 Yeah, so I was at Erie for a relatively short time, and really just under two years with my family. But I've spent a number of weeks on in there since that time. But what I think of is there was really the foundation of my career. It allowed me to join that extended family that Erie has created over its 50 years, and to be a participant both from within and from without. So I think that that cemented that identity. Another thing is that I really learned a lot about how difficult it is to envision what we used to call technology transfer. And I became a much more committed proponent of a truly participatory approach to research, to technology development, and to training. I think that when we want something to, when we want to change the way we do business, that that change I've learned over the many years, that change will not occur quickly if it's a profound change. When I went to Erie, I was young and foolish, and I thought that there was something called technology transfer where you had a good idea, and you brought it essentially to people. They would welcome you with open arms, take up that idea, and then that would continue the process. And I see that it doesn't work that way, that was naive. I think Erie taught me that much of the resistance to new ideas that is just simply a feature of a large, multi-pronged, multi-disciplinary institution is the buffer that's required to ensure that ideas are vetted. On the other hand, I think that one of the other things I learned about Erie was that it's very, very, it tends to be a very conservative place intellectually. It is resting on a series of relationships that have worked well in the past, but that as I said in my previous comments, I think we're at the point where some of the new ideas are not able to find their way into the parlance of the institution as rapidly as they might because of maybe some structural, some structural or some organizational components that I may not understand myself what needs to be changed. But I did learn that if you want to do innovative science, Erie is probably not the actually, at least to the type of science I do, is not set up for that. Erie is set up to take innovative ideas and try to transform them into very complex sociological and political realities and it is very well suited to that. So it has a place where you can vet ideas, you can bring ideas, they may be rejected for a while and accepted 10 years later, but it will vet a lot of things that are brought to it and it will be very careful about how it then implements those things. It taught me that, it also taught me that we really need an international institution that does allow us to bring ideas into a forum, propose things and not expect them to be acted on immediately. We need that kind of forum and we also need these connections with the fast-paced scientific institutions where everything that's new is valued and things that are older are less valued. There's a place for each. It's the interaction and the connection between them that I've grown actually to value more and more over time. I also think that Erie does a superb job of this kind of participatory training, bringing people into the institute from many different walks of life, giving them short-term or longer-term opportunities and trying their best to create that sense of extended family over time that keeps people loyal to the cause whether they disagree with particular decisions at any moment in time or not. I think people are very loyal to the vision and to the ideal that Erie represents. So even if I feel that we need to reinvent ourselves and we really need to reinvent many of our international organizations, I think we all keep somewhere deep within us the vision that we need the organization even as it evolves to become something new.