 Thanks very much. You are from team 26, Open Mind, Open Science. Here you are. So the way we reward and we do research is actually pretty messed up. We produce loads and loads of knowledge and we throw most of it away. And by doing this we're throwing away taxpayers' money, stifling scientific discovery, hampering the curiosity of our students and the curiosity of people in society. Think about it. Data, reviews, materials, software, research articles, we're throwing them away. And these are all building blocks for new knowledge. And the more building blocks that are available, the greater structures we can build. So just to make it a bit more practical, science is a bit like Legos. If you have a larger box of Legos you can build greater structures. And students can use these building blocks to learn about the process of discovery and it's actually really messy although it's now presented as a very clean process. Businesses can create innovative tools based on these building blocks and add value to society. Citizens can more readily participate in science if these building blocks are available and most of all science can become more reliable and accurate. So from across the faculties and the services we came together and we see the great impact open science can have and I call on the board and also the rest of you here to make that part of the strategic plan and open access to research articles and open data are just two of these building blocks. There are many more things as I mentioned materials and reviews and open access and data have been on the board's agenda so why am I still here? As I said these are just two of the building blocks and advancing society is only possible if we radically include society in what we do. The Association of Dutch Universities, State Secretary Sonderdekker they already stressed the importance of open science when they signed the National Open Science Plan just a few weeks ago. So I'm happy to see the landscape is shifting but access and data aren't enough. It's too slow and it's incomplete a vision. So today I want to focus on one other aspect of open science. That's the problem of selective publication. We can eliminate that easily because researchers produce beautifully written stories that read like a good movie. Introduction, methods, beautiful results and subsequently a nice happy ending to a beautifully written paper that makes us think we actually understand the world. And research isn't about good stories, it's about accuracy. So we need to see not just the successful attempts, we need to see all attempts. We need to see the entire story and not just the exciting parts. When you watch Star Wars you don't skip to the lightsaber duels because then you don't understand the story. And good movies pretend to find effects even if there's nothing to find. So for example, you can have researchers that think of maybe there's a relation between jelly beans and acne. So then they start investigating and they think, hey, let's do studies, nothing. More studies, still nothing. And then all of a sudden, hey, there is one that gets a significant effect and then more studies, nothing. And then what do they share? Bam, just the story that produces a good story while there is nothing to find. And why is this? Because researchers are humans and humans fool each other and they fool themselves. And this has been shown time and time again and it greatly hurts the validity of science. And we've seen it in the last years, psychology, economics, life sciences, cancer research, all have validity problems. So what do we need to do? We need to stop researchers fooling themselves and move from confirming prior beliefs and just writing up results that are confirmed prior findings and beliefs but do accurate good science. So we say, out with the good movies and in with the good science that we can actually rely on, which in our opinion is open science. And sharing all research that is properly conducted is feasible and will increase validity, which is all based on a realistic notion of the researcher that do not evaluate results based on how easy they are to process but on their methods. But please don't think this is going to be something easy that we can solve by just installing a few policies. And I want to show you an example. As a researcher I collected some data because open access to research articles is something that has been instilled in policies. But as I show you here, I actually went and saw how many of these research articles published here by Tilburg University researchers are available and it's disconcerting how few are. So just for clarity, the political push to open access started somewhere in 2014 and Tilburg University has not been doing any better since 2014. So installing policies doesn't necessarily result in behavioral change in the departments. We need to really create a cultural shift. So in some, let us advance science by making it more open, which in turn will help us advance society. I will keep finding for more open science regardless, but I want you to think about this. Open science by now it's out of the box and it won't go back in. The only question is what are we going to do with that knowledge as a university? Thank you. Are you still typing your input into the tool?