 I will hand it over to Matai Momen who has the privilege of introducing the next and last panel of the day. Matai. Thanks, Sandy. And thanks to everyone for a fantastic conference so far, thanks to Karun and the organizers. This is the panel right now that gets a lot of attention every time this conference happens every year. And it's because Martin and this really amazing group of panelists are some of the people that shape our industry. There's a lot of commentary on what should happen, complaining about what does happen. But this particular group, with the decisions that you all make, help actual reality take place and unfold. And so it's for that reason that everyone's listening carefully. And Martin, with that, I'll hand it to you. Thank you very much, Matai. Great introduction. And I'm absolutely thrilled to be moderating this panel again. I was just saying before we went live, I'm actually calling from Copenhagen. I'm at a Novo Nordus board meeting at the moment. And for the finale for the session, I will be singing Wunderbar, Wunderbar Copenhagen so that you've all got something to look forward to. On a more serious vein, I truly am. I love this meeting every year. And I do have the privilege of chairing the R&D panel. I think Karun says it's 15 out of the last 16 years. And like previous years, we have a tremendous panel today. And I'm going to go to them individually. Also, we have three folks that have volunteered for asking questions. Susan Hockfield, Iris Grossman and Naresh Trehan. So I will be bringing them into the question time after I've asked a couple. But I'm going to ask the panelists just to give brief introductions. I will name them in order of how long they've been on this panel. So clearly Andy is first, Andy Plum. And at the risk of embarrassing Andy, Andy is a true visionary and strategic thinking in our industry and has been for a number of years now. So the fact that he's on this panel most years is terrific. Then David Rees from MGen. David has been on the panel a few times now. We used to call him the rookie, but as you will see, he's very adept at the questions and answers. And then two new people I couldn't be more happy with. Fiona Marshall from Novartis and Thrill to have you on board. Fiona and Dan Skavronsky from Eli Lilly. Again, delighted to have you on board. So with that, I'm just going to go around the panelists for a brief introduction before I launch into the questions. So let's start with you, Andy. Well, thanks. Thanks for the opportunity. Thanks for the really generous introduction. It's really terrific as always to be here with you, Martin. And now I can't wait to the end of this conference to hear you sing. So you've promised us you'll have to follow through. And it's great to be on the panel with colleagues that I have the respect for, David, Dan, and Fiona. As you said, my day job is the emcee of the annual USAIC Healthcare and Biopharma Summit. And then on weekends and at nights, I also double as the R&D head for Takeda. Thank you, Andy. Dave. I'm the head of R&D at Amgen, long time veteran there, thrilled to be back this year again with such an August panel. Also want to be the first to offer congratulations to Dan and the team at Lilly for tremendous results today. What wonderful news for patients and the field. And hopefully we'll get to hear a little bit more about that as we go along. We certainly will, Dave. I've reordered the order of my questions. So Dan's going to be first on when we come to speaking. Fiona. Yes, hello, hello, everybody. I am definitely the rookie on the panel, but I've heard all about it. And of course, know this group sometimes personally, but also by incredible reputation. So really delighted to join and looking forward to a wide-ranging discussion. Thank you, Fiona. And last but not least, Dan. Okay. Sorry about that. So thanks, Martin, for inviting me here. Head of R&D at Lilly. I happened to also be a neuroscientist and an apathologist by training. So excited to be here on a day when we have some long-awaited Alzheimer's news that worked out. Well, that's how we're going to start the session, Dan. I can't resist having been someone like, I think probably everybody on the panel that's worked in this area and had some really difficult times and difficult failures. As I said to you before we started, all credit to you and the company who have stuck in there, you know, despite some disappointments in the past. So my question was going to be, there has been great progress in neurodegeneration landscape with emerging therapies in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. But where do you think we are on the spectrum between, you know, long, long way to go or genuinely make out in progress? That was my question. So I'm going to pose that. And I'm going to start with you, Dan. Please tell us about these truly terrific results we've published. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I just quickly answer your question, which is I accept both answers. We've made tremendous progress and there's a long, long way to go. The time it needs here are huge. Really exciting today that we top-line data on a drug that's in this trial slowed clinical decline by about a third. But that leaves two thirds of clinical decline to still slow stop to get to a complete halt in disease progression. You know, I think for patients today with early Alzheimer's disease, it's incredibly more hopeful than it's ever been. This category of drugs, amyloid lowering drugs, I believe, will be important treatments for patients assuming FDA approval here. And that's great news, but we don't give up and we're not done. I think for us, the next step is go even earlier. We're doing prevention studies. I think that's probably even greater promise for amyloid lowering drugs. And then we need a tau targeted drugs too for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's is one of many neurodegenerative diseases and maybe progress on Alzheimer's empowers us to think more boldly about other neurodegenerative diseases. And maybe we can have similar progress on some of these others. The technologies are there today, actually. And we're starting to see progress on dreaded things like ALS, more to come on Parkinson's and frontotemporal dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases. Marvelous, Dan. I'll just do a quick follow-up and then go to the other panelists. I mean, just describe how you felt when you saw the data come through, please. I've been working on this for 25 years. So it's been a long journey and there've been a lot of setbacks along the way. But I had high hopes for this one, but the one thing in this business that you learn quickly is you got to stay humble and there's nothing probably more humbling than data readouts than Alzheimer's disease. So I went into it being ready for anything and this readout matched my most positive hopes for what could be achieved in this disease. So I was ecstatic for the patients, of course, but also honestly for my team, they just you watch all of these scientists and drug developers put their lives into these drugs and all you want is success so they can celebrate. And we had that today. So a lot of tears of joy here for people who've worked really hard. Well said, Dan. It doesn't happen enough for our scientists that do devote their lives to these therapies. So truly, we couldn't be more happy for you. I think it's wonderful. And as David said, wonderful for patients, wonderful for the industry actually that now live in some hope to be able to bring things forward. Fiona, maybe I could bring you in and that same question on neurodegeneration with the backcloth of the announcement. Yeah, no, very exciting. I mean, I think where we've had a real advantage over the last, let's say, 10 years is a much better fundamental understanding of some of these diseases from a sort of from a mechanistic point of view, greatly informed by human genetics. And, you know, this isn't exactly a case in point. But the challenge has been, OK, we know what the targets are. But how do we actually drug these these pathways? And, you know, we've got difficulty with obviously getting molecules into the brain, particularly large molecules. And that's, you know, I think really hampered the way forward. So I'm hopeful that, you know, advances in better delivery, for example, into the CNS will allow us to bring, you know, other modalities on these same targets that we I think we have pretty been we've been confident for some time that these are the right targets. It's just, you know, how do we actually drug them? So from our point of view, we're concentrating a lot on sort of oligonucleides therapy, antisense oligos, SIRNA, delivery mechanisms into the CNS. We're also at the same time working on, you know, neurodevelopmental disorders and rare CNS disorders where we're using gene therapy. That's been very challenging, of course, getting capsids to actually deliver to the right neurons. But again, I think, you know, a lot of work is being done now to engineer and, you know, evolve capsids that can get into the right neurons. And ultimately, you know, it would be fantastic if we rather than having to give patients, you know, repeated infusions or whatever, for me, if we can really help these patients with treatments that are not a burden to them, but also show, you know, the real benefit of the hitting these pathways. That's what we've got to ultimate the aim for. But I'm really excited. And just again, congratulate Dan and Lily. I mean, it's just a fantastic achievement in the field of Alzheimer's disease. Great. Thank you. Thank you for you. David, please. Perhaps add something that hasn't come up yet was also we're now getting proof of principle on the clinical trials methodologies, the endpoints, and the, you know, and what actually constitutes a positive result, you know, a very basic question, but one that, you know, was unanswered for many, many years in this field. To me, refining those methodologies, and in particular developing surrogates, surrogate markers of effect, is to me, has got to be one of the clear objectives in the field, because we won't want to go another 20 years for another turn of the wheel as we attempt to do things empirically. And we can't do it, you know, trial by trial, because it simply takes too long. So understanding intermediates and surrogate predictors of efficacy and safety, to me, is an area where the field needs to shine a bright light right now. Great points. And if you line it up with Fiona's answer as well, on the one hand, new modalities, better surrogates leading to better trials, it's all in train. It's just for us to execute against those now. Thank you, Dave, Andy. Well, targets, targets modalities and biomarkers. I mean, that's, that's the triad. And you had all three here took a long time. I remember my first program that I worked on when I joined the industry in 2001, as a, in an experimental medicine and clinical pharmacology group was a gamma, gamma secretase inhibitor. So I was, I was enmeshed in this as well. And it just, it's just great what's happened, Dan. And, you know, you make us all proud. And it's funny, because we're in a very competitive industry. And we value greatly from each other's successes in many different ways. And I think it's a, it's a day, it's a great moment for all of us. And in fact, Rob Califf was on earlier in a fireside chat with Bill Chen, and he was cheering these results on. He then, then made the forward-looking statement in the caveats that they would have to review the data before. It's really terrific. And I, I, I do think that it's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a step forward. The challenges are still immense, you know, in neuroscience, unfortunately, because a lot of the diseases don't have clear genetic predispositions. Still, you know, when you, when you put a drug into the CNS, it has uncertainty. There's a lot that we just don't understand about the brain. And then these trials can be quite difficult. And I still feel that the, the policy landscape and the agencies are not as forward-thinking in CNS diseases as they need to be given the large amount of medical need. Yeah. Great, great point. So I was also going to make the comment, Andy, that you just did there, that how pleased we all are, right? And it is a competitive industry, and we're up against each other at times on same programs, same diseases, that when something like this breaks, that you can just feel the enthusiasm, it's, it's all heartfelt, Dan. So again, many congratulations to you. Yeah, thanks. And of course, you know, the competition or industries is a good thing. I often, I just see us inspiring each other to, you know, try and make better and better drugs. That's for the benefit of patients for sure. Yeah, I was out and certainly sitting here, Dan, as you know, being on the board of Nova Nordisk. And I know they just, they relish the, the competition with Lilly because it makes both companies better. Yeah, I think it's a terrific example that the Lilly Novo competition in diabetes and obesity has just led to better and better drugs and more understanding of science and beneficial for patients. Dead right. Thank you. I'm going to change tack a little. We normally concentrate on, on science, rightly, and R&D, but I'm kind of intrigued at the moment with a couple of things that have happened in our industry. And just want to ask the panelists how they are managing this within their own companies. And it's to do with, you know, peer pressure pricing, for example, in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act and the Joint Value Assessment and the EC. It just feels to me to be a really big deal. If I think back to my time in Big Pharma, this would have consumed a lot of thinking at the moment on how we were going to manage that with our portfolios. So be really interested in the panel's views on that. And let's start with you, Andy. Well, you know, I think that there are elements of the IRA that are quite positive, actually, for patients and for access to medicine. So it's not all bad. There is a threat, though, that's, that's inherent in the IRA to innovation that we have to understand and get our heads around. And I can tell you from for us, you know, strategically, we've been focused on diseases that I don't think will be influenced too much by the IRA. So we haven't made any pipeline prioritization decisions or decisions around indications that are driven by the IRA. We certainly haven't been using the IRA as a crutch for making decisions. I've seen some companies do and I don't like it, to be honest with you. But it does affect strategically how we think about sequencing indications, how we think about resourcing parallel versus sequential activity. And I do think it's going to have some consequences that will be adverse for patients, unfortunately. But overall, on balance, I think we have to watch where it goes. And, you know, but I think it's not, it's not terrible, but it does, it will have, it will have ramifications. Very helpful, Andy. Thank you. What about Novartis, Fiona, how was the mood there? Well, yeah. Well, I mean, very similar. I'm sure all of us are having the same types of discussions. I mean, we all want patients to have access to our medicines and for them to be affordable. I mean, I think we do of course want that. And so, you know, we do want to work with policymakers to make sure that this is the case. But, you know, that there is going to be negative consequences. I mean, it's essentially a sort of, you know, price control in a way. I still want to choose the best modality for the target in the patient, rather than getting something more complicated because of this. But it's certainly exactly what Andy was saying. I mean, so many times, the first indication is just the entry point. And then you're actually going into other indications, or you have new delivery, you know, schedules, new dosing schedules. And it just becomes more difficult to bring that added value. So that's a real concern. I mean, the other sort of puzzling thing for me is, you know, I mentioned SIRNA earlier, SIRNA and Radioligin RLT, which is an area we're working on. I mean, these are very complex modalities, but they're still, you know, they're classed as small molecules at the moment. And so, I think we still need to think about, you know, what we actually mean by small molecule here. So I think there's work to be done. And I think as an industry, we need to work together to, you know, have a discussion about what really, you know, is going to bring the best value all around for the patients at the end of the day. Yeah, great, great comments. Implications at MGen, Dave? Yeah, you know, to sort of level up for a second, you know, I sort of think of four tectonic forces in a way that are going to shape this industry over the next few decades, a couple tailwinds and a couple headwinds. You know, the tailwinds are demographic change. Societies are aging globally, and we have to be an important part of the solution to deal with a host of problems. Neurodegenerative disease may be front and center. In fact, in terms of challenges societies will face. And then, of course, another tailwind is that we live in an era of just unbelievable technological innovation. And what we can do, you know, year on year, month on month, year on year is changing. Now, confronting us are a couple forces that we like to call number one, life cycle compression. You know, it used to be that when a, you know, a drugs life cycle was defined by Pat Nexbury. Now, as often and not or not, its life cycle will be defined by when it becomes technically obsolescent, which may predate loss of exclusivity by some year. So you just have to think about that when you're thinking about how you make major investments. And then the fourth tectonic force is really what you're talking about, Martin, which is price deflation. And that's a global phenomenon. There are pressures on healthcare budgets around the world. They aren't going away. They were exacerbated by the pandemic that will take years to play out and reequilibrate. And now, of course, it's been brought front and center in the United States by the IRA. So to me, that's one of the variables now that's just part of the mix as we think about how we invest in a portfolio. What's the therapeutic area mix? What's the modality mix? How are you going to stage investments? There are areas of concern, small molecule oncology development. There won't be time to do the stepwise development from late lines of therapy to the adjuvant setting, perhaps, with a small molecule. So you have to think about those development programs in a different way. In the end, I think innovation will win and innovation will succeed. But how you invest along the way it will definitely change because of this phenomenon of price deflation. Very good, David. After Dan answers, I'm going to go to, we've got some guests on that are going to ask questions. So I'll give you a heads up in the rush after Dan's answer. I'm going to turn to you first. I know it's late in India. So I would like to hear from you. But Dan's thoughts on the other panelists' comments and a view from Lily. But I just focused on one issue and Fiona was talking about it. But just to put a fine point on it, it's the idea that small molecule medicines, which does include strangely SIRAs and peptides less than 40 amino acids, sort of arbitrary distinctions here that define small molecule medicines come under price negotiation after nine years, whereas large molecules are protected for 13 years. Nine years just isn't enough for any kind of molecule. It doesn't make any sense to discriminate against small molecules, particularly chemistry projects. If anybody thought about this, no one would think it is easier to make a small molecule drug than an antibiotic. Small molecule drugs are some of the hardest things we do. And if anything, they deserve extra special protection. Small molecules are convenient for patients. They're usually oral. They're quickly genericized. So when the patent goes off, they're readily copied, essentially free for society. So it's strange that Congress should put a distant center for small molecule innovation. Strange that Congress should put a distant center for more new technologies like SIRAs or peptides. And with nine years, which is not enough time to do some projects, not enough time to do new indications or really maximize opportunities. As David was saying, our go-to strategy in the past has been what indication can we do the fastest? It's usually something small and get the drug out there and start learning and get it used and then expand the indications. There's no room for that anymore for something with nine years. So what it means is that we hold back the testing on the smaller indications. Why would we do that? Well, just if it's a really good opportunity, test it in a large population first. So depriving patients who belong to smaller categories of disease from new innovation. Just a lot of unintended consequences here with the nine-year thing. If we could get that changed to 13, I think this is something we could live with. Otherwise, I see it as a huge detriment to a pretty significant chunk of our industry. Great point, Stan. I have to say, I think exactly the same. There's going to be small molecule medicines for a long time to come, as well as with all the wonderful modalities that are coming out. So as you say, I think an unintended consequence there. Thank you. Thank you. As I said, let's go to Nuresh first, one of our guests. He, as I say, he is an individual. Thank you for joining us this wee hours in the morning. Nuresh, over to you for your question. And you're on mute. Yeah, it's a little late. So I'm a little fading. Pardon me for some slip-ups. But thank you, Martin, for the opportunity to interact with such an imminent panel. And as I was learning a lot, I'm a heart surgeon, so brains don't exist so much in heart surgeons. But also, I am also the majority owner, I would say, and also chairman of the Board of Global Health, which owns Medanta Group of Hospitals. And we now have 3,500 beds in the system. And if you can liken it, it is more the standard with which we established, because my background is NYU. I was at NYU for 20 years. I trained there, then I practiced there, and I went back to India. We built this whole chain. The whole thing is that this represents a standard, which would you put a like and more like that of the Cleveland Clinic systems of the East. And we have a very huge academic interest. Some of your companies have already started some work with us, but my interest is much larger, that is for India. And I want to understand that what can we do from India? As you know, there has been a lot of shift in our focus that we are now hosting the G20 this year, our current Prime Minister has actually led the way in bringing India to the mainstream, and also want to be participating in every way possible with the mainstream, including R&D and development of new molecules and their translation of medicine. So now the point is with all of you who are actually one called Big Pharma or Big R&D, that what is your thought process in engaging with India which provides basically the academics, the brain power, the IT power all exists. There are some concerns which are expressed by the earlier panels to say about IPR, and that there are some reservations which we are taking back home to the regulators to say this has to be addressed. But what can we do like you do with other institutions? What can we do to be able to offer you a platform where we can work together for R&D in India? And like I said, we have a very large jeep group. We have many good institutions, but if we would ever worry about the integrity of the data, it's all electronic. We have been on it from day one, that is now 20 years. So it's easy accessibility to the quality of data and retrieval and data mining. So there are many, many things. We have millions and millions of records in our own system, and then there are available in some other institutions also, but we are driven by academia in our institution. So I would like to know from the panelists what can be done to enhance this engagement with India on a larger platform? Very good. Now last, the panelists as always, just to keep your answers quite brief so that we can get to our other guests, but maybe you could kick off Dave. Yeah. First of all, I would say we're already doing a number of things in India, as I'm sure my colleagues are here. We've been doing chemistry collaboratively, extensively for years, pharmacovigilance, data sciences. And to me, the next step is, how do we establish the sorts of collaborations that you're describing Nuresh for launching a real clinical trials platform? And so some of the things that will be top of mind at the corporate level you brought up, such as intellectual property, some of the sort rules of the road in terms of conducting clinical trials that's been evolving over the years. And I think further progress there would be a real spur to further investment in collaboration. Thank you, Dave. Very good. Andy. Just double click on what David said. I think the opportunity in the clinical trial space, and as we talked about earlier, there's been huge strides and now it's us getting in. And I think that we're primed actually to take to the mutual benefit of the industry, but also patients in India. Very good. Thank you, Dan. We also have a large center in Bangalore where we find we can really hire a lot of talented individuals. So I'm really pleased with the talent opportunities in India as a source for local, but also global talent for our company. I think, you know, when we think about, you know, the bread and butter core R&D drug discovery functions, I want to see a more favorable environment for innovation, which goes to patents, but also towards, you know, we like to invest in countries where they have healthcare systems that recognize the value of innovation when it comes to the patients as well. More of that. Very, very clear. Fiona. Yes, actually, I was out in, we have a large site in Hyderabad. And I actually went out with our CEO, Vaz, who is from India. So he was a very good host to show me around. And yeah, I was really impressed with, well, the quality, the enthusiasm of the people that we have there. So, you know, we're continuing to build further connections there. And I'm looking at, you know, what makes sense to me to have, to build out in the R&D. Definitely chemistry, I think is extremely high quality there. So we're going to be increasing the chemistry. And I'd like to put, you know, the sort of early biology space alongside, so it's co-localized with the chemistry. Some of that will be done through CROs, rather than building our own labs. But also, I think you're absolutely right, Naresh. I mean, I'm very interested in what we can do more to do sort of co-research, especially in the clinical space. I did speak to, you know, a number of academic institutes. And we talked about areas like sickle cell, anemia, head and neck cancers, a whole range of different disease areas that are high priority for the Indian government, for example, that, you know, we would like to work together to bring molecules forward. So I think there's just a huge opportunity for sure. Okay. Very good, very heartening. Yeah, no, I got the message quite clear. So I just want to know if there are top of the mind concerns, please state them and we can carry, like I said, carry the message and try to make them, get them into mainstream too. Very good, Naresh. And many thanks for joining again. It's really appreciated. Thank you. I can't believe how quickly the time is passing. And I would like to bring your other guests in. I've got a whole list of questions, but I would like to hear, maybe from maybe from you Iris first, your question to the panel, please. With pleasure. Thanks, Martin. So we are witnessing a dizzying pace of innovation across our industry from technologies, you know, the scale of DNA encoded library screens, AI, generative causal, whatnot, all the way through to high quality and deep clinical genomic longitudinal data sets. So my question to each one of you is, what is your strategy, the priorities you have for the early stage side of things, both in terms of the capabilities and the pipeline, whether you're looking to develop those internally or maybe to partner with one of us little biotechs. And I guess, just to summarize these, maybe the principles of your investment thesis, are you looking to go after those exciting new modalities? There's a plethora of those that are disposable disposal, or maybe it's more around novel target discovery or maybe those clinical surrogate biomarkers we just saw making a win after 25 years, at least, of dense career. Great question, Iris, and I can think of no one better Fiona than you to kick us off here. Okay, no, there's certainly an awful lot out there, and you know, especially you in my job, I was like, okay, what's my strategy, everybody? What's your vision, Fiona? And I think, you know, we've got to start with the patients, the unmet need, one of the disease areas, and what we've tried to do in Novartis is focus in on a much smaller number of disease areas. Now, really, you know, five key disease areas, cardiovascular neuroscience oncology, which includes hematology, and, you know, then really concentrate on those, understand, you know, where the best targets are in those diseases, then choose what is the best modality to achieve what you need, and I think, you know, that's really my strategy. So, we will look at any opportunities to do that faster and quicker and more effectively, and that certainly does involve bringing in AI. I mean, I'm excited about, we have a collaboration with Microsoft, and, you know, generative chemistry for me is potentially, you know, a very good use of AI to, and also in terms of really combining all of the huge data sets that we have now and interpreting those as well as using AI for images analysis, but you can't do everything. So, you have to focus. And to me, it's focusing on the diseases and then, you know, focusing on the modalities that we think will deliver medicines. Great points, Fiona. Just so many choices now that you folks have to face. It's certainly more complicated than it was. Andy, you've done some really outstanding deals over, you know, a few years now to really build up the technology side in addition to the drug discovery development side and put them hand in hand for your thoughts on Iris's question. Well, you're understanding, by the way, how difficult it was for you, Martin, when you were doing this 10 or 15 years ago. It's always been a lot of decisions, but I think much in the same way as Fiona described, our focus has been more on therapeutic, on the therapeutic areas, finding the best targets and then applying the best modalities. As Martin said, we've, we turned over our strategy about eight or nine years ago where we were a small molecule chemistry company, and we became a more of a focused on disease areas. At the time, we went in every direction across all modalities and we've learned that that's tough. It's tough to be in all modalities. And we started to winnow down our focus. A great example is in our cell therapy group where we have a very substantive effort. We built infrastructure internally and then we partnered across multiple different platforms, otologous, CAR-T, alphabeta CAR-Ts. We partnered in IPSCs with Shinya Yamanaka in Japan. We built a couple of allogeneic platforms with an NK collaboration with MD Anderson and a Gamma Delta collaboration with Adrian Hayday in UK. And it was too much. And we started to just focus on where we thought this, our science was emerging and giving the best signals and that ended up being in these allogeneic platforms. And so recently we've decided to stop otologous and spin out our IPSC work. That's an example of, you know, going out there and then following the data winnowing down and then just doubling down on the areas that you think are most promising. Yeah, it makes complete sense. And Dan, I do agree with you. You were quite wide to begin with, but you had to find out what else was out there. Great comments. Dan? Yeah, I think if I had a mind and could force an advance in science, the number one thing might be really to what Fiona was saying, which is new ways of delivering drugs to specific cells, particularly genetic types of medicines, that could be a huge breakthrough. The other is, for some disease areas that have not seen much progress, we just need better targets. You know, I think about psychiatry and addiction and pain, unlocking great targets there. But for most of the other areas we're working, we have great targets. Just got to figure out how to get the drugs to them. Yeah, great points. Dave? Yeah, Andy illustrated, I think the challenge we all face, which is inherent, which is the inherent tension between strategic focus and then being able to capitalize on serendipity, the observation that's actually going to lead to a breakthrough and having a mind that's open and then the courage to pursue that. And so to me, there's no right answer. It is a constant balancing act. Maybe since we have a few minutes left, we have to bring up generative AI, which to me is an area of tremendous interest for us. We have integrated AI into our molecular engineering platforms, our clinical trials platforms. We use it extensively at decode genetics where we've got now well over 200 petabytes of multi-ohmic data. In fact, we can only answer certain questions using machine learning because it's not tractable through traditional techniques. This is one area where I think that the reality will actually live up to the hype. The only question is the timeline, but I think the risk to us who have been in the industry for a while is that we underestimate the impact this may have, not actually overestimate the impact. And it's usually the reverse. But here, I think we may potentially be underestimating the rapidity of progress. I recently had a chance to spend quite a bit of time in the Valley with senior leaders at generative AI companies. They're working on versions 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 right now, and each one is a log more powerful. And so it's coming and it's coming quickly. The question is how we're going to use this tool. Yeah, I'm glad you got that in David. It would have been my probably next question, but you've answered it really well. I would like to go to Susan while we have her on and again, time's moving on rapidly, but Susan, please present your question to the panel. Oh, so my big question was about generative AI. So thank you for jumping ahead with it because I'm delighted to hear your optimism. I haven't heard much optimism about it, about it mostly fear. And, you know, so I guess one of the things that concerns me, I'm delighted to hear about the, your anticipated technological use of it. But I'll tell you, one of my fears is the propagation of disinformation. And we talked about it earlier today. And I have to say, there are a few things that I found more dispiriting than in this COVID period. What we've lost is confidence in experts and expertise, the sense that there are facts, opinions that are perfectly legitimate. And I don't know, you know, how much you all are thinking about, since you dealt with my big question, which was, you know, what's the future of generative AI? Thank you very much. I'm going to take that away as my happiest discovery today. But the other side of it is, I don't know whether, you know, you all are thinking about the disinformation pandemic. And as, you know, drug companies that people have to rely on, is there anything you're doing to provide some kind of antidote to this pervasive erosion of confidence in what we have, we all grew up with, understanding that, you know, in science, there's truth and there's fiction. Yes. No, super, super question, Dan. Yeah, it's an excellent question, Susan. I don't have the answer, but I agree with the problem. And the pandemic just taught us that the things we thought were impossible, like making vaccines to COVID and making therapeutics for COVID, turned out those were doable. They were hard, but we did them. And the things that we thought might be easy, which is getting people to take a vaccine or use therapeutic, turn out to be impossible. So the social sciences just have not evolved in the same way as the, you know, biological and medical sciences. We need more investment in that area. Yeah, very good points. And Andy, your thoughts? Well, I mean, I'm just shaking my head because it's, it's, it's an amazing situation that we're in as a society. And unfortunately, there's this confounded link between this misinformation and political views, and which for some reason makes up and makes no sense whatsoever. You know, I, I've actually been tracking Rob Califf on this and engaging with him. And he's a very outspoken advocate for finding ways to deliver truth. And I, and something that he said, which I'll amplify, is that it's all of us that need to do it. And what we've seen actually, because it's very little actually that the industry can do to step up, we're regulated, and there's only so much that we can do. You know, when something is said that's incorrect, inappropriate or, you know, frankly false about one of our marketed products, there's very little that we can do within, within in a compliant way. But actually, there's a lot that academic institutions can do. And academic institutions tend to be more critical of industry, more critical of FDA. I think that there's an opportunity for academics and, and, and Congresses to step up in ways that can really help us. Well, I hope so. I'd say I'm not, I, you know, I, academics are doubted from the get-go by the same group that, you know, doubt everything else. As I said, this, you know, erosion of confidence in experts and expertise leaves us in a very, very untenable position. So, someone needs to think hard about it, and there are a lot of people who are trying to think hard about it, but I'm, I'm, I'm actually quite fearful about the ability of this nation to continue to, to be my leadership role. I don't know what it's like, you know, other places, whether they are, you know, loss of confidence in their experts. Yeah. It's very obvious. Go on, Dave. I'm more optimistic, you know, you know, we go, we go through historical cycles and, you know, we can always be guilty of what historians call the sin of presentism, which is sort of amplifying the current moment. Now, what is different is what you're pointing out, is that the technology amplifies and extends, you know, the reach of what's been in the background for now hundreds of years in a way that we haven't grappled with before. To me, part of the answer is very simple, which is consistently and very clearly speak the truth over and over. It is, but it's frustrating and it's grindingly slow, but I don't see any simple alternative. Yeah, good point. So, I'd like you to have the last word on this, Fiona. Yeah. Patients are our best advocates, I would say. So, I think the more we can work with patients and communicate science in a clear way that everybody understands, don't use too much technical jargon. You know, I think that would be my final word given that we're running out of time. Yes, indeed. Yeah, good point. Answered your question, Susan. You know, I spend a decent amount of time in Scandinavia and I don't see that same cynicism and lack of truth teller. Maybe I've got rose tinted glasses because I'm sitting here just now, but I don't feel the same as I do day to day in the United States. So, we only have one minute left on the panel. I have had a note here to tell me to stop speaking. And so, I would just like to go around a rapid fire questions to the four panelists. You know, 15, 20 seconds. Andy, what are you looking most forward to in the next few years in your business? Well, I love self-therapy. And actually, I think that we scratch the surface with the CD19s, and I think that there's just a huge opportunity in oncology in particular to, again, inflect our ability to not just to manage disease, but to cure disease. Marvelous. Fiona. Well, at the moment, I have to say radioligin therapy because I think it's an untapped modality for now. And I'm looking forward to seeing what that can really deliver to cancer patients. We'll watch that space carefully. Dan. I wish to see and I'm excited to see the kinds of breakthroughs we've had in small orphan diseases in oncology now translate to highly prevalent diseases. And I think that's how the pharmaceutical industry have a huge impact on human health. And that's what I'm hoping for. A great wish. And the last comment of the panel, Dave. To me, it's this union of tech and biotech that I think is just going to qualitatively change how we do business. Deeper understanding from disease pathogenesis than all the way through real world data and understanding how drugs are behaving in the real world. I think we'll look back on this moment in a decade and say it was an inflection point. Things really started to change. We're in the middle of the chaos now. And so it's hard to see. But I think it's coming. And I'm extraordinarily optimistic about that. Thank you. Thank you, panelists. Once again, just truly terrific. I know we could go on for a couple more hours. Can't say enough, Dan. Congratulations to you. Terrific data. And thank you to Susan, Iris, and Naresh for great questions for the panelists. I'm going to bring it to the close now. As I go off, you will hear me sing in Wunderbar, Wunderbar, Copenhagen. But the signal's not so good here, Andy. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. Thank you. Bye, everybody. Thank you. Could you put the slide for Dr. Plump to tell us the results of this poll? All right. Just going to enlarge it. So the question that was pulled was what does these areas likely to see the biggest step change in the next one to two years? And we had a tie and maybe a deference to our panelists, Dan Skavronsky, whose company is changing the future of patients with Alzheimer's disease and obesity. Dan, you are the big winner here, Alzheimer's disease and obesity. So thank you very much, everybody, for participating in our polls today.