 We have our esteemed panelists here ready to take any questions that you might have if you'll post them in the question and answer portion of the of the webinar will be we will get to them. I have I have a couple to start with a couple that came in earlier after some after a couple of presentations. We'll start with the, the philosophical one first. So Adam, you're ready. This is the question is, where does the argument that humans, since they have the capacity to reduce human misery, but also improve animal lives, have the responsibility to act upon it, even if it means the use of animals that do not have that ability. Is this consequentialist consequentialistic approach or speciesism. So, I think, in ethics we distinguish sometimes between who's the patient of an ethical action and who's that agent, which sounds sort of technical but the patient is the being or person who's affected by an action and the agent is who's making the decision. And so I think a lot of when we're talking about consequentialism or non consequentialism, that's more focused on what you should be doing if you're already a moral agent who has a responsibility to make decisions. So I don't think the question of who has the responsibility that cleanly fits into those those buckets, but a lot of people have made the argument over years that you know human of course are are unique in our cognitive abilities and so we have unique responsibilities as as moral agents that other animals don't don't have. So, I don't know if anyone else wanted to add anything to that. The next question I have is for Dr. France. And that is that we, there are different levels of our access to social or our ability to post on social media one being. I have a personal page. I have a laboratory page of my institution also has pages. So, do you have any advice as to like if I have my personal page should I create a lab page where I post most of my, most of my scientific stuff and just keep my personal page separate. And then my institution obviously has their own rules, and I will have to submit to someone probably. And I think it depends on the institution with how much you need to have approval on what you're posting and and it depends on what you're sharing as well. I think having your lab page having a page that is devoted to what you're working on your science is a great idea. It can be linked to a website it really can be focused have a lot of facts about what you're doing. And you have a lot more control over that, but I don't think necessarily keeping that separate I think you can share your information that you have on your lab page then on your personal page because you likely have different audiences with both of them, and we need to be reaching all of them. Yes, you of course need to abide by your institutional rules. But I think a lot of institutions are becoming more and more comfortable talking about animals and research I know Emory is a great example of one that now shares all of their Brad events they on their on the official Emory University page they share photos and talk about Brad. So I think it's it's a movement that we need to keep doing it if we do it little by little on our personal pages and on our lab pages, then our institutions will join us as well. So, yesterday we learned about the eight second rule. How can we effectively communicate ethics by fault, following that eight second rule. I'm gonna start your timer yet I'm still thinking. Yeah, I mean I guess. I mean obviously there's there's tension between the academic practice of thinking long and hard about certain topics and and the goal of communicating effectively with the public. I think, if you only have eight seconds, you just need to hope that you have that you have a value that already resonates with people and and tap into that value. So, I don't know, other people might have different. Take a swing at that and it won't be eight seconds to use them up. I think one way to do it is to say decisions are going to be made actions are going to be taken they'll affect you are involved you can we talk about it. Like, literally, would you like to talk about it. And the reason I think that gets you into ethics is the immediate question is what's the decision what's going to happen who's affected who benefits who's harmed what what will have to be done, which gets you into an inclusive conversation that isn't about my values or your values is things will happen, whether we do something or not. Let's talk about how those might happen what our values are. That wasn't eight seconds. So also probably not going to be eight seconds I've been thinking about this since yesterday and lost sleep over it clearly. But I think from my standpoint as a lab animal that usually, especially if we're having this conversation of ethics and how can you be a vet and still condone animal research. My, the way I say it and maybe this isn't really an ethical but just a personal I always just tell them. At the end of the day I know where I stand morally and I know that animals will be used in research and I want to be the ones to protect them, and I kind of leave it at that and I let them kind of take away whatever they want from it. Yeah, and I think one of the things to that we may have learned is you have eight seconds to grab their attention to get to the next eight seconds you know so yeah. There's a comment and a question in the in the chat. And it's about Temple Grandin and work that she's done on humane treatment of animals and maintaining open dialogue with the public and how well she's done with that. And understanding that that you know she advocates non anthropomorphic anthropomorphic understanding of animals perspective, and how they communicate and how that can guide decisions. And should we use more of work like that to highlight be highlighted in our discussions about research, and he mentioned that Nicole alluded to that idea in her session. Any thoughts comments. So that's a, that's a great point and actually at Marshall we worked with with a behaviorist who was a student of Temple Grandin's and so it was great and I think that that's a really important point. And considering how we're looking at animals I can give an example just working with the pigs that we were always very conscious about the way that they see and approaching them in a very specific way because their eyes are the size of their head so we would go low and go to the side make sure they could see us. So I think that that is is something that we should be when we're talking about. I think so we're talking about what's best for the animal that we should be paying attention to the animals perspective we do that with ferrets and cats to they like to have a vertical environment and sometimes we can forget about that because we're used to just having a horizontal environment and room to climb and room to explore. So I think that's an excellent point. So I'm going to change topics just a little bit. Yesterday we talked about how veterinarians are such a trusted source of information, but we don't always hear from them in other in the venues that reach the public. What do you all have to say about how we can further veterinarians participation and reach in that space. So for me what I think is visibility within the veterinary community is a great place to start and creating those allies. This means that the lab animal vets need to talk to their veterinary colleagues because as we have mentioned there there isn't always that understanding. So universities are great places to start because your clinicians are doing animal trials or animal research and the bridging of the gap happens right there at that level and and what a great way to start into ease into that that bigger discussion to get people involved and get all veterinarians at a similar understanding of what we as lab animal vets do. So I think talking about the role of animal research and how it benefits animals and how it allows veterinarians to practice medicine and making sure that they understand that and it starts it. It starts young K through 12 I mean we need to start getting in there but it also in that school I mean there is more of a focus on making sure veterinary students are aware of different career opportunities and understand the role of these animals in veterinary medicine as a whole. So there are lots of approaches and tactics we try to get Brad, when we have multiple vet clinics that participate in Brad and we have pamphlets and handouts that are really targeting their clients that say we have a treatment for heartworm because of research and dogs or because of X, Y and Z. So lots of approaches I think need to be done in order to make sure that they are contributing to this message. I have a question for Samar. So we've been talking a lot today about about the openness initiative and that's an actual thing. And then about all of us being more open from from a media point of view, does that help you. How do you feel about I mean where does that sit with you as a. I mean, I'm very grateful for them things are a lot more open and makes my job easier makes a fellow journalist job easier. And I think, I think the I just want to underscore the importance of openness right there's this idea that if you say nothing on a quite on a topic right the worst of what's already out there is the official party line without any, any of your side with any pushback. So I think that's ultimately that's important for the public is important for journalists as well right if I can get someone to refute what some animal rights group is saying or another idea, another strain of thought, right then I'm just going to publish with the animal rights group said and said, I tried to reach out to scientists but they did not comment. They didn't respond to my calls. Right. So it is. I mean, obviously talking to media will always have a stock. I mean, because there will always be the risk of being misquoted. And there's ways to manage that so for example we spoke about journalists who maybe come from organizations or outlets that focus exclusively on animal rights and they might not be as friendly to your position. I still think it's worth engaging them, but maybe instead of having a telephone interview where you're worried about things going out of control being taken out of context, you send an email statement. Right where's very clear you said this and then both sides know exactly what's been said. So I think it is openness is great for everyone because I think it helps the public get a sense of what what are these faceless scientists doing. And it also gives the media an opportunity to engage I mean something I wanted to mention on the last question is for veterinarians. What can they do well one thing is to become friends with the journalists right find out who the journalists are at your local paper, who the science journalists are, get to know them, offer yourself as a resource. Just because you might not be quoted in a piece that it's always nice to be quoted sometimes, but it is something where if you can be a resource if you can help someone out. Journalists can be very appreciative and you can help me ensure the media stories are better quality for it. In the room. So I have a question for Dr France. I'm totally overwhelmed by what you described about social media. And I'm stuck on the things we want to communicate effectively about science. The big deal is that we want to convey the nuance and the complexity and all of that stuff. It seems sort of fundamentally incompatible with the the short, clear, clean messages. Is it appropriate to say that the idea is to have lots and lots of those short messages that that we get to the nuance that way or. It's certainly an approach and maybe the most appropriate approach these days we know that we aren't going to have someone stay on our post for a long time and read a whole big caption on something. So giving bite sized pieces more frequently. If you talk to some of these plate companies that are really really on it with social media they'll have that every day they're posting three different posts for example. Yeah, that can feel overwhelming for someone don't make that your goal and don't be overwhelmed and we'll talk after, but there are lots of ways for you to do it that really give people little bits of information, and slowly, we're moving the needle, a little bit. So, but I know what you're saying in terms of the we're trying to convey something that is so complex but we don't have the attention span of someone who can understand that and listen so yes bite size, little bits. Good question, thank you. I'm going to come back to my question for Adam. I, you know, I have very mixed thoughts about species him, but we know that Peter singers book that was released is in my mind I've distilled it down that the reason we do what do you want to label them bad things needed things, whatever is because we're just, we feel that as humans we have domination stewardship whatever term you want to use over non humans even though we're all animals. I do remember that Peter said that he thought sentience stopped at shrimp that shrimp had sentience and muscles didn't. And I, you know, I really don't know how what to do with that information, but I love to hear your thoughts. About speciesism in particular the sort of where you draw the line with the sentence. There's been. Okay, I think I need to speak closer. So there's been interesting research from London School of Economics they have a group that looks at consciousness and different species and so they've been publishing interesting stuff about different invertebrates. So I'll just say that quickly but speciesism I think is a really interesting topic because the way that it was defined by singer is making decisions purely on the basis of species membership. And so I guess, as an ethicist who's kind of study that I think it's interesting because some people say, Oh yeah I'm proudly a speciesist or you know I I'm definitely a speciesist because I think humans should get priority. And what's interesting is if you're making that decision based on some capacity that you think humans have like cognitive capacity or the ability to form social agreements or whatever else. So technically is not speciesist according to the original definition. So, so I think people kind of use it in different ways, sometimes. But to me where it is could be viewed as a criticism as if you're only looking at species as a reason for treating one being less than the other. And there's not some other characteristic that you can point to like increase capacity to feel pain or, you know, the ability to form preferences about the future. So, yeah. So you're saying that there's commonality between species like, you know, the groupings whether you call murder of crows or a pack of wolves or whatever, you know, a conglomeration of humans. So you're, if you're going to claim to be a species that has to be something that no other species demonstrates is that what you're saying. Um, I mean, I guess, in the world we live in, it was just, you know, there are lots of capacities that humans have that other species don't have. And if you think that those capacities are kind of what gives moral standing or gives an increased reason to treat humans differently. Then I think it wouldn't be speciesist according to that original technical definition, but yeah. Two questions. One for Dr. Yates. If an investigator or researcher is targeted, should institutions have resources available to assist them or be prepared for such targeting? I do. In our institution, in all institutions should. They should be able to support people in terms of security. Now, some people have asked, can the University Police Department go out and protect their home. In our community, they're not legally allowed to, but they can interface with our local law enforcement and help out in that way and just to lure our local law enforcement that this person may be targeted. For example, an investigator, if they are, if there is a demonstration at their home, and it may actually be a completely legal demonstration because people actually do have the right to protest in front of your home if they do it legally. But to alert the University Police Department and they'll call the local police department and emphasize the importance of this particular event. There's a number of things that we do. We give security advice to people as well in terms of how to protect themselves in their home. We also tell them if there are any direct threats, let us know of it immediately. And our police department will promptly contact the FBI and get the FBI involved. So many things that we do to help protect people. One other question if I may. This is sort of directed to Dr. Kwan, but what we've learned the last two days, everybody can answer. So Dr. Kwan, you presented that this animal enthusiast or animal impression is a great way to engage and get the message across. But from the survey, we saw that there might be as many as 30% of the people that have no knowledge about science and they don't care about animals and research. We need to engage these people. So this is for the whole community here at the table, because they do have say in what our Congress and our local community members are voting on. And how do we engage them? Because the people who care about animals, be it to stop animal research or to support it, those are the people that are listening. How do we catch that middle peak that Samir showed? And how do we how do we really engage that group? It's so funny because the first thing my brain thought was what? No, someone doesn't like animals. And I think that's the first. I think that's a lot of reactions most people would have even in society because animals are such a big part of our lives. And so it's also kind of kicking back that question of when they say they don't care about science or they don't care about animals to what capacity have they interacted with them. There are some people out there who, for instance, they might have a farm dog. And maybe when they're answering the survey, they might not, they might not really understand, they might just be like, Oh, yeah, I don't know anything about science or I don't, I don't care about animals, whatever. But then they're not thinking about Oh, but my farm dog protects my sheep. And so I think it is something that we have to work on though because there is a part of that society that has this voter ability. I can't say I can answer that question right now because I think that's something that all of us can work on is how do we reach these people, because I think, again, it's the work we could all be animal enthusiasts but there's different levels of enthusiasm and there's different approaches to it. I mean, we were using a lot of positive examples where people keep their animals really close to their hearts. But for some people it's a livelihood like when we talk about livestock. We're going to talk about ranchers. And so they have a different, they sort of have a different relationship with those animals doesn't mean they're not enthusiastic or they don't care about them. But maybe with how we word questions, they might not consider themselves someone who cares about animals, because maybe in their mind they're like, Oh, it's a food source, but that's something that's also valuable to society. So maybe it's just re re approaching how we think it right. I mean there's certain things that are universal that people care about and one of those things I believe is health care right and then people I mean everybody gets sick everybody will die. So it's the question then is that can you reframe these discussions about animal or science broadly speaking right in terms of Oh I mean think about your mom or dad has had this disease right well this animal research helped create a cure. Right. And I think it's just reframing things in terms of what people really care about. And I think it's even more foundational. There's not a platform that's available for the public, and they wouldn't know how to reach a university if the scientists aren't out there if the institutions aren't promoting actively what they would like to, then I think the public needs to be made aware in some places. This is talking about communications departments. So if that can happen and then a platform can be put in place, much like every other animal related issue, then I think the communication will greatly improve. I agree along those lines, public education campaigns are a great way to get the word out. I think Americans understand certain concepts better thanks to public education campaigns with billboards and ads. A lot of issues can be untangled that way. I'll agree with those and say I was struck by the survey data that showed I think about 80% of the people endorsed livestock. Remember 34% for it's easy to connect the consequence hamburger bacon if one chooses to meet. If you talk about livestock you know what the consequences of interfering with the ability to eat meat. When you get to animal research, you have no such direct connection at all, right, it's too many different steps. So one of the reasons I think the drug labels would work is it's absolutely a direct connection to people who are consuming medicines for their pets for humans it's look that's animal research qr code. Go find out more about it, but it's the consequence and making that connection. I think we too might hopefully the last two days will help us to connect with all those people through social media through our websites, because because the first thing people do. And I know this because my mother, my mother has something into Google that. And if the University of Pittsburgh came up or whoever came up as hey here's a you know an institution that studies this exact disease, and they may be able to help. Yeah. I just briefly about how we can support one another in our efforts to communicate with the public we have talked about how what institutions can do to help support individuals trying to make these connections. Do you all think that there are other bodies that should be doing more of this. And if so what can they do that may that be funding agencies or nonprofits or other non governmental organizations. I definitely think that NIH could do more. I mean they fund a lot of the work, and they've not always been so outspoken about the benefits of animal research they put some stuff out there but not a lot. They certainly could do a lot more in this area arena. I think that private industry could do more too. I'm going to say it, I think that, you know, a lot of this relies on the academics and academics are already very open and I think that if we could have a more united front across the entire research spectrum that that could be really really beneficial. I was just going to say we talked about these big the NIH institutions, academics and contracts, but individuals each person, we all should be doing more individually talking to family and friends. I have a friend who I swear she is an animal research advocate now because she knows what I do, and she tells everyone about it so all of these conversations make a difference. I completely agree and I think we've seen in other social movements that's what transforms things is not media or anything like that but person to person communications, you know someone who does animal research, I trust them therefore I know it's okay. I have a dad that I think what has swayed all my family and friends and they all ask me now is what's exciting coming out of the University of Pittsburgh. So I'll just jump right into I'm doing animal based research, I start sharing the these great discoveries and some of them seem like they're science fiction when when you're telling them so you're wrapping around there and then you can get back well here's how I support that. It works really well. Candice would you like to go. Thank you. And I thought it might be a good opportunity to ask Adam smart or Logan. Is there a question that you wish we would have asked that hasn't been asked yet. I have a question. Um, is everyone aware of citizen sciences has anybody thought about how citizen science can be part of these communication efforts. That was actually a part of my graduate work. And I wasn't as involved with it because it was at the tail end of my research but we studied ticks and we studied where ticks occurred and we studied Lyme disease. And so what we did was that we partnered with a master's student in computer science to create an app that's called tick encounters. And the idea is that you're a citizen hiking in the forest and you come home and you're just covered in ticks. And so what you can do with the app is you can take the app take a picture of the tick it can help you identify it with some of the information coming out of I think it's wrong but it's University of New Hampshire I think where they actually have tick encounters and they have a kind of like this is how you identify a tick. And the idea behind this is we wanted to understand the spatial distribution of specific species of ticks, because all of the ticks can transmit Lyme disease. But we also wanted to see where we're dogs picking them up, where we're humans interacting with them, and the idea was sort of this bigger like idea that with the citizens help because we can't be out there a scientist dragging in the field all the time to get these ticks and so I'm not sure if other people have utilized that but that's been something that we've been talking about, especially when I talk about research to veterinarians. We are all scientists by nature but we might not call ourselves researchers. And so one of the talks that I gave to my classmates was that I really wanted them to encourage them even if you're going into a clinical setting. There's a lot of data you can collect with permission of course that you can then use to kind of forefront like hey you know we noticed that a ton of our dogs had this but we traditionally treat with this but we tried this and just collecting that data from just your local clinics and then go and be helpful elsewhere so I'm not sure of anyone else's experience with citizen science this way but that's why we've utilized it. I'm actually, I haven't heard that term before but I experienced it a lot especially in vet schools and I think vet schools are pretty good at this because they have a lot of clinical trials for animals and they'll ask the general public do you have a dog that meets these criteria and would like to partake in a clinical animal trial or veterinary students do you want to enroll your own animal in a clinical trial and I know plenty of friends that did that and I think it's it's a great stepping stone into research because it's obvious that animals in animal research helping animals make sense to a lot of people and what could that lead to in their thought of well if animals can help animals can animals help people in veterinary schools already do that and and maybe they need to broadcast it even more but it is evident as a vet student and it might be a good way to communicate to other veterinarians as well what that research process is like because they're already doing it. Now that our panelists had a moment to thank Candice could you repeat your question. I can. So, I think one of one of the questions that I was hoping would have been answered actually came up. And now I'm going to go back to Samar and Adam. Is there a question you wish you had been asked or that we thought to ask you that we didn't that would be valuable for other scientists listening to hear the answer to you. I mean I guess I want to reiterate something about what does it mean for veterinarians, these other research scientists to be friends with journalists and sort of what's the what's the point of that what's the importance of that how can you do that. I mean, I think it is really for journalists a question often comes and it's one of the difficulties is sourcing. How do you find the people to talk to right often you do Google searching. You might read other news articles on this topic might reach out to the same people right or if you're being innovative maybe you'll reach out to the colleagues, the people that have been quoted themselves. But the point being is that it's sourcing is difficult right it's difficult to know who will have expertise who will know this. So I think that people are in need of these friends right people that they can reach out trusted to don't necessarily have a stake in them. They don't have this sort of self interest and that oh I need to be in the article I need to, I need to be front and center and be represented, but more than I just want to help you do good science. So I think it is it requires a proactive nature though because it requires the potentially finding out who are the science journalists in your area, who covers the topic coming out of university. The only benefit of that is that they might be more interested in your research or your colleagues research right they'll at least it'll be more on their radar. And I think that's often a question because journalists are, I mean, habitually overwork there's tons of stories they could cover. But if you're a friend of theirs and you can say hey there's interesting thing that the so and so is doing just wanted to flag it for you. Right, it might increase the likelihood that it is covered might increase the likelihood that the public gets to know about it. So I didn't want to pour ice on this but my experience has been it's either the Corporation Council for the institution, or it's the handlers, the PR folks who put the brakes on scientists approaching anyone or anyone approaching a scientist. I'm not painting with a broad brush and saying that these are bad people I think they're, they're being supremely protective of the interests of their institutions, but I think there needs to be a little bit of flex and more engagement with the media in these areas. I had a follow up Samir. One thing that may be lacking in the veterinary profession. If you ask veterinary schools, what they do for public media training. It was like 20 years ago there were no business classes and veterinary schools and now it's almost mandatory in most of veterinary things. So, it might be something that as a society, we could improve that because we see what the public perceives veterinarians as. And now they don't have training on being that media representative. And that's why Bill won't let me speak for the university so. I'll let you add a mini thing. Not to put you on the spot but if there is. I'll be a little and answer or bring up a discussion that was not on camera so for the audience at home it didn't happen. But Jessica and I had a nice conversation earlier about just sort of the idea of teaching ethics in vet schools and I've had conversations with Candace actually about this as well before she went and decided to get busy by being a vice provost. I do think that there's, I kind of feel like vet schools and places that involve interacting with animals haven't yet totally cracked the code of how to like effectively teach ethics. So, I would love to see more discussions and collaborations among groups like this about ways of trying to sort of convey a shared language that that would be helpful for people to have these conversations in the future. I mean, do you have a comment about that. I do too real quick. Interestingly, we are required to have our graduate students go through ethics courses, maybe not all our professional students that's just about the question of teaching ethics. But I understand I don't know personally, the curriculum for teaching ethics in law schools is heavily tilted toward one set of values. So how would you. How do you promote the teaching of ethics that is not teaching one particular set of values. Yeah, so that I mean I think that is part of the challenge because I think I've seen it different different ways at different schools where it and I mean this is well yeah like part of the problem is that so much of how ethics is taught at a particular level depends on who happens to be the person teaching it and what their views are that you know that semester. And so I don't know I guess I think teaching it as a method of inquiry and as asking questions more than coming up with specific conclusions is one way to approach it but if there was if there was an easy answer like that it probably would have been implemented by now so but I think I think the idea is just to hopefully the people who are teaching ethics have some humility humility and sort of understand that what they're trying to do is get the students to think critically and enjoy grappling with the difficult questions, rather than sort of just imparting a set of values on the students. I'd like to make a follow on comment to what Dr. Shriver just said and what Dr. Wong asked, and what Dr. Hennigar reported or Dr. Hasfield reported that Dr. Grandin said about anthropomorphizing and about teaching ethics. I'm just curious. To me, it, it strikes me quite strongly that the animal in research issue seems to be a single issue campaign. And if we're talking about having veterinary students or graduate students medical students philosophy students, we're not agitating about this in an ethics class, you know, it's quite, it's chilly here in DC, and some folks have a goose down coat, or some folks, you know, might have chicken for lunch, and some people have animals and other vegetarians who are being monitored right now. I'm just curious why the focus, you know, circles around to these with this caution about not anthropomorphizing, and this question about teaching ethics and are there a single set of values I think it becomes very confusing when we make these single issue campaigns. To follow up on Candace wanting topics we haven't spoken of. Quite interesting to hear what the panel has to say about incorporating this message of animal research into the one health spectrum. You know, Dr. Quan talked about doing, you know, parasite work in the field and ecology and bringing it back to lab and getting it out. Can we use this message to improve our communications or to better explain how we're all interrelated both in the medical human aspect, the animal welfare and even the environment. Any thoughts. I can comment a little bit about this and this is from my personal experience being a extern with CDC in their epidemiology elective program, which is a really great program for anyone out there who's a veterinary student or medical student. The idea is to bring us all together in this one health approach. What a lot of people don't realize with one health is actually started more in the veterinary realm and now has sort of expanded out. And this conception that it's all for human benefit. And I think they forget that we are also supposed to take the component of environment into consideration ecology all of that. And so I do believe that there is a place where veterinarians can step in especially the ones who are familiar with research use in animals can bring it out to these greater sort of communities but how we do that I think is we have to go back to basics and we have to not really reclaim one health but I think we have to redefine and make sure that we're getting the right message across because I think when you say one health to a veterinary student. We start to immediately think like the ecosystem and the elephants and you know and you're really thinking broadly, but when you talk to a medical student about what one health means to them. They're really thinking about human populations, sort of these countries that may not have access to health care. And what does that look like in terms of the disease what can we do and it's interesting because then we start to not really agree on where's the value in animals in that realm. And so again this is long winded, but it's more so I think we have to go back to redefining what one health is reminding people how inclusive that is of both animals and humans and I think once we have that conversation, and we can connect research into that realm I think will have a better understanding and I think we can really appeal to a lot of people in the healthcare profession not just we keep mentioning medical and medical doctors human and veterinarians but also the nurses the pharmacists anyone who's involved in the healthcare can I just jump in because I listened to a lecture recently by Jerry time bomb on one health versus one medicine. Okay, and one medicine is where this originated from, which was between animals and humans mainly tied to health. But one health, as he was explaining is includes now environmental ecology planetary health. And so it becomes a very diffuse and people get confused over it. And his plea was that we should return to one medicine, because it is sort of about the veterinary arena, and the human medical arena, and not that we're not worried about the rest of the world you know the planetary health and ecology, ecosystems, but we can't do it all. And so he feel he felt the term and he convinced me at the end that one health was unhealthy term to be using. And if we went to one medicine, we would be clear on what we want to do. So I wanted to ask a slightly different question. A little while ago you were talking about ethics and ethical norms, and it struck me as a very US lens. We have a lot of foreign talent in the United States we have a lot of collaboration with other countries. And there are a lot of countries that don't actually value the lives of animals, compared to humans and other things. And so when we're talking about and when we're thinking about how to communicate how to think about ethical norms standards that sort of thing. What sorts of things do you think about when you when you sort of put that international lens on. And, and if this is sort of an open ended question maybe this goes to Candice's sort of question as well as something that would be useful to follow up on in the future. I could comment real quick. Well people are thinking because I've worked globally and Asia, Europe, and US for many, many years and worked in countries where the rules and regulations sort of choke research, and we're worked in countries where the rules and regulations didn't help the animals there you know they say it was not a good situation. And I think what we did, but this would of course have to be at a national level, or international level is there, and I think there are inroads in the oh IE and in other groups for this on basic principles of animal welfare and animal experimentation. So, you know, this may seem silly but the, they get the right food and the right, you know, portable water, simple things like that that this cage size fits the needs of the species that are involved so you'd go to very core principles. So whether the society as a whole has a high level of care and concern or low level peer concern. Some doesn't really matter, because if they're part of the global organizations like the oh IE and others. They have to meet those core principles to be part of the worldwide medical area. But not everybody may not know what oh IE stands for. Can you explain that French and I can't. I can't remember but it's, it's basically an organization that I don't remember the French name so. Yeah, but oh IE is the French version. Oh, okay. We have a couple of comments in the chat that I think are worth putting out and that is one participant says that teaching should also be part of like that tech programs as well as DVM and VMDs and just other students and it is included in their curriculum. And, and that ethics is taught at virtually all medical schools and it's taught in a way that includes many views and perspectives and I think that's probably, you know the way that that we have to think about this everybody doesn't think like us always so. With that, any other questions in the room. Any questions from the panelists. That's more of a comment rather than question and I do respect all perspectives but I do want to leave another perspective related to One Health and as it relates to communication and scientific communication to, you know just the general public. So I know we talk about medicine but that's just a small aspect of One Health. One Health involves health period when you think about public health is not just medicine. That's why we have an ethicist. The ethicist is part of the social science process. The social science aspect of bringing different principles and values from all societies to talk about what is needed, or what people find valuable in a particular situation or particular group. So that's one aspect might have an economic principle. You may have an environmental principle that has to deal with just how things live. What is in that environment that may impact both animals and people that may not even be related to medicine at all. So I think we should kind of think more broadly in aspect of how do we bring all these disciplines to speak about how all these things are interrelated, and how do we communicate that so that people have a better understanding of what science is all about. Science isn't just medicine that's just one aspect. Science is all kind of things, whether it's technology, whether it's, you know, all kind of other principles. So I just want to leave that. Thank you. To say Brianne I agree with you fully. I just have no idea how it gets done. To go back to the previous comments, oh ie roughly translates to World Organization for animal health. And with that I would like to thank all of our panelists for their time and, and many cases their travel, and I would like to pass it back to our chair. So thank you again to everybody who participated the people who participated in the room the presenters the, the people who participated in the conversations, the committee members, all of the National Academy staff and all of the attendees of course. So, today we had some fairly robust discussion about openness what does it mean what's the spectrum. What have people experienced. We got some insights into the concerns of institutional leadership. We talked about communicating about ethics, learned about communicating on social media. And we're going to build the rest of our panel of presenters some more and very much appreciate all of you being involved in this and I hope I, I take from this last session that we have lots of more things to talk about. So I hope we can all continue the conversation and further improve, or, yeah, further improve our efforts to communicate effectively. I'd like to thank you all for attending the effective communication with the general public about scientific research that requires the care and use of animals workshop. We are at the close of our workshop, and I would like to express my gratitude to each and every one of you for your participation and contributions to the discussions that we've had over the last two days. And perspectives shared over the last two days have been invaluable in advancing our understanding of ways to effectively communicate about research that involves the use of animals. I would encourage each and every one of you to continue the discussion started here as we continue the work of learning to communicate effectively. If you're interested in viewing the recording from the workshop it will be available to the link on our National Academy's webpage. And as a reminder, under the meeting materials tab there are resources related organized by topic. You can access this directly by scanning the QR code at the top of the meeting book. And I would like to say thank you again to everyone for your interest in your attendance, and I hope that you enjoy the rest of your day.