 Can you prioritise geographically where this project is going to operate? How did you respond? Yes, that is a good point and actually one of the ways which we said we were asked for more focus and we tried to give more focus. One was by, in geographical terms, was by linking up with the other CRP and especially CRP 3.7 and more meat, milk and fish. So by working in those value chains we think we can have a win-win be part of their value chain transformation. So you will be linked into those, the pig system, etc. That's the plan and at the same time they give us an impact pathway. Okay, well that is a very good idea and very sensible but it means that you are really focusing and so there are going to be all sorts of geographical areas and systems areas that you won't be looking at. Correct. Okay, next point on 3 is the quality of the science. What about a research question on gender? How did you respond to that? So yes, gender is cross-cutting, not only in terms of risk assessment and gender disaggregated disease burden but also in risk managers and the fact that women have a key role, especially in the management of foodborne diseases but also other zoonotic diseases. On the point they raised about the quality of the research and development partners, they wanted to ensure that instead of this being a CG center activity that there was a devolution of decision making to development partners so they weren't just operating under contracts but they were actually involved. How did you respond to that? Well I think that's an area which is still challenging for us and as a livestock institute we don't have a mandate to go out and vaccinate children so many of these health interventions we are only going to be part of a complicated jigsaw which involves many different partners unlike other activities which we can lead and this one we have to serve and follow. We have those concepts but how it will actually play out with partners I think has to wait until the work starts on the ground. Lastly accountability and governance, how will the research project be evaluated and monitored? I mean ultimately our indicator is human health so our indicator is disability adjusted life years, sickness and death avoided and averted but the actual way that will turn into a monitoring and evaluation framework is under development. Okay, fair enough. Well thank you very much. Bernard, I'm going to ask you a little bit. Bernard looks after the emerging diseases. Now in the food safety side they clearly differentiate between hazards in other words all those bugs that Vish mentioned and the risks of being linked to these, of getting those. In other words, bugs are everywhere but whether you go down with anything depends on the risk. How do you beef up the risk side on these emerging diseases? Because who knows when they're going to happen? The main challenge with the emerging diseases is how do you start studying them? How do you even build surveillance because they are not there in the best place? You have to wait for them to occur. But the main thing which we want to do is to develop a systems approach where instead of just looking at the disciplines like what we are doing in the past is we have various disciplines like biotech, epidemiology doing their own things. We want to come up with a framework which helps to identify drivers for those diseases and so we build our efforts to build more surveillance based on the drivers rather than the risks. Okay, well two other questions on that. Aren't there enough groups out there doing things on worrying about emergency diseases? You've got FAO, you've got OIE. I mean they spend all their life worrying about those sort of things. Where in Israel do we have a comparative function? I think what Lucy was saying is putting in this knowledge dimension where we want to work with the partners using this inclusive framework and see where can we come in. Because there are many people doing everything. USDA and I mean I should say OIE. But I think for our case we have to go for where is the new knowledge coming up from. I mean knowledge on emerging infectious diseases. And how can we involve partners in their control rather than us doing everything. So we just have to prioritize areas which we can work at and where our partners can. Okay, well following up on the question I asked to Carlos I just mentioned FAO and OIE. Are you written into this? Are you going to be working with them? True, yeah we're working with them. Because of the new framework which we are developing. Everybody is there. USDA is involved. And local institutions in various countries are involved. So partners are there. Fish, the biotechnology side of Hillary. I mean I understand that some 30% of your budget is now coming out of, it will be coming out of this project. I don't know if that's correct. Now you've got Roger, Belay, Steve, Kemp, Phil, Toy, Jan Nessens and his successor who are all going to be potentially. But what the heck do they know about zoonotic disease and what the heck do they know about foodborne disease? So Brian one of the things that I found really intriguing in some of the discussions that take place now is this concept of evidence based stuff. What the hell are we doing before having evidence? So one of the things that all these guys will be doing is basically generating that evidence so that you can actually put some data into there and then talk about these things with greater confidence. So they don't need to know anything about that. So it's essentially adding a lot more diagnostic technologies to the components and I think that that's a huge opportunity. And how have you thought about, I'm sure you have, what range of additional diagnostic technologies, how will it differ from the sorts of things that you've got now, the capacities you've got now? So one of the things is that most of the current technologies are lab based technologies. There's always been a question of whether we need to have more field based diagnostics. That's one of the things that's certainly being tested. You may be aware that Phil and his group have been looking at a rapid diagnostic test for poor scientist psychosis. For those who are interested, actually, it's been developed by a private company in Kampala. And it's turned out to be extremely successful. It works just as well. And so that could be one of the applications, for example, going forward, et cetera, still remains to be determined. But you could envisage that there would be other needs for other types of rapid diagnostic tests as well. There's always going to be a lab component and I think the molecular epidemiology component is always going to be an important one. It's difficult to see some of those activities going out into the field. But there are certainly the rapid tests that one could envisage. How will your role in BECA be different? Can you tell us what would be your role? Very much. I think the opportunities at BECA are extremely exciting. Trying to link technology would be in the field of genomics and metagenomics. Vish mentioned the diagnostic. I think we have the ability for diagnostic development because I think we're talking about emerging infectious diseases. Some of the infectious diseases are already known and they come back probably very virulent or they come back to be in environments where we do not expect them to be. In the context of being more virulent, we have now the ability to look in the genome to see exactly what is the genetic determinant. And I think the BECA platform, the technologies that we have is really not going to be different in terms of thinking with the biotech group. But thinking that you are relatively young in BECA, but thinking that it's an emerging disease, you're going to have CDC and you're going to have all sorts of people screaming around anything emerging. What particular comparative advantage will your platform have compared to them? The platform that we have has the advantage of getting into the DNA sequence immediately, which helps you to identify what is that bug. It's a bug that we already know. How is it different from the one that was already... But you can't tell me that CDC and Nairobi won't have something on a plane to Atlanta within two days or one day. So there are restrictions. You cannot just take a sample out of an outbreak and take it to a different place. We have the advantage before you get the authorization to take the samples from Nairobi and get to the plane to Atlanta. In Nairobi, we should be able to run some genomics experiments and tell you what we think would be approximate. I have always been of this opinion that prevention is worth upon the cure. So I would like to see us working more on the prevention side. But then someone said, how could you do surveillance for a disease that hasn't yet emerged? So the evidence has shown that when there is an outbreak, the longer it takes to respond to it, the more expensive it is to control it. So we would like to work at the prevention side and detect things as early as possible. And so I would like to hear more about surveillance and how we can do surveillance and so on for these kinds of things. We also know that this is a rapidly changing and emerging field, this whole area. And it's a very unthought out field. It's a very new field, this intersection between human health, livestock, the environment. And so we'd like to keep a sort of a watching brief over other issues so that if they do emerge into more importance, then we can be very flexible and very ready to also see what we can contribute to those. What surprises me, though, is the one health that you sort of tucked away at the bottom of that box. One health slash eco health is our framework. It's our conceptual framework for the entire program. But that may not have come out very well. And I will just add in passing that one of our partners, key partners who will be nameless, called One Health, a veterinary fad. So it's probably not yet as popular as we hope it will be and would like to see it.