 Hello, here is a brief and necessarily somewhat arbitrary overview of animal biosciences. The Animal Biosciences programme divides into two broad categories. One we might call genetics, genomics and breeding, which is aimed at understanding adaptation. What is adaptation and how can we understand adaptation in order to improve the fit between livestock and production systems in order to close that productivity gap. On the back of that we have research aimed at improving delivery. There's not much point in developing an improved set of genetics if we don't know how you can deliver it to the farmers. That's aligned with the livestock and fish CRP. A second category of activities within animal biosciences is human and animal health. One very strong programme is epidemiology and particularly epidemiology of zoonotic infections. That's led by Eric Favre and aims to improve human and human health. This is aligned with the A4NHCRP. We have a programme within animal biosciences looking at animal health. That considers diagnostics, response to vaccination, particularly the infection and treatment method for ECF, host pathogen interactions and pathogen-pathogen interactions. All of those are aimed at improving productivity and they're aligned with the livestock and fish CRP. Success is going to look like improved livestock productivity and improved human health. Of course, that clear distinction between those two areas of research is not real. They're strong overlap in both in terms of the research, samples and technology. So what are our strengths and weaknesses? We have very strong bilateral funding. We have a number of major Gates, Bill and Melinda Gates programme funds. Eric Favre, as I've mentioned, you can hear some more from him later. He has a series of very strong high-end bilateral projects funding some of his work. We have some very strong strategic partnerships, examples would be University of Edinburgh, Roslin Institute, University of Liverpool and a number of others. We have a good strong relationship with Becker, Becker supporters in some of our high-end science and that's likely to get much stronger, particularly as the high throughput genotyping platform comes on the stream later this year. And we're aiming to build and successfully, I think, building a long-term, large-scale integrated portfolio. The principle of fewer projects and larger projects all slotting into an integrated programme does seem to be coming good at last. And we are able to support and we are supported by some critical infrastructure. A couple of examples of this would be the biorepository and the informatics platforms. Those are areas where we put significant effort into building very strong, robust systems and in turn they are supporting our science and indeed some of the major programme funding that we've received recently could not have been obtained if we had not had support from those platforms. We have a nice mix of relatively routine activities and some pretty high-risk off-the-wall activities. So to take the example of the advanced phenotyping tools, one of the challenges we face is efficiently and effectively phenotyping animals in the field and we're looking at some pretty cool electronics to do that as well as a slightly lower risk approach using existing mobile phones. And in the area of reproductive technology we've got some pretty predictable research such as in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer all the way up to some rather high-end and risky activities associated with genetic modification. And of course we have a great team with highly complementary skills and interest. So what are our problems? Where are our weaknesses? We have a more limited donor portfolio than I would like. We're rather heavily reliant on one or two donors. Occasionally we see tension with the donor agenda and the debates that we have with the donor to align what we think needs to be doing with what they want to fund can sometimes be quite entertaining. Some of those donors bring with them massive transaction costs. We have, like everybody else, a problem of meeting full cost recovery and high operating costs. We have the challenge of funding some of the really high risk, high reward of the wall projects and those are sometimes run as weekend projects or skunkworks. And we're dealing necessarily with long timescales, particularly the genetics and genomics areas, inevitably delivery of those is slow and donors sometimes struggle to grasp that. So what are our prospects for collaboration? There are several linkages that we regard as critically important and we are struggling to fund. I could list these as targeting, modelling, high-end computer science, electronics, and I'm sure there are others. These are areas where we would really like to do some research. We'd like funding to plug gaps and to build a more coherent set of programmes running from high-end, high-risk to downstream, low-risk activities. And donors are not especially interested in funding these and we're struggling currently to find support for these. So although we flag them as very important, they are not prominent in our portfolio at the moment. We would certainly like to raise the profile of these areas. So that's animal biosciences. You'll find presentations from two scientists within the programme. And of course there's a lot more that goes on that we don't really have time to discuss here and perhaps that will come out in the online discussion. Thank you very much.