 So what happens in all these stages? Well, you fail. We fail all the time. So we start with the very first preclinical states. Preclinical, that's roughly one third of the drugs might pass it. So now you're going through all your pre-discovery, right? And everything. And now we're still just in the computer and the labs and maybe doing animal testing. One third of the drugs will make it through that state. Two thirds fail. You might think that this is bad. This is awesome. We love the red part there. And I'll tell you why in a second. Then we get to phase one. Phase one is actually very green. But it turns out that green is bad. The reason for that is today, we've already tested things in rats. We've tested them in chimpanzee. It's pretty rare that we found out that drugs are not at all safe in humans, which is good. Because that means that it's reasonably safe for us to volunteer in clinical tests too. Phase two, this is where we want to check that does it actually work in humans. Here's the problem. So these are now drugs that we knew that they worked in mice. They worked in chimpanzee. They are safe in humans. But roughly two thirds of them will not work in humans. This might come as a gigantic surprise to you, but you are not mice. There is a traditional joke in the industry that if you're a mouse and get cancer, we have very good treatment for you. The problem is that humans are not mice. And we work in different ways, although we're both eukaryotes. So don't believe all those fancy headlines saying that there is a new drug or they've identified a receptor doing X. They might have identified it in mice. It does not mean that it will carry over to humans. Then we're in phase three. This is where you need to show that it's better than the alternatives. And here again, most of it is green. And that's also reasonable. Because again, you spend a lot of money, hundreds of millions here. If you get to this point, you would have known already here somewhere that this is not particularly likely to work really well. The company would have closed that themselves. Because somewhere here, things are starting to get really expensive. We're needing to pay tens of thousands of test subjects, hundred doctors, clinics all over the world. We need tons of lawyers and everything. You don't want to fail here. Failing here is expensive. And here's the problem. As careful as these companies are and everything, there is still roughly one quarter of the cases here. We have the approval. So here is where the European medical agencies and the Food and Drug Administration step in and roughly for a quarter of the cases, they don't like it. It's not fair enough. So just to write this down, this is preclinical. This is phase one, phase two, phase three. And this is the Food and Drug Administration. If you just multiply the green parts together here, because that's, if you actually want this to be a drug that you can sell on the market, you have to be green all the way. And we have to go through all these steps. Do the math and this comes down to just over 3%. So off the drugs that we initiate, that we found a receptor, we found a target, our company wants to go after it. Out of that, roughly three candidates of 100 will make it to the market. And here's the point. We don't want to fail here. Because if you're responsible for this drug design project and you fail here, you have to go into the CEO of the company and say, hey Joe, sorry, we just lost $5 billion. What's the weather like, by the way? What do you want to do? You want to fail here? Because here we might, well, we might have had some bioinformaticians, a few people in the lab. Things fail all the time here. It's normal to fail here. The company's on the kind of, we want 50 different candidates projects here. We will kill one per month. That's perfectly fine. Come up with 10 new ones. Failing early is failing cheap. Failing late is failing expensive. The only thing worse than failing here is putting a drug on the market. And then six months or six years later, it turns out, you know what? That drug was not safe after all. And then FDA or EMA might pull the authorization. First, it means that you lose even more money. Second, you're now going to be sued by possibly tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of patients that have taken this drug and had no side effects. This is where pharma companies go bankrupt because we're talking, again, billions of dollars here. Fail in preclinical. The red part there is good. The further along we get, the more dangerous it is. Scary. So that means that we must require much more testing and firm hard rules on the pharma companies. Well, it's not so easy because if we looked at the actual stakes involved here is that the time to market for a typical drug might be 15 years from you start that preclinical phase. The problem is that a typical patent protection is only valid for 20 years. This has now been extended in the case of drugs. You can get five to 10 years extra. But all that money we spent, we need to recoup the investment in 15 years. And remember, the vast majority of projects will not be successful and I'm not going to make a single cent on those. On the contrary, I will have wasted a lot of money. How much money? Well, if you get things all the way to FDA approval, a modern drug might cost 300 million euros or so. Or roughly the same in dollars. We're talking about astronomical numbers. And throughout this project, we might have had 150 scientists or so involved. Even more with doctors and everything later on. For every drug that fails late, that's another 300 million euros that I need to recoup elsewhere. This has led to two strong effects. First, pharma companies have gotten more and more conservative. They only want to bet on things that they're certain to get the money back on. I know, that sounds really horrible. Nasty companies, right? Who could their owners be? Wait a second, that's us. Because these are, say for instance, my retirement funds, possibly yours too. So if we are the owners, maybe we are the ones that should simply accept less profits. Well, you could argue that, but then we're not going to have any retirement benefits. So we could say that we should not invest in those pharma companies, but rather invest, say, in the car industry or the green industry. Then there is not going to be any risk capital at all and then nobody will develop drugs. So the problem with drug development is simply, it's a risky and expensive business and at some point we will have to pay it. And the more restrictive they are, the tests per se are great. We want more different phases of testing. But the more testing we have and the harder our requirements are, the more this cost will go up.