 Thank you. I won't have any slides. I thank you again for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be here. I come, like Sara, from the bioethics kind of background, and what got me very interested in this area was the ALS study from patients like me that we heard about. And as I guess a standard bioethics person, my first question was who reviewed that study? Was there an IRB review in that study? And I didn't see an answer to that. And then my next question was who ought to review that study? And I couldn't find out the answer to that question either. So I thought, well, that's a great research area. So I've been thinking about it for some time, and I thought we heard a lot about it already today. So what I'd like to maybe do in the next minutes is just to pull some of the threads that we already heard and speak to three points that I think we could use to frame the discussion at the panel. So my first point is about the heterogeneity of the activity, and we heard a little bit about it. We talk about citizen science as if it were one thing, but it seems to me that we have a lot of different activity, a lot of different research that we seem to think that goes under that. And the reason that this heterogeneity I think is important is because we need to ask the follow-up question, which is in what way is this kind of research different from our standard research, the one that we send to the IRB, the one we understand to be covered by our ethics regulation? And I think the reason that's an important distinction to make is because we need to look again, and again that came up already, at the different roles that citizens play as researchers, as investigators, as funders of the activity. So in the various slides we saw today, they were overlapping circles of what their roles might be, overlapping circles in what kind of activity. Is this really research as we know it? Is it labor as we heard? What exactly is it? I think the important point here is not simply to look at that because we like to be pedantic, but because if it is actual research, as we understand that the rest of our research, maybe we have to come up with a very good reason why we're not applying our standard mechanisms. The second, I think, important reason to that, the second reason for which that demarcation is important is because I'm a little concerned that sometimes, given the appeal of citizen science, it might sound like the right thing to say, although basically what we mean is our standard research. And I think we need to be careful to this difference between how much of this is rhetoric and how much of this is really a different kind of research, a different degree of participation, a different degree of engagement. My second point is about the uniformity of standards. No matter how heterogeneous the activity is, research still needs to satisfy certain scientific and ethical criteria. And I think everyone would agree on that. We don't want a second class scientific kind of research. We need to do high quality research, no matter how it's done or where it's done, and there are values that we value in how we're doing research, and we need to secure those, although we might have to secure those with different models. Now, in terms of models, what I'm thinking here is we might have to revise our process to consent. Okay, we all know our consent mechanism is not perfect, but some of them are good enough, our ethics review is maybe not perfect, but it does help improve our research. So we need to think maybe differently about these things, maybe also differently about attribution, about fair sharing of benefit. And the reason we'll be thinking about it perhaps differently is also, I think, because we need to recognize the value of that activity. Health research is a socially valuable activity, but we have certain criteria that need to be met in order to recognize it as such. And in particular here, I think we need to make sure that we recognize these new roles and the roles of the citizen. I was looking at some literature from a very different area, biodiversity or mythology, and there are two papers that were published very recently. One seemed to suggest that even in these areas that have a longer history with citizen science, citizen science are not mentioned. We saw in your example that they were mentioned as co-authors, as 3,000, 3,000 something dusters. But in that systematic review, it seemed that we couldn't pick up the citizen science because they were not mentioned in that context. The second study that was a bit more worrisome was concluding that if we look at costs in kind that citizen science contribute in biodiversity research, we're talking about saving up to two and a half billion dollars. That's a serious in kind contribution. Yet, the majority of citizen science collected data do not reach peer-reviewed literature. Well, that's something maybe to worry about, but if it's not to worry about very much for that research, if we were to embrace more of citizen science in health research, which I think would be a great thing to do, maybe we need to look carefully at things like that. Do we want data to be collected that we're not going to use? Do you want the people who participate not to be recognized? So I think it's important to learn from this sort of activity that, or others, we've been doing this for a bit longer. And the last point, I hope... Okay, it was time. All right, one minute. So in the last one minute, the one word I think I'd like to have you maybe think about is that of innovation in governance. We've been talking about governance, but we haven't talked about how we're going to do innovative governance. If our IRB, or Research Ethics Review Committee in Europe, where I have my operations, is not the right mechanism for some of the citizen science activity. What is the appropriate mechanism? And then how are we going to define that? And the innovative line perhaps to pursue here is how much we're going to involve that constituency of citizen science in becoming part of the governance. Again, it would be probably unfortunate if we decide, whoever we is, how we're going to govern these activities that seem to suggest that we have a different type of engagement from all these people. So can we think in different ways, in more innovative ways, where those citizen science in whatever form and shape we can be represented and become part of this are part of our oversight mechanism, part of the governance mechanism, and make then through this approach a more meaningful kind of contribution, and also in that sense have the whatever we call citizen science, which is more than just simple research participation to be able to be realized. So I'll stop here. Thank you. Thanks. We'll invite all of the panelists now to the table up front.