 Well, good afternoon, again everybody and also ... Well I can't say all the good evenings and the good mornings because I think ... went 111 countries watching it's impossible to capture ... all the different time zones and one statement, so we have 111 countries until now. I admit we still don't have Greenland watching so if anyone knows anyone, please remind them ... that they can join in at the MSF Scientific Day in South Asia ... and made the 27th. So they can still catch Scientific Day there. I think a map shows the distribution of our current country joining. I will also write, just to mention that Virginia from the University of Rees اليwer was online and tweeted about mapping and the quality of streaming in Argentina. I just mention that because again this is the group that will host the first ever MSF Scientific Days in Argentina on September the 27th. And a final technological bit is about the top tweet ddim yn ei gofal o'r rhannu o'r edrych yn yr adluson o'r drwy'r drwy'r ddod. Dyn ni'n fydd yn i'r byw hyn oherwydd, yr drwy'r drwy hyn o'r synes gwahanol ar yr ysgol iawn, a hynny'n rai'n gweld ei gyflig yw'r wrthgr advisory yw'r ysgol. Maen nhw'n fyddech chi'n gweld i'r cyffredinol yn gweithio y bydd i'r tyfu. Oni'nicus i ei rhoi yn gweithio'r tyfu mwyaf i gyd. You have an enormous number of people. So, I obviously would like to say thank you to the speakers, the chairs, the delegates, the online audience, RSN digital logistics team, the organisers in London, the editorial board and the volunteers. I want to make a special thank you to Kim West, and I know she'll probably be hiding somewhere in the background and maybe not sitting down here. But Kim is a specialist in research communications. And I think that this has really, this station shows up really Kim's work at its best. ac mae'r ffaith yw ydych chi'n gwybod i'n mynd i gyd yn y cyfnod i'r gwnaeth yma yn y gweithiau. Ond ydych chi'n gweithio i'r Cym. Mae'n dechrau i ymryd ymlaen i ddod i'r ddod i ddiweddol, y Llywodraeth Cymru a Llyfodraethau Cymru, y Llywodraeth Cymru a Llyfodraethau Cymru, y Llywodraeth Cymru yma i ddod i'r Llywodraeth Cymru, y Llywodraeth Cymru, y Llywodraeth F1000, weithio, ac mae Llywodraeth yn yr mediad yw Llywodraeth i ddechrau'r gweithio. Rwy'n gweithio ymlaen, ac gallwn ymlaen i'r amser, bob yn ymlaen i chi'n bwysig i'r gweithio. Yn cyfnodd gyda'r dyfodol i'r gweithio, a'n gweithio'n gweithio ymlaen, yn fawr i gael ymlaen i'r gweithio. Cyfnodd, Sarah yn ymlaen i'r gweithio ymlaen i'r gweithio, mae'r gweithio'n gweithio ar y dda, Why have we created this false distinction between medical research and innovation? Because yesterday was full of innovative research, testing new approaches to gaining information, new treatments, and today it's called Innovation Day, but it's all evaluated. You know, it actually does real rigor being applied. And so why are we still talking about this, especially when, as Peter said, we've always been innovating right from the start of MSF. And I think that I think there are a few reasons for this. I mean, just to name a couple, I suppose the first is about the breadth of solutions. The breadth of the challenges in the medical humanitarian domain are enormous. And of course, we need to think as broadly as possible in terms of finding solutions, not just the medics, but the logisticians, everyone within the MSF movement and outside. The steriliser, just an example of something that I think leave a group of medics in the room, they might not think about designing an entire new steriliser. We'll still be trying to find ways to live with what we have already. And I think that it's again, then it's not just about the solutions, but the tools and the processes. I would say that our focus on research is a lot around understanding disease and testing treatments and rightly so. I think that what we see today are reflections on the tools that we use, how we can improve the processes, for example, the thons, the maker thons, et cetera, and also ways of developing new products. So it's not just about what we get at the end, but it's about the how. And I think that this day has really highlighted some of the work we are doing around the process as well as the treatments and the gaining of the information. I think that having this day has also helped, in my opinion, improve the rigour of how we innovate. And I'm not just talking about evaluating innovations, but as we've heard many times, an awareness of the ethics around humanitarian innovation. And it's been in some ways reassuring to see the statements on each of the presentations about ethics oversight. Although maybe we need to actually think about what Peter was saying. I'll come back to that in a moment. And then finally, just I would say that another reason for looking at innovation in a daylight today is, of course, to encourage us to take risk, to present failure, to evaluate and to learn from it. And I think that's been well, we've been reminded of that by Robin that actually it is necessary to take risk and it's OK to present. In fact, it's OK to take risk and to fail, but we must share, we must learn from it. But I think that that's, I suppose, broadly speaking, why we've tried to have this day for the last few years. But I'd say that some of the impressions I have at the end of this go well beyond our plans when we start to think about those days. I mean, just looking at today, I mean, we're seeing how developing a product and developing a process can happen at the same time. I mean, I think that many of the presentations today showed not just a reflection, we're not just about developing a product, but at the same time, people were learning how to innovate and were learning, demonstrating and developing new ways to develop those products and sharing those lessons. So we're kind of getting both at the same time and I think that's been a very, for me, a very interesting contribution from some of these presentations. We were asked the question, does MSF need to move upstream? Do we need to look early on in the development process? And I would say that it's clear that we're already doing that. I mean, when we look at the multiplex platform, MSF and humanitarian organisations are getting involved right from the start of the development process. And again, that's a development which I think is reassuring to see. Beyond the talk about failure, I would say that another thing that I've noticed today is, I suppose, serendipity. Some of these innovations, whilst innovating, we've actually learned things that we didn't expect to learn. We see from the MUAC presentation that we actually find discrepancies in measurements of existing MUAC strips. That wasn't the intention of the study. So it's not just about failing. It's also learning things you don't expect to see. And maybe that broader focus of the innovation mindset allows you to do that. I would say the same for the steriliser example, to learn that actually our current process is a not fit for process when you come to test a new innovation. It's great if we can learn those lessons whilst innovating. But I think that the, I suppose, one reflection that sticks in my mind is from Peter's presentation is about mindfulness, about responsible innovation that goes beyond signing off to say you've implemented that ethics framework that we were so proud about last year. And now we can see already the limitations because great if you can sign off to say, yes, I observed ethics. Does it stop there? Does our engagement stop there? Can we then just say, we've done it, we can go to sleep now? Because I think what Peter pointed out is the long-term impact as well. Beyond the innovation now, are we thinking about the maintenance? Are we thinking about the waste that that produces afterwards? And then our fundamental relationships and how innovation can objectify our patients. We risk losing proximity. I think that when we think of the innovation lens in some ways through that lens, everything is a problem to be solved. But where is the place of the patient in that? If we see everything as a problem, what is the patient? Are they the problem as well? And I think that, yes, of course, we need to innovate. That's not to say that we shouldn't innovate. We need to innovate. I think there are examples today. A decision support tool could be a life-saving intervention if you don't have a clinician. So we need to do it. And innovation makes us effective and it makes us efficient. But I think like Jamila Mamoud reminded us yesterday and also as Peter said today, can we retain the fundamental humanism, the relation that is at the core of the Humanitarian Act? And can we keep that at the centre and then give innovation its place to support and strengthen that Humanitarian Act?