 Rod, te wapneksha waz about New Zealand in 20 years and the challenges it's going to face. What do you think are going to be the biggest changes that we face in health care over that time? The reality is, I can't tell you because I don't know, but the changes are going to be massive. In my own field, the main field we work on, which is cancer immunotherapy, many people have heard the story that there are patients being cured by immunotherapy for cancer. This makes us think that eventually most cancer therapy will involve manipulation of the immune system and it's likely to be successful. It's going to take a while to go from the relatively small number of patients responding at the moment to lots more patients, but I do tell my students in classes that cancer therapy for their generation will be completely different and it's likely cancer will be a liveable chronic disease. Now we're here at the Morris Wilkins Centre today, which is a centre of research excellence that in some ways is leading New Zealand science. How important is New Zealand science in the big picture of things? For the economic future, science and technology are absolutely critical. We know that we can't continue to live off unmodified primary produce and so you need science and technology to obviously get the value at. More importantly, we need five or six companies of the size of Fonterra. Is one going to be a space company? Is one going to be a drug company? Well, quite feasibly. We know because we measure this thing endlessly because we're made to, that the quality of our science is extremely high. Our scientists actually do outstanding work. What we perhaps have lacked sometimes is the capital to take some of those scientific discoveries forward into economic benefit. The great thing about what's happening at the moment is I think that's beginning to change. On the show, Nigel Latter got his DNA tested. What are your thoughts on that? Is that going to be something that all New Zealanders have done in the near term? I wouldn't say in the near term. I certainly wouldn't advise it in the near term. The problem is that when you look at the human genome, there's still so much doubt about what all the little bits and pieces mean. And so the number of, as you call it, actionable changes. The things that are in your DNA that mean you can make a change that will make a difference to your health, or that can predict some problem you might have in the future that necessitate an intervention are very, very, very small. So most of the stuff that is being predicted around, oh, you have an increased risk of that, or you've got a potential of this happening in the future, it's not specific enough to actually enable you to make a change. And it's going to be a very long time with very large studies before we understand all that. So at the moment what is really happening is a lot of people having their DNA done experiencing anxiety as they are told that, oh, this is linked to this disease. What do I do about it? Well, we don't know. I mean, this is not a wonderful thing to be doing. And that's not to say that genomic science is not incredibly valuable and through genomic science we are learning so much about the susceptibilities that we carry in our DNA. And especially in the cancer biology field are called sequencing patients' tumours. It's incredibly valuable now at determining exactly what kind of therapy a particular person might need. But even there, we can analyse a patient's tumour and we can find exactly what's gone wrong with their DNA to drive their tumour. We can't necessarily drug every single change that they've got. And in some cases you can look at a patient's DNA and say, well, we can see all these changes that are causing the cancer and there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it. Those particular changes. So it's very, very early days and I think the idea of people running out and having their DNA sequenced and living much healthier lives as a result is quite some way away.