 Ac nid ydych chi'n ddweud yn y cwm, rydych chi'n ddim yn y gallu'n ddigonol. Rydyn ni'n gweld y dyfodol yn ei ddweud yn y dyfodol, ond y hyn y dyfodol yn fwy gwaith a'r amser. Ym gwaith yw'r hyn yn ddigonol, rydyn ni'n bod ni'n gweithio'n ddysgu'n ei ddweud. Can I store a longer shopping list than ever? Is it really trying to be a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none? Thank you, Brian, for that very appropriate question. That's exactly the challenge of this group. It's a collective effort to identify where we're going to focus now. You yourself didn't help us a lot yesterday. Fair comment, but I will take my job. No, I think that it's a really challenging issue. The question which Board has asked us in the last meeting, where are we dropping? I think we have dropped some things on the margin, but we really need to go much more in-depth in terms of thinking about this. I think that is very clearly also what the Science Council is trying to do with MTP, making us make much more explicit where we're going. So I think it's a fair comment. One of the things specifically that you said, the evolution of research, you spoke of upstream importance and downstream of the integration and innovation with reduced emphasis in the middle areas of traditional research. What exactly do you mean? I thought some of those traditional areas of research were our strength. Specifically, what are you talking about? What will go? What we clearly have done, I think over the last few years, is, for example, gone out of a lot of feeding trials, a lot of testing of hundreds of accessions of gel plastic, for example. A number of those areas which I think are national partners are very capable of doing it, doing them in a more decentralized, much more cost-effective way. I mean, if you think of our own work in here, particularly in the resume, for example, of feeding, I think we've now focused it much more strategically in terms of adapting to changing, fluctuating feeding systems, focusing on feed crops, dropping things like rum and microbes, a number of those areas. So I think we are trying to focus and come back to your first question. So I would say that the feeding and weighing type of experiment, this clearly I think we don't need to do with it. I think we recognize that in a very complex ecosystem setting, as the Interacademy Council has shown for Africa, these things have to be done locally. And in a sense we provide building blocks, but it is very much our partners who are establishing, building those in actual systems. But the things you've spoken of are things that we've already discarded. Are there some other things that we're doing now that are vulnerable? That's a good question. I think we hope that the things will actually be doing that, challenging of your own assumptions, and I think management is helping it by raising some questions about the number of those areas. But I think, for example, a very valid question is, should we continue characterizing every animal on the globe? For example, do we train, as we're doing now with the work that Han is doing in China, establishing a capacity in China to do the molecular characterization of their animals? So that's, for example, a trend which certainly I would see, that we're developing approaches, training other people and getting them to do it, rather than us sort of monopolizing the world's characterization of molecular characterization of animals. Moving on, theme two is very much your flagship. I think this is the making things happen at the front line, is what you said when you first came in as a director general, and you talked of a paradigm shift of knowledge management, not knowledge generation. I don't know whether the word not was there. We seem to have difficulty finding a leader for that particular theme, or maintaining a leader. Do you think that this is realistic? Should we really be having this as a theme, or should we having this integrated into all the other activities of the research? Well, I think this is part of actually being ahead of the path. I think this is the present thinking of how you link research to actual development. It's obviously an area where you don't find a lot of practitioners. We're too far into that. Well, I hope not. I think what we're saying is we need to expand the way we cast our net to bring in appropriate leadership, and we cannot be right now be driven by people in the agricultural sector. So we really are trying to look for that intellectual leadership and bring that together with our own lives of expertise to ground it on lives of innovations. What is the danger of this becoming too close to development? Allen warned that we shouldn't be drawn into the development arena. We are a research institute. Do you feel that there's a danger in that area that we're going to be drawn too far into development? I think this is obviously a very tricky balance to maintain, but I think we were coming from a corner where I think Hillary was seen as doing great science but not having impact on the ground. And I think what we're trying to do is to make sure that that's not it. I think we've produced a lot of knowledge assets, but we're not being able to really get them out there to be used. And I think that's exactly the challenge. Think about our thinking on genetic resources. It's actually not leading as only we described yesterday into actual bringing problems, for example. So making those links is what an innovation system is about. I don't know whether this is part of it, but you did make a statement in your address that soft skills are important. I didn't quite understand that. What are they? I mean, have you caught any? And how do you know that? Well, I think the fact that we realize that we're moving from, if you want, a more self-standing research production entity to a much more network-distributed way of working implies that having facilitation skills to develop complex projects, for example, coming out front with a clear understanding of what the partners want, how you structure it, managing those complex relationships where people don't have line responsibility to you, those set of skills are going to be more and more important in the type of research that we're trying to do. Fundraising is absolutely critical and a lot of pressure on the operating project leaders in this. What are you personally doing without in fundraising for a week? Okay. I'm spending about half my work time travelling, basically visiting a lot of our donors. Our core effort is to maintain the unrestricted contributions to the centre, which are basically the glue which allows things like this to happen, which no project would pay for. And at the same time, that's always a scouting mission in terms of identifying new trends, new demands out there and bringing those messages back. As you know, a particular effort of mine has been how we engage, particularly in Nordic countries with our CGL agenda. We have not been very good at attracting staff from those countries and so their contribution has been financial contributions, but they want to make more substantive contributions. So we have been now developing schemes of shared appointments. I think we've got Hannah here. The first case we're doing with Sweden, Jan knows about this, we're establishing a bioinformatics position which will be sharing time with us and such. So that's been one of the... I've insisted that really resource mobilisation is not just dollars, but it's people, it's political support that you really have to drive all those things. That's a number of things where people want to see the DG. That's why I'm on the road. Okay, good. You're very much embroil in the CGIR integration in Africa, and why I think it's clearly a good idea from our national regional partners point of view. Are joint MTPs remotely feasible? Can we really achieve something there? I think that depends on how you define the joint MTP. I think we are realistically saying it's not an expectation that every petty little activity will have to be consulted with everybody else, but that large lines of work, major programmes, are really discussed, negotiated across centres and with national partners. There's more communication rather than having these wonderful new joint activities, MTPs and activities. What we have been discussing is obviously if Burundi wants germplasm or potatoes, they'll just prostrate to sick, but if they're talking about natural resource management in a certain region, probably a number of centres are involved, or if they're talking about information sharing or policy makers or whatever, those things don't have clear institutional allocations and make sense to be much more broadly integrated. So actually what we're proposing is to identify, ideally, one of the key areas where there's a huge gain to be achieved from synergies and start from those is to expect to rationalise every little programme. I think one of the things that worries several people is that we're the only livestock centre in the CG and as we get drawn more into this regional MTPs and all this sort of thing, are we going to get lost? Are we going to lose our primary function of livestock research? I think that's a very valid point and I think the board is very conscious of that. If you read a statement the board produced at the last board meeting, we're clearly emphasising that in the home structure we feel that the CGR needs to maintain a global presence as a livestock entity. So clearly we're saying that we can work in the regional context and very useful and certainly from our roots we're very much linked to the Africa region but we still need to maintain that global emphasis. I mean, Dan, Cezyn College, you have a reputation of being the most politically correct as a director of a research institute. Is that an absolute or a weakness? I'll be bold. It depends what setting you're talking about. I mean, you pay attention to making sure that things are done correctly that we're giving, I haven't been honoured at about the time, but do you feel that if you've got to be and your heart knows on research, sometimes the political correctness might interfere with that? I think that political correctness relates much more to how you do things than what you do. I think we have made the decisions of what we do on a very technical base but found ways to do it, I think, which are acceptable to the partners. I think that's the art that you want them running. The last question then is, what will your legacy be caused? What do you want to be remembered for, Julie? We made some impact with our research. At the moment, I think we have a huge stock of knowledge out there. We've started a number of things which are out there. We haven't made sure, as we said before, that actually that turns into changes in people's livelihoods. That's where we are trying to put the effort to build that up front into our research. Thank you very much. Thank you.