 With that said, Mike, I'll hand it over to you to introduce the next panel. Thanks, Andy. I'm Michael Rosenblatt and I'm the Chief Medical Officer of Flagship Pioneering. And I've been a longtime member of the Scientific Advisory Group for this conference. And I'm really honored to introduce our next panel, which is entitled Industry and Investment Outlook. We're going to be looking at a collection of topics under that major heading. They include looking at macroeconomic trends in the near and midterm and what their impact will be on biopharmaceutical investment. We're going to look at healthcare and pricing. What industry investment behavior makes no sense now and needs to change. And of course, on the near horizon are the U.S. presidential election and what direction that might have impact on investment. And similarly, the development of a COVID vaccine and a return to normal or near normal. We've assembled a real blue ribbon committee, which are the members are going to be introduced to you in just a moment. I have the pleasure of introducing Andy Plump. He's the chairman of the overall of this entire conference and it's MC and he's also the president of R&D and Takeda. And I'm honored to have him as a longtime friend. So Andy, I'm passing the baton back to you. Terrific. Thank you very much for the really kind introduction, Mike. And I have to admit that as the master of ceremonies, I'm always conflicted because whenever I host a panel and put a team together like this one, I want it to be the best. So as MC, I'm always conflicted. So I've decided that we just have all the panels are great. And this one is just really great. So with that said, let me quickly introduce the panelists and I would encourage you to put up the Hollywood Squares image because we're going to be trying to make this dynamic to have to see how everybody interacts with one another. We're going to try to keep it lively, keep it flowing. It's a group that is quite familiar with one another. So that allows for a really provocative discussion and no hurt feelings. So introducing the panel, we have Daphne Zohar. Hi, Daphne. Daphne is the founder and CEO of Pure Tech, which is a really exciting and interesting new way of thinking about drug discovery and drug development. So we have my former boss and friend, Elias Serhouni. Elias is now a professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins, but before that, head of R&D for many, many years at Sinovi, ran the NIH during the Bush years. And before that, a very successful career at Hopkins entrepreneur. The list goes on and on, Elias. Chris V. Bakker, who also doesn't need much of an introduction, he's now the managing partner at Hornet Point Capital. Chris, before that was the CEO at Sinovi, and before that a long and illustrative career in many, many countries at GSK. And then, last but not least, and you've already seen Stelios Papadopoulos earlier on in his terrific fireside chat with Ken Frazier is the chairman at Biogen. He's the co-founder and chairman at Exalixus and a long history in the healthcare industry and investment banking. So really looking forward to stepping into this panel. And I will start with you Stelios, but Chris, you feel free to jump in. Tell us what's happening in the world from a macroeconomic standpoint. What do you see happening today? What do you see happening in the near future? And then specifically, what do you see the effects of some of the disruptions that we're seeing today and some of what you expect to happen tomorrow on healthcare investment? Well, this is, thank you, Andy, and a pleasure to be with everybody again. This is a large, wide open-ended question, and I will not attempt to address all the points, but let me focus a little bit on the investment in this reaction to what's going on right now, and particularly to our sector. It's a bit odd, if you think about it, that we are in the worst pandemic of our lifetimes. For sure, none of us has seen or hopefully will see again something of this magnitude and severity. And at the same time, the stock market has been setting records for the last several months. It's odd, it's peculiar. Now, why is that happening? And why is our sector the beneficiary of this? The largest underlying force here is there's an imbalance in supply and demand for investment opportunities. There's excess liquidity in the world, for sure. That money, typically, the larger portion of capital goes into the fixed income markets. But interest rates have been so low and are predicted to remain low, there's little interest in investing in fixed income securities. So that brings you into equities. And if you look at equities, and now there's an avalanche of capital because, as I said, the fixed income markets are two, three times the size of the equity markets or more. When you look at equities, clearly you don't invest today in leisure entertainment, in travel, in consumer goods, in commercial real estate. These are all sectors that are clearly suffering from the pandemic. That leaves you with just a few things, high technology, information technology systems, and obviously healthcare. Now, healthcare historically has been a defensive sector. On the assumption that people get sick, no matter what the markets are, you can even argue they may get sick more in difficult economic and social and health environments. But at the same time, uniquely now, not only we're a defensive sector, we're also an offensive, if I can point that term, in the sense that if there's going to be a solution to this pandemic and I'm confident there will be, although I may debate the timing with a number of my colleagues in the industry, it's going to come from us. So we have this opportunity for huge upside and also the limited downside. And that I think is what is driving money into our sector. What would I worry about, as you pointed out? Well, at some point, as the pandemic comes out in control, if you look at Delta Airlines, American Airlines, if you look at those stocks, how much they've been beat up. Typical investor behavior sector rotation, they'll shift money away from parts of the market that I've overperformed into those that are likely to explode to a recovery. So as the recovery becomes visible, I expect money to shift out of where we are. Also, and I will allow the other panel members to comment on this, but that's all disappointments with the work we're doing, setbacks. Will there be a vaccine in October or in November or in January? Will it be a good vaccine? Will it not? Will the antibodies work? All these things come with daily adjusted expectations, and those can introduce some fatigue in the marketplace at some point or some huge disappointment. So I'll stop right here because this is a topic worthy of a lot of conversation everybody else is trying to make, I believe. So you're taking a little bit of a downturn in industry investment as we start to hit some bumpy roads downstream. Chris, any additional thoughts from you? You're on mute. You're on mute. Just broke the first rule of Zoom 101. Just to put a few numbers around what Stelio said, if you look at the capital that has flowed, at least in the public equities and health care in terms of IPOs, pipes, or secondary offerings, it's a year-to-date $31 billion. And to put that in context, at the same time in 2019, this was $17 billion. So interestingly, in a period where everybody has been at home and not been able to get out and travel, actually money has not only been flowing into the sector, but it's been flowing into the sector by getting deals done. If you talk to investment bankers, they are as busy as ever. We've seen some major acquisitions this year. And certainly even IPOs, I mean, Stelios in a preparatory call was noting that actually the pandemic is probably an advantage for an IPO because where you spent 10 days getting tired running around the world on a plane, you can do this thing in three days and see a lot more people and you're probably fresher and able to do your pitch better. One of the things that is usually a factor, though, that they sort of say who's going to take away the punch bowl and it's usually the threat of pricing reform. And I remember back in 2003, I just become the president of GSK North America and the chairman of GSK from the UK was there and asking, how long can the U.S. defy economic gravity? And I've had to answer this question about when are we going to see something happen on pricing for 17 years and arguably the only thing that's really happened is the consolidation of payers. I mean, the express scripts and CVS care mark have done what no government has done in terms of really eliminating price increases, but I think we've got stability. This is a really complex system. We've just finished two years where we've had a House of Representatives that was desperate to do something on drug pricing. They've got someone in the White House who's desperate to do something on pricing. And it hasn't been able to really work. So I'm not sure that we're going to see it when you can never say never, but I think, you know, that doesn't. Can you hear me? Okay, Chris, can you hear me? Yeah, but I'm, this says, oh, there we are. Mine wasn't on mute. So I don't think pricing is necessarily going to be the big factor. It doesn't seem to be coming into this election like it did in 2016. Maybe, Elise, I'm going to turn to Daphne, but I want to set you up. I love when physicians and scientists and R&D heads get asked questions about pricing. They used to be five years ago that we were told, don't go there. It's a third rail. Save it for somebody else. But now we're all in this discussion. So I'm curious on your thoughts on not just drug pricing, but healthcare costs and where you see things headed and where we can perhaps be more responsible. Before we get there, though, kind of continuing along this investment thesis, Daphne, you know, we all wake up, read the Wall Street Journal. We read John Carroll's brilliant work in Endpoints, and every once in a while we say, oh, why was that investment made? Or why is that number so large? What do you think of some of the practices that we have saved that just don't make sense? I don't think I have done that in the lead controller because I was... I'm hearing an echo in the background. Yeah, me too. If I could ask some of the technical folks to go on mute if you're in the green room. I need to mute the gallery. Okay. Thanks, Andy, and hello, everyone. Yeah, so I think it's really interesting because several people have mentioned today that the industry that more capital needs to come into the industry. And while I agree with, you know, in terms of significantly investing more in basic science and translational research, I completely agree with that. But I also think that as an industry we could look back and see if there's practices that we employ that might actually be changed in order to improve the impact of the money that we end up spending. So that's, you know, a general comment. And at PureTech we did something really unusual in that we started and built a biopharma company with actually very little resources. So in doing that it wasn't by choice, but we actually learned a few things that I think could be relevant for the industry. So for example, one of the things that I think would be really important would be to kill projects early. But there's a whole incentive mechanism that is in place that can pay people a lot of money before getting to proof of concept and before getting to an approved drug. And so there's a lot of financial incentives that may not necessarily be aligned with what we're trying to accomplish in the industry. So I think one thing that we could do differently is set up a motivation incentive structure that enables people to kill projects early. Another thing I think that could be very interesting would be to enable bigger companies to be a little bit more entrepreneurial and nimble. And that means scaling down decision making when you're making decisions that relate to smaller amounts of money to be able to be a little bit less cumbersome. So those are some ideas, but I think generally I'd love to hear what others think about the idea of the incentive structure that we have in place, which tends to be somewhat short term versus the long term horizon and the many failures. Give us an example of something that you're doing at PureTech to incentivize the kind of this rapid incisive decision making that you're talking about. Yeah, so we've set up PureTech such that there's the ability to move resources very quickly between projects. And we actually, as a management team, are motivated to kill projects early because the resources will move to better projects. So we've set that up, we've incentivized the team to do that, and our structure is set up to do that. Whereas if you're in a traditional biotech company, there tends to be a bias to continue even if you get mixed results. You want to keep going, you want to keep the company going. So this concept of setting up a structure like that I think makes sense. The other thing is doing experiments that don't cost a lot of money but could kill the project. And it'd be surprised how much resistance there usually is to doing that. Terrific. Thanks, Daphne. All right, Elias, what's the answer to pricing and health care cost control? Well, you know there's a revolution going on. I mean, pricing, I sort of agree with Chris in the way that when you look at the statistics, pricing has not gone up. You know, on average, you know, the cost of drugs is 15% of the total and one to 2% a year, something like that. So it's not as much of a problem as it was 10 years ago for the total system. I think what you're seeing in health care is a little bit what we saw in the PVMs. And that is why the point of view, I don't know who's talking, but from the point of view, can you hear me okay? We can. There's a little bit of background noise, which I think is the technical staff and I'm just going to ask them to please go and mute. But we do hear you, Elias, through that. So from the point of view of the market, I mean, you can see consolidation in health care systems are consolidating. Everybody's sort of coming together. And it's rare now that you see an independent hospital, even in Boston. And that leads to what you would call optimization of delivery. And so all the hospitals are right now working on formularies and clinical pathways and trying to control costs that way. You also see new entrants and technology companies. You can see CVS is trying to open minute clinics. Digital health is going to be a major player because you can access now cheaply, virtually 80% of the needs of primary care. And I think you're going to see that happening on the grand scale. From the point of view of R&D, what I feel is that as Elias and Chris were mentioning, we're in the golden era right now because cost of capital is very low. There's a lot of capital available. I just stated in some activities. I mean, the interest rates for a multi-billion dollar loan is less than 1%. And in some regions of the world, it's negative. I think that we have to be prepared because this is a bubble of the yin yang, if you will. And that will be driven by what interest rates going up, taxes going up, depending on the election. I mean, if capital gains are changed or dividend payments are changed, that will happen and we'll have to adapt to it. But I think there are two trends that I believe are really essential to understand the investment dynamics. One is, you know, typically investors invested in big pharma, that is not providing the returns that you would expect in terms of innovation, simply because innovation has changed. Today, you're not talking about vertical organizations that do everything. You're really talking about big networks of innovation around the world. So innovation is distributed. And because of that, you're going to see investments in new ideas at a pace that you didn't have before, because there were not a lot of new ideas coming from the traditional investment channels, if you will. And you're seeing it. I mean, you're seeing it in your survey. I mean, cell therapy. I mean, you know, it's a hard thing to do, but it will grow. And investors are willing to take a chance earlier, as Daphne was saying. But in a way that is more distributed where the risk is more hedged, if you will, across many different ideas. I think, you know, if you ask me what is going to grow is really the concept of multi-targeting where you're not going to do one drug for one pathway, but one drug for different nodes in the pathway. So there'll be a change in the nature of the research we do. It's happening in front of our eyes. You'll see a lot of diagnostics grow, biomarker field. The field of biomarkers is going to grow to help us develop drugs, but also treat patients more precisely. Healthcare systems are going to consolidate and they are. And at the end of the day, I think the healthcare system moves very slowly. It's not going to happen overnight. But I think we're going to see ups and downs and booms and busts in different areas at different times. Andy, may I chime in for a second? Please. I want to emphasize a couple of points made by Chris and Elias regarding IPOs. This is the first time in the 40-year history of the stock market for biotech where a preponderance of IPOs consistently trade above the IPO price. This never happened before. And if you're a money manager out there, professional running money, and you see this performance and you're being benchmarked against all sorts of market measures, you've got to be indexing that sector. So that creates incremental demand. Demand begets performance, performance begets demand, comes a virtual cycle in that regard until something happens. And when the bubble burst, I don't want to call this a bubble worry now because there's a lot of exciting fundamental science. But when that excitement somehow has reason to sit back for a moment and take measure of what's going on, then prices can drop precipitously. And what that trigger is going to be is usually unpredictable because if we knew it, we could deal with it ahead of time. But the fact that just about every IPO this year is trading above the offer price is a remarkable event. Never happened before. Chris. Just one more, please. Quick point, Andy, if you look and if you've been active in this biotech investing and pharma investing, the number of players has multiplied. I mean, Chris can comment, I remember in 2011 we acquired Genzyme and M&A operation that he can talk about, which is brilliant. But at that time, I can tell you the number of players that could compete with you were very, it was very small and I let him comment. But today, if you look at the number of outfit you can channel investments, both singly or in syndication, it's three times what it was. So there's more, there are more players willing to do that and it feeds into that wheel that Alastelius is talking about. Maybe Chris, go back to the story of Genzyme, which was at a very different time. You're coming out of the housing crisis and the recession that ensued. Healthcare investment was actually at a very different place. Maybe walk us through a little bit kind of what happened and how you would compare where we are today to where we were then. Well, you know, back in those days, every big pharma was still trying to source all of the innovation really more in-house. And, you know, at Santa Fe, we were a small molecule house and needed to make the leap to biotech. And we identified Genzyme. It was in 2010. And we did it really to get a presence in the best ecosystem there is in the world, which was Boston, to try to make that leap to biotech. But also to try to bring in a more entrepreneurial culture into the company. One of the side effects of that transaction though was up until then, the strategy had been five billion dollar transactions string the pearls type approach. And we borrowed $20 billion in 2010 at 1.8%. And as one investor said, you know, you could have bought yogurt and it would have been a creative. I mean, the ability of cheap debt to really drive value was quite amazing. And actually, if you go back and look at the biotech index, it really started to take off from that point in time. But it was this whole notion of, you know, we needed to have a lot more of an external focus to do that. We needed to have a presence in an ecosystem and people that knew how to collaborate. You know, today, I mean, the world is completely different. 70% of the biopharmaceutical pipeline is in companies with market caps of $10 billion or less. This is completely different than when I started in this industry 30 years ago. And, you know, I think that is really enabled research and development to really go. I mean, Daphne talks about the slowness of when you're dealing with a big pharma on sort of the sell side to them. We just kind of came to the conclusion that you're never going to really create innovation on a large scale inside of large corporations. And I think the other thing is that by outsourcing that, it's not just a different model. But, you know, one of the things I noticed when we did, for instance, the Regeneron deal was this was a way for me in Santa Fe to access a different source of capital, because the capital that was behind Santa Fe was only interested in what Atlantis did last quarter. They weren't interested in the pipeline. But I go and listen to Len Schleifer at JP Morgan, and I had a different fidelity in his meeting than was in ours. And that capital was interested in pipelines that capital was much more risk oriented. And so I think this outsourcing and collaborative approach to R&D is not only good from a people point of view but allows big companies to kind of escape their treadmill of quarterly earnings and tap into innovation for people who have a different and more risk oriented capital behind them. You know, by the way, Stelios was giving an investment tip. You had made the suggestion of investing in yogurt. Stelios just wanted to clarify. I don't know if everybody heard it, but it was Greek yogurt. I think that's what you said. At some appropriate time, I will even distinguish different brands of Greek yogurt. All right. Well, Regine Paul is listening. So please. Andy, can I ask a question? Please. I mean, as we see all these technical shifts, you know, the way innovation is done is different. And can I ask the question to all the panelists, Stelios, Chris and Daphne, do you foresee an increased wave of mergers of big companies like we've seen between you and Shire, Akita and Shire and Sal Jean and BMS and Allergan? And what is the guy? What are you guys reading? Because this is a very interesting question of supply, demand and market power, right? And what are we going to see? Great question. Are we kind of where we headed in terms of M&A? Stelios, maybe you can comment. And Daphne, maybe from a kind of a budding pharmaceutical company, you can offer some of your thoughts as well. My thought on the matter is what drives big company mergers is usually the attempt to solve a problem. Everybody who's done something is trying to solve a particular problem. If you, I'll remind you, Chris, 10 years ago back, you used to go around and timidly say, I want to desanify sanofi. That's the term you coined. And I never forgot that because it was very telling. You're attempting through catalytic events to dramatically change a company. There was a problem you were trying to solve. And you could go on probably offline and talk, why did Akita and Shire, why BMS did Sal Jean? Why did Pfizer do Ronald Lambert, Pharmacy and Allergan? And that will persist. The creation of the emergence of problems within large pharma will continuously exist. And it's typically, but not exclusively, driven by expiration of intellectual property protection. When you have stochastically like a bunch of drugs, you know, Pfizer coined the term, the cliff. In November 2011, the Lipitor Patna was to expire. And at the time was the biggest selling drug in the industry. That was the cliff. And they were just looking at it with fear. So, bottom line is, yes, they will continue, but the universe is so small. Each one is a separate story, all of itself, all by itself. So it's not trends or secular force or anything else. It's just people trying to solve a problem and an acquisition is a potential solution to the problem. What do you think, Daphne, from your point of view at PureTech? Yeah, I mean, I think it would be pretty bad for the industry if there's all these big mega mergers, I think they tend to kill. Some of the innovative things that are happening within those organizations. And I also think it's kind of interesting to look back. And if you ask anybody in the industry, what defines it? You know, the first thing would be patience and making a difference. The second thing they probably say is innovation. And it reminds me of that phrase from the Princess Bride where, you know, he says, you keep using that term. And I don't think it means what you think it means, because this is an industry that's actually very good at pattern recognition. And pattern recognition is almost the opposite of what you want when you want to incentivize innovation. So we're good at being fast followers, I mean, as an industry. And I think that there is innovation that bubbles up. But that happens through the innovation ecosystem, through academic translation and things like that. So I'm going to ask you, Chris, where we're headed. More or less, M&A, but I just have to just pause and underscore the fact that we are the coolest panel. We just quoted the Princess Bride. I'm lying on culture, on popular culture. What is that? Oh, Stelios. No, you just back. Well, offline, we'll work with you offline. Chris. Well, I first, I completely agree with Stelios. These tend to be one-off solutions. And you go after a major deal when you've got a major problem and you have to move the needle pretty quickly. You know, if you've got a product like Humira and you want to dilute its importance in your portfolio, you got to do something bigger. You can't do that with one-off deals. I would argue on the merits. I mean, I think today the only way that scale really benefits a company is in commercialization. I think Big Pharma will still rule that. It's very difficult for smaller companies to go and sell to every country in the world. And as long as they have that, you know, I think Big Pharma is still going to stay at the top of the food chain. But I think most companies have the critical mass they need. So I don't think critical mass is going to drive it. It is, if I've got a hole and I need to fill the hole, I'll do that. I don't think anybody's really trying to get bigger for bigger sake. And I think there is a general recognition of something that Daphne said is that actually I think scale can be, can actually hurt innovation. Here's a question. Any of you can take it. You just made me think of this, Chris. So, you know, if you go back 10 or 15 or 20 years and you look at the top 10 pharma companies in terms of market capital revenue and you look at them today, there's a little bit of evolution. There's a, you know, MGen steps into that mix in and out, but not a lot. What do you predict in, if you go ahead 10 or 15 years, do we see more less or the same kind of movement in terms of that top 10 list? Go ahead, Chris. Well, I was going to say, I think I can imagine similar brand names on there. I think the contents will probably be different because they'll absorb an awful lot of the companies in there. And let's face it, the dream of every biotech and every investor is that one day a big pharma comes along because nobody will pay more for your company than a big pharma. So they will absorb that. So I could see that there'll be some shifting in the mix, but perhaps not an awful lot, but they won't be in the same way that Sanofi. I mean, you know, if you look at Sanofi today, it's nothing to do with what the company where Elias and I started 10 years ago. The whole product mix has changed, the whole focus of the company has changed. So I think actually some of these big companies have gotten very good at actually, you know, just keeping a regular set of growth and bringing, they figured out how to bring the right amount of innovation. And, you know, they generate massive cash flow. I mean, you know, that's what caused me. I mean, Sanofi was a mess when I took it on, but it was generating 11 billion euro free cash flow every year. I mean, if you have cash flow, you have solutions. Yeah. So you're predicting J&J, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, PureTech. Is that your top five? Yes. The point is this. I mean, if we say, oh, Pfizer was there, Pfizer is still here. Well, Pfizer, but what's Pfizer? Yeah. Legacy Pfizer, Rory or Ronald Lambert or Wyeth or Pharma Sia. All of these have been absorbed. All the names we used to know. We're sharing Plough, Siba Geige, Santos, and you go on and on and on, you squib, you know, not sell gene into BMS. So it's, it's evolving. Yeah. We clearly got what Chris said. You're all saying more of the same, basically. It's kind of kind of looked the same with evolution, not dramatically. Let's go ahead, your thoughts. Let me say something different because there's something that drives the value of a company. It is nonlinear. All right. If you look at the returns and market value, it's all driven by a combustor. So a company that doesn't have one tends to fall off the top 10. And sometimes gets back down. So the business is not a linear business. It's a very nonlinear business that's related to specific hits of blockbusters. So the question really would be where are the blockbusters likely to happen and which companies are going to acquire them early enough to get the value or not. And I think there is this sort of noisy environment which allows big companies that have a lot of cash to survive and by making the right choices. But look at all the companies that have gone away. They're no longer there. I want to go back to something that you raised earlier, which is the election. And I just have a softball for maybe Chris and Daphne and anybody else who wants to kind of step in and take it on. The softball question is who's going to win in the U.S. in November? Who's going to win? I want a name. And what's the consequence to the investment thesis in healthcare? I personally think it's right now it's too close to call because the polls are narrowing. And you have all these shy Trump voters and that's why the polls didn't work the last time. So I actually don't know. What I would say is, you know, I think the industry will work with whoever wins. I mean, I used to spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill and I used to say not every Republican is our friend, not every Democrat is our enemy on that. I mean, they have different approaches. You know, we had an Obama administration that controlled both House of Congress. We had the Affordable Care Act. We were moaning and wailing because we had to pay, I think, 110 billion in taxes over 10 years. But actually, we gained in volume. You know, maybe Democrats will focus a little bit more on pricing, but they tend to focus a lot more on coverage. And so if you look, I mean, we closed the donut hole and gained on volume. We expanded Medicaid and we expanded on volume. And you know, you have Republicans on the other hand who are free traders. They're more likely to be interested in bringing parallel trade, looking at the pricing in Europe. And I think the success of the industry has been not in winning over public opinion because we've actually been lousy at that. But long ago, they decided prevent bad things from happening in Congress because virtually everybody in Congress knows someone in their family who's been sick. And actually recognizes that the solutions that we bring and recognizes that, you know, when I started in this industry in Germany in 1988, Europe spent twice as much or 50% more on R&D than the U.S. Bayer was and Herkst were the biggest companies in the world. And now the U.S. is the dominant player in technology. And this is a strategic industry. It's a hard argument to win in a world of sound bites. But I think the industry is actually more effective than most people give it credit for in getting its value proposition across to those in halls of power. So we'll have to morph and adapt. But I think, you know, the industry can do that. That's great. So what you're saying is you're positive. We'll see what happens. Daphne, can you do this in a sound bite? Can you answer with one word who's going to win the election and one word about the consequence will be? I can't answer that question. But what I think we should we need to do is do something about this war on truth and science and create some sort of bipartisan approach to doing that, because that's the thing that's the biggest concern, not who necessarily wins this election. Great. Let me. So I'm not a terrible moderator. Let me reach out. I have a couple of questions on the from the from the audience, and I think I'm going to open it up to Sam Wachsall. Sam, if you could quickly go through your question, then pick on somebody to answer it. And you're on mute. You're pulling a crispy buck. I can't think of anybody better to pull on. But anyway, Daphne, I love that you quoted Princess Bride. You know, what's fascinating is I always use one of the characters there when I think about innovation, the Wallace Sean character, who when he was promoting his intelligence set Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, morons. So in order to really, you know, I always believe that human memory exists predict the future. And one of the things for all of you and as I listened to how you all think about things. You look picking the right technology. I mean, innovation is a is not something you teach. It happens. But new technologies occur, new products, new pathways. How do you all choose and a couple of you here have to do this for all of you have to do this for a living actually. So we don't have we don't have any time because we don't have any time. I'm going to give this one to you, Daphne, because you this is what you do right now for a living. If you could quickly give Sam the answer. I mean, we start with a disease focus or a theme. We bring together leading experts and orthogonal perspective. So clinicians, academicians, entrepreneurs. And then we take an unbiased modality agnostic approach to solving the problem, looking at academic labs and bringing together basically the best science. Terrific. Thank you. I want to thank you, Sam Simba. I'm sorry we didn't get to your question. I know that you had one and I wanted to thank this and this great panel for a really terrific discussion. One also remind all of you in the audience that we have a polling question coming up. So please stay on and answer that question. Thank you. Thanks Andy.