, suggestive evidence from studies of familial incidents of psychopathology, i.e., Karen's studies, I guess, and for various published studies, also the Kinsey reports were outlined. Both Penrose and Slater appear to have agreed that the evidence, especially from the twin studies, suggested, and I quote, that certain genes lay down a potentiality which, in average circumstances, will lead to homosexuality in the person who possesses them. Still, a difference in basic interpretation between the two psychiatrists is discernible in the final paragraph of the section. It begins, the evidence summarised in the preceding paragraphs tends, in Dr. Slater's opinion, to support the view that there is a small proportion of the population who are so constituted, perhaps in large part by genetic causes, as to be unable to form heterosexual, normal heterosexual relationships and to be strongly predisposed to form homosexual ones. The remainder of the paragraph outlines Penrose's conclusion, which is decidedly different in tone and arguments to the preceding sentence. And this was apparently not endorsed by Slater. Penrose wrote, Professor Penrose thinks that variations in sexual polarity might be regarded as a perfectly normal trait, comparable with variation in stature, hair pigmentation, handedness, or visual refractive error. These traits are all probably dependent upon interaction between heredity and environments, and the variation within all of them, Penrose believes to be probably of degree rather than of client. He therefore concludes that in the great majority of cases of homosexuality, the condition is not abnormal, but an example of a natural and probably inevitable type of biological variation. Well, Penrose's position outlined here definitely shows that the pathological interpretations of data, the data is not in dispute, it's a matter of opinion produced by biological investigations by no means pervasive through the 1940s and 50s, even among committed eugenicists and advocates of genetic psychiatry and were routinely contradicted by alternative narratives of normalization and naturalization. Slater, however, was undeterred. He continued to pursue methods of detecting and measuring what he unerringly believed to be a genetic basis for homosexuality in pathological terms. Developing methods that were subsequently adopted by numerous neuropsychiatrists in their pursuit of science. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through these latest studies. I have published an article already that there's just an introduction as such a large and complex literature. And so really just by way of concluding, I mean, my key message is, I guess, the historical perspectives on this very large, the deeply problematic body of scientific pursuits, which are variously called queer science, psychobiology of sex orientation. Really, I'm much needed. And I think that's a process that should be ongoing. I think responsibility for the history of queer dimensions of the history of eugenics, history of biology is something that you can't just draw a line in the sand and say, oh, well, we've done that, that's the past. I think the responsibility and the need to keep producing new histories in order to understand where we're at at the moment. Because there is so much more to do, and I'm reluctant to draw any grand conclusions. But the one I think that is very important is coming back to something I alluded to at the beginning of my talk, which is that this is not astonishing. This body of work is not a science of sexual orientation. It seems that, I mean, perhaps people listening might be able to correct me. Perhaps there's now a straight gene out there. The cultural needs to have a kind of a genetic explanation of heterosexuality just doesn't seem to exist. Again, it's just the assumptions that have produced a very specifically queer science with homosexuals and trans people as objects of a specific inquiry. This has such deep origins within the history of eugenics. So I hope I've made some points clear. I've already given some indication of what is a growing scholarship, a growing historiography, which very much complements the science that is now happening today. And so my final slide is just a few more absolutely fantastic works by some brilliant historians by no means or included here. Wonderful work being done by Bins Veloci in Yale at the moment. And hopefully, fingers crossed, I will be able to get a book out, not in the near future, but certainly looking ahead. Thank you once again to Chris, to Brittany, to everyone concerned. Huge thanks to Marius Turda, who has supported me in my research unerringly for so many years. I really could not have done it. I would not be doing it without his support. So thank you, Marius.