 So, as you all know, new technologies are relentlessly invading every aspect of our lives, posing new challenges to science and society. What should be the technology diet of the 21st century citizen? Can we even agree on a healthy diet? Every parent, every teacher, every educator, every policymaker, we're all asking the same questions. How much time should our kids spend engaging with media? Is children spending seven hours per day, every day of the week, in front of media? This is definitely a burning question. But we shouldn't fool ourselves. The fastest growing part of the population engaging with media is actually right now our older adults, right? So it's really a question that society has to ask. It's not the first time that as a society we ask ourselves how to regulate our intake. In this case, it's electronic virtual packets. But very recently we have the example of nutrition science. And there's been a lot of science behind that. It started in 1916. And if there is one lesson we have to learn is that it was a very long process. It took another 90 years to converge on the kind of accepted program like five food groups that you actually all know. The other lesson that we have learned from that process was very far from being linear. If you look at the scientific publication, at one point in time there were actually 12 different food groups. It yanked back all the way to four. So there was a lot of searching needed. At one point there was even an interesting seven food group where they added mention add everything you may want at the bottom, right? So where are we at in terms of technology diet with respect to this history? Well, fortunately I'm going to acknowledge we're probably nearer to that chart than the five food group. But there are a few things we know thanks to studies in the lab. One first thing is that there are many misconceptions. So you often hear that engaging with computer screens is bad for your vision. Well as a vision scientist this is something I can test in the lab. And what we discovered is that people that play actually some kind of video games have enhanced vision and we're now making the use of that for rehabilitation of patient with vision. The other misconception is that the debate is always framed as good or bad. Think back about food. We now all take for granted that different sources of sugar are not created equal. So like this banana, some sugars are slow acting, but you have very different kind of sugars that are the fast acting sugars. We even accept that the same type of sugar will not have the same effect on different people. Think about diabetic people. This is exactly the kind of granularity we are getting at when we're stepping into the lab and doing research about, for example, video game in the brain. We now know enough so that I can stand here and tell you not all video games have the same effect. Those fast-paced action games that you're seeing here have an effect on attention and top-down attention. Video games have more of an effect on visual constructive skills, but it's even the case that the same game will not have the same effect on different players if a kid has good vision or bad vision, for example. So there is one message that it's clearly technology is affecting our brain and some are actually complaining that it's turning us into brain dead zombies that know absolutely nothing. Well, I think really the issue is why do we call knowledge as a society, right? Certainly the case that the kind of a cyclopedic knowledge that some of us and our fathers really cherished is slowly disappearing, but their new strengths that are created. So the net generation is very agile at searching for the relevant information given the goal of their task. They don't seem to be less creative. There's actually data suggesting there are more, and there's a lot of data showing that better visual spatial cognition. These are all forms of knowledge, new forms of knowledge. Now it's not the first time in history that a technological revolution is changing what people know and as a result what society value. There's a very interesting debate in Plato between Aristotle and Phaedrus about the advance of writing systems. And Socrates is rightly complaining that it is destroying the oral traditions, it's destroying the essence of knowledge. So what we really need to do is our responsibility is to actually understand what kind of new strength technology endows its user and exploit those strengths for the design of new educational system for the design of plans for the workforce. We really need to remain very humble. We have to step in the lab and work in earnest the key ingredients. But to make a link with the past two talks, the dream here is to actually develop a platform, maybe a video game, where I can teach you about the two states of the cats, right? And that may actually be feasible. We need to remain open. Thank you.