 So in our research we use naked morats and we use mice and both these species have their pros and cons when fundamentally we're trying to think about understanding how biology works in order to solve problems with human disease. So my lab were mainly interested in chronic pain, but also neurodegeneration and cancer resistance. And the mouse has been a wonderful model organism to work with from which many therapeutics have been developed. And the key thing is now there are many genetic tools that enable us very quickly to work out how one particular gene functions and what its place may be in a particular disease. So why then should we work with naked morats if mice are so good? Well naked morats have a few differences that one could argue are advantages. The first is perhaps that they're very long-lived. So if you want to study conditions of aging or just any sort of chronic disease the mouse is short-lived and average mouse in captivity will live up to two years. Whereas naked morats live for over 30 years. So we can look at certain aging associated conditions in a much better way in the naked morat than we can in the mouse. And also if we think about human diseases, think about cancer for example, across the lifetime of a human one in two people will probably develop cancer. Now there's an age-related risk as you get older there's a much higher chance. Now mice and rats commonly use organisms in the lab. They're almost as bad as humans about getting cancer. So it's a very high proportion of mice and rats if it is left alone will develop cancer. By contrast the naked morat doesn't develop cancer very frequently at all. There's a few cases but by and large are a highly cancer-resistant species. So if we're able to understand how the naked morat doesn't develop cancer that's something that we can hopefully translate to help understand how to treat or prevent cancer in humans perhaps more effectively than studying a mouse which is as bad at getting cancer as a human is.