 I actually invite Greg and Hans and Prashant back up for a moment. We have a few more moments before we end this session. I wanna ask a couple questions of the panelists to have a little bit of a discussion. We will have a little break in about 10 minutes and then we will after that have another session that'll give us an opportunity to have a broader conversation about some of these issues with these panelists and across the room. So don't despair, we'll have lots more time to talk about some of these issues. I wanna take sort of a moderator prerogative though to ask a couple of questions. And my first question is to Greg and to Hans, which is if you were giving advice to another pharmaceutical company, to another firm who was thinking of sort of following the path that you've laid out either in the partnership access program or in the inter-country price discrimination approach, what would you say to another company about what works and what that wasn't and when you might think that this is a good idea to pursue the path that you've laid out. Hans, do you have a few quick thoughts? Yeah, I'd like to build on what you said, Greg, because exactly that has been challenging for us. Trying to maximize access to co-art and wasn't always kind of seen favorably by the teams that are indeed incentivized on top line and bottom line results within those malaria endemic markets. And that has really been a struggle for us, especially when new donor funded programs came into being, which were potentially seem to be cannibalizing. Although, if you look at that pyramid that I gave, and that's I think my point of advice, when you go and think about such an access program and also building on what you said, Prashant, the segmentation, get that really well understood by every stakeholder within your organization. Because when you do that well, I think you will be able to actually get the best out of two worlds well combined. That's great. And I'm gonna ask one more question, and this one is for you, Hans. And I know this is in a different section of your world, but when I was in government, I was involved in a program called the Patents for Humanity program, and both of the models that you've talked about here today have been recognized in that way. But there also was recognition last year of something that Novartis did that I thought might be an interesting example for us to discuss in the research collaboration space, which related to a compound that you're working on and developed out of I think is NITD, which is the infectious disease shop within Novartis, where you identified a compound that showed some promise in the tuberculosis space that you weren't planning to pursue and made an affirmative decision to license it to the tuberculosis research consortia that were trying to sort of take that research one step further. And I just thought I'd give you the chance to sort of identify the rationale behind doing that and also sort of think about whether that's a model where there isn't necessarily a commercial plan to take some research forward, to think about ways of putting that into the sort of public domain or at least into the domain of researchers who are working on R&D into drug categories that primarily affect the poor. Yeah, thanks for the question. So the TB work that Quinton referred to came out of our Novartis Institute of Tropical Diseases in senior poor, which had been created about a decade ago, indeed to work on compounds to treat multidrug resistant tuberculosis and dengue. And then malaria was actually added to that mandate later on. I think the reason for the company to decide to basically transfer that knowledge and that those assets to the global to be alliance was that we felt that we didn't have in-house the optimum of skills, resources to take these compounds further through development. And based on our collaboration with the TBL Alliance over the years, we believe that they would be able to get let's say more value out of this than by us continuing to do it in-house. Shantar, Colin, do you have anything to add on the sort of menu of options that we wanna weave on the table for our discussion sessions coming up after the break? Yes, I think on this issue of transferring R&D, which is otherwise not gonna pass the commercial threshold, I think we have several institutions which we call as product development partnerships. And I think it is now a matter of understanding whether the product development partnerships, whether it's TB Alliance or DNDI or MMV, are they the ones who should keep reaching out to industry partners and say, can we look for something? Can we find a good collaboration? Or can we see a model in which, like the NITD example, actively a company goes and says, here's what we have, is this of use to you? And I think the pattern pool, there are multiple mechanisms that are trying to achieve that. I think that's a very promising area. It needs some more operational, definitional in a better sense, but otherwise I think that's a great way. Yeah, not the colony went out, but when the Ebola crisis sort of hit and sort of started to move outside of West Africa, there was sort of a moment when a bunch of companies came together and said, now we're gonna share our research. And that was an important catalytic moment in the very powerful act of public service. But it does beg the question, why weren't you doing that all along with respect to the drug development or the relevant research relating to Ebola? And what can we do to make sure that the kind of collaboration that happened post-outbreak in that context happens much earlier? And are there things that we can do as a research community or as academics that can kind of de-risk that process? So to the extent that companies are nervous about potentially commercial viable research getting revealed through those processes, can we figure out how to de-risk that so that they're scurrlier and better collaboration? Colleen, I'll give you the last word. The last comment I would make is that it seems like across the board each set of kind of practices has, there are a lot of things that are particular to each vertical. So whether you're talking about hep C and the need for a financing mechanism, or you're talking about the differences between as Prashant was describing diseases which affect poor and rich countries versus those that are primarily poor, or you're talking about emerging rats like Ebola, each area has its own kind of particular, each vertical weather condition or has its particular kind of question. So if we are going to kind of try to brainstorm kind of next steps, it seems like it's important to figure out to which disease area and which set of problems are we talking about? Because there has been a lot of discussion here. And some of the lessons will be apical more in some areas than others. That is a terrific segue to our next session. Just a couple pieces of housekeeping. We are going, there's some coffee and things over there. We're gonna take a 15 minute break now so we'll start a little bit after 11 o'clock. We're also gonna turn off the live stream and the video until the afternoon session. And right after the break, Mark Wu from the Harvard Law School is gonna continue this conversation and try to break it down in terms of market types and particular concrete circumstances under which we might replicate and scale up some of the examples that we talked about in the first panel. But let's give a round of applause for our panelists. And let's take a 12 minute break. Thank you.