 Maybe to open the discussion, I see, I heard three things or three levels of intervention and I would try to give some form of hierarchy. I think, Daniel, listening to you, there is an element that is missing and we heard it from Jacques and Alexander before, is what is the future that we want? I mean, probably, and you will react, maybe, it's... And for me, if I would relate technology, that's what I would define as what helps you identify the design principle. If you take an example of a smart city project in Japan, it starts with happiness. What is happiness in this mega-concentrated environment? And here it could be the same. What is the future that we want? And the answer will be different region by region, community by community. I would be happy to hear about this. On the ethics on the fly, we have this concept already, you mentioned it for regulation. The problem you have is how you bring all the participants at the same speed. And very often, the regulator use the tools of the past to assess the new situation, because the legal process makes it complex to have everybody to be on the fly at the same time. So what would be your view on this? And then the last point is about the global governance, but that relates to what we've heard before on the need for debate and to educate in the form of transparency, so that society as itself can really appropriate the topic and define the future. But maybe on the first thing, Daniel, ethics on the fly and everybody on board. Would you like me to try and respond? These are both very difficult questions. I can very quickly comment. I think to the first question, which is extremely interesting, what is the future that we want? That's definitely a question that has to be kept in mind by communities that are in the process of trying to make decisions and set up systems and so on. But you gave a very interesting response yourself asking the question, saying it will depend on the community. It will depend on the society. And so what we really want is what mathematicians call a scheme, an axiom scheme. You can't have an axiom, but you can have an axiom scheme. That is sort of a way of thinking and a conceptual framework in which you can go from a certain specific, more or less specific answer to what is the future that we want. So it's going to be maybe more collective in Asia. In Asian societies are more individualistic. In Western societies, say, I mean, this is just a schematic. And so you go from one sort of bureau on the future, on the future you want, to a way of reflecting on what place you're going to leave for innovation and technology. And that's going to change from community to community. But we can make progress on the conceptual structure of the discussion and the Democratic consultation. Ethics on the fly, you said it. Again, I have no, I just don't know how to do it. I just don't know how to do it. Clearly, we need to put much more thought and much more time into trying to think ahead of time. How would that work? In fact, Arthur said that towards this conclusion. We need to take the time and energy and intelligence to think of consulting reflection structures at the various levels and various time scales. But I know what I'm saying is extremely generic and not a recipe. Not a recipe at all. No, no, no recipe. But yeah, any other comments on this? If I can add, I think you raise a very important question, which is how do we ensure that people are put up to speed? And how do you ensure there's not a lag between regulators and policymakers and the speed of technology, which is something that you highlighted with pharmaceutical regulation in particular? And I think we will increasingly need more translators. Translators, that is, people that have one foot in innovation technology, but also one foot in policymaking and regulation to be able to kind of bridge the sort of raw data and raw information that is coming from these flurry of scientific innovation into actionable recommendation and thought process for for for policymakers. So you will need people that play this role, but you will also need for and I think, again, the WPC health is a fantastic example of this, where you can have debates with all the key decision makers that are being put to a common ground before moving into any kind of of this. No, I think definitely that that's interesting to relate this to a point that was made on the previous debate about the problem of trust. Are they trustable translators in today's society, at least that will be recognized as such, and I think it's part of the debate.