 Well, first of all, I want to compliment Eric and Rick for tour de force in terms of a review of the landscape of what's going on in genomics. And as I stand here, I want to make sure I'm complimenting what they say and not being repetitive, so I have to be a little quick in terms of what to do. It reminds me of saying that when I first went skydiving, the instructor said, listen, if both parachutes don't open, don't worry, you have the rest of your life to figure something out. So in a matter of a couple seconds here, I'll try to make sure that I can say something that I think adds to the body of discussion. Let me just touch on a few points that I think both of them made quite well, but I can give you at least an insider's baseball view of what it all means. As both Eric and Rick referenced, there has been this very fast rush to miniaturization, to faster speeds of sequencing, and to ever lower costs of getting the sequence itself. And I think both of them did a nice job of giving this metaphor of the computer industry moving from mainframes to midframes, where we were probably three, four years ago, to now where it's down in that genome exhibit, you're seeing it basically on a desktop. And this industry is tracking perfectly to what we saw in the computing industry. I think what also, though, should be maybe I could give you some sense of is what's going on from an industrial perspective to do that. And the pace of innovation, as been said, is four times faster than the venerable Moore's law. What that then means is really interesting changes inside an organization, a corporation, to deliver that rate of innovation. And so our Ion Torrent team is now comprised of about 500 scientists. They work 24 by 7. They have set up their schedules to do that. They have huddles that are happening every eight hours in terms of reviewing technical progress. And so the point I would simply say is that in our organization, and I'm sure in our competitors' organizations, the pace of innovation, the method of organizational approach is a real advantage. It's here in the United States. And I think it's one of the great byproducts that's come out of this human genome project and ultimately this race towards creating that ISEEC product that Rick challenges us to to get to here in the next couple of years. You know, having said that, just to jump down, we believe that there has been an important decision made at least by our organization in this technology race. And there are three broad approaches to how you can do this bridge between the chemical world, which is your genome, and the digital world, which is the information of what it means. And the three basic approaches are to use light or essentially a camera or a laser to take a picture of it. The second approach would be to thread it through a hole, if you will, and then read it as it comes through, a nanopore approach, or the third approach is to use transistors or a semiconductor to basically be able to read a change in pH, or that's what we do here, onto a transistor and instantaneously then determine what it was, ATC or G. And we chose that approach, others have chosen different approaches. They all have their merits, they all have some consequences, but they all are driving towards us at a point of miniaturization, faster speeds, lower costs. We're trying to take advantage of a trillion dollars that goes into the semiconductor industry and is moving at a similar breakneck pace. The other point I'd say in terms of industry ramifications is now the advent of an enormous event of venture capital going into the IT part of the genomics race. There are probably no fewer than 40 companies that have been funded by various venture capital entities to develop companies that will take this amount of information and then turn it into something relevant. And it's a very vibrant part of the industry that we see today, it's very exciting, and it's very uncertain how it all in terms of will be structured. Who will do these information systems? Who will buy these information systems? And so it's a truly entrepreneurial phase that we find ourselves in in this genomic race going on. What I'd like to do is just jump down to a few points that maybe I can talk to in terms of other aspects of the environment we're in right now of this genomics era. And I'll just talk to a few of them around policy, funding, and the practice of medicine. As I was saying the other day, once something is possible then you have to do it. And that's really the discussion going on now of how do you take this incredible amount of science, of research, of technology and move it into the clinic to do good benefit for patients. And in order for that to happen you have to create the right commercial environment to be in place. We need the right regulatory framework. We need the right reimbursement framework because we're talking healthcare. And many of those things aren't quite in place yet today in the United States. They're actually in place in other countries in a far better way. But here in the United States we've got some work to do to further clarify, further refine the regulatory environment to allow this commercial diagnostics, this commercial practice of medicine to take place. Specifically in the area of reimbursement, the basic regulatory scheme for reimbursement in genomics is actually being leveraged off what was done in an earlier era of clinical chemistry. It's completely inappropriate to support the level of work that would get done in genomics. And so right now, quite frankly, the economics aren't so great for running a human genome at mass scale at a hospital near you. And so that has to get rectified. The other thing that's also in contention right now is just the regulatory framework of what can be allowed. And without overcomplicating it there are two ways that diagnostic tests get done in the United States. One is directly overseen by the FDA and the other is done by Medicare or CMS. And the question is where will these genomic tests ultimately get practiced? Will it be in this FDA regulated environment or in this Medicare CMS regulatory environment? They are very different. And quite frankly there's contention between the two bodies that creates complication and uncertainty. And as you know, whenever you have uncertainty it's very hard then to launch a business with more success. The one point I would say about how these diagnostic tests will happen in the future is something that Eric pointed out. Up till now virtually all the gene tests that were done have been monogenic. Single genes that you're looking for, simple tests, and it's a fairly simple approach in terms of getting some reimbursement for that. All the things that both Eric and then Rick talked about are being multigenic are complex, require lots of analysis, very sophisticated IT tools, and are going to be more like how a radiologist interprets an image. And this is going to be much more in the mainstream of medicine. And our current regulatory approach, reimbursement approach doesn't support that. And so these tests and then how they have to be treated are fundamentally different, as I say, than what was in the past. Last point I would simply say on policy is just something Rick and Eric both also pointed out. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this golden era of understanding of what it means and what it can do in terms of outcomes for patients. And yet it comes at the very same time that we're cutting back funding for the research in this space. Again, I would point out other countries are doing just the opposite. And the one thing I'd like to share with you is actually an image. This is the breast cancer genome. It's fitting that we're looking at that given the ruling from the Supreme Court today on the myriad gene patents that centered around the BRCA gene, relative and important to breast cancer. But the question I would give to you is, what will the doctor of the future look at to determine what problem you have genetically and what can be done then therapeutically to solve your problem? And we spent a lot of time about that in industry thinking about somebody has to look at this information. Somebody has to then be able to quickly ascertain what's going on and then render a diagnosis. And again, this is a fundamentally different workflow in medicine than has been done before. And I have often said to people, this is an image. This is just like an MRI or a CAT scan. And there is a medical specialty called radiology in that field that's been trained up to look at those images. That same specialty does not exist in the practice of medicine. And so we've got some fundamental things to figure out in terms of what is the focal point of this new genomic error in medicine because who's going to do the work? And who's going to ultimately sit down with the patient and tell them what's going on? You know, I don't know if this is quite true. You go do the work to do the final analysis. But I've heard that in medical school here, circa 2013, you're only getting two to three weeks of training in genomics at the average medical school program today. That's got to fundamentally change. It probably has to be flipped on its ear. So big changes have to come and, you know, in order to really support what we think is an incredible error ahead of us. What I'd just like to finish up with then to be brief is talking about what's next. Our organization is on a fast pace to continue to innovate around this whole idea of reading DNA. Everything we've spoken to you about is about reading DNA. And yet with its approaching now economics that make mass sequencing possible on many fronts, it opens up a whole new chapter then in terms of writing DNA or creating synthetic genes or genomes. And this combination of reading DNA and writing DNA, I think, is going to be a massive economic stimulus in the 21st century. If the 20th century was about the physical sciences, creating of semiconductors and moving electrons around, 21st century is all about the understanding of life and harnessing the ability to read and write DNA. And you don't have to go very far to think about the possibilities. The chemical industry is based off of breaking down organic matter ultimately into chemicals, into plastics and the like. There is massive move underway in terms of research to create biological pathways and microbes to have the same effect. And when we have this ability to harness the power to read and write DNA, you can transform big portions of the chemical industry as an example. That will change both the materials industry, change the energy industry and the possibilities are endless. And so we're extremely excited not only about the innovation going on and reading DNA, but in case of our organization, we have a very large R&D effort geared up to figure out how to write DNA in a very cost effective way to make these transformations in different industries possible and to bring about this life sciences century here in the 21st century. Thanks very much. Let's see for a second. So what I was gonna do is have our three people talking about the use of technology to answer questions together. But why don't we see if there's anybody have a burning question for Mr. Lucier and if not, we'll skip the second panel because we are sitting around a bit behind. But a burning question from the reporters, anybody? I think you're off the hook, sir. What I'd like to do is ask Susan Dillon to come up. She's from Johnson & Johnson and Ken is an immunologist working in this area and using these technologies to figure out how to get to the era of actual clinical care.