 third panel of the day. And it's a panel that we've had every year. It's the BioFarm Industry Investment Outlook Panel. And this year, we have a moderator that requires no introduction, his name is Sam Waxall, who's the guru of biotech. We typically have Sam sit in the panels, but Sam has so much to say that we often don't get to the other panelists. And so we took a different path to this here. And we asked Sam back how we moderate the panelists, but he can bring everybody else into the conversation. So Sam, with that, this is your cue. I now hand it over to you. Thank you, Andy. And that was a way to get me not to speak at all and just introduce people. So we have a great panel today. We have both industry players and players from the investment community. And I'm gonna introduce everybody so we don't take time in them introduce themselves. And so we have, we're very lucky to have Chris Vibacher, who's the CEO and president of Biogen. Chris has been an industry mainstay as well as an investment mainstay. And I was, of course, the CEO of Sanofi and really grew that in a great way. We also have today Daphne Sohar, who's the CEO and president of PureTech and has done very interesting and important things in our industry. We have Steve Knight and Dr. Steve Knight is at F prime. It was at Fidelity Bio, but he didn't want to be associated with them. So he changed the name of his venture group. And then we have Rajiv Cole, who is known to all of us as being the big investment player at Fidelity Investments. And we have Teresa Say who is the chairman and chairwoman of Sino Bio Pharmaceuticals, the second largest company in a second largest pharma company in China. And we have a couple of others that will be joining us during the question and answer period. So this is my cue to ask questions. And I'll start with Chris V. Bacher. And Chris has now done a transition to the dark side. The dark side's really the investors. So he's not come to the dark side, he's come to the innovative side. So Chris, you were at Sanofi, you changed Sanofi's innovation direction, you bought Genzyme and did a number of other things. Tell us how you view the world now that you've become the CEO of a large biotech company. Thanks, Sam. Yeah, I like being where I am now at Biogen. I think it's a sweet spot between startup biotech and big pharmaceuticals. You know, there's a lot more focus, a lot more agility in the company, the size of Biogen. And yet we still have global scale, we have affiliates around the world and can commercialize a product that way. We're a lot more focused, certainly, you know, Sanofi was a big sprawling organization. Here we're really focused on neuroscience and some rare diseases. And, you know, in an organization like this, you have a much closer contact with everybody in the organization. And also, I think from a stock market point of view, you've got an awful lot more ability to move the needle. You know, a billion dollars will move the needle for Biogen, you know, it doesn't really move the needle for a large pharmaceutical company. So it's great to be back with a team and a particularly such a mission oriented company like Biogen that's going after, they have a lot of pride in going after diseases that nobody else wants to touch. That's, and that, by the way, is a real big difference between Biotech and Big Pharma. So thank you. And Daphne, you know, we've talked a lot and the world's changed for even smaller Biotech companies like yours and you have a goal in really trying to figure out getting money in a non-dilutive fashion, new ways to look at the industry vis-a-vis the innovative products that you generate. How do you balance and use products and approaches like that for capital? Yeah, thanks, Sam. So at Pyrtec, we've now invented and advanced about 27 new therapeutics and therapeutic candidates of which two have gone all the way from inception to FDA approval on a third CAR XT that's being advanced by Corona as filing soon. And I think one of the things that we've been able to do, which is beneficial is to be able to generate non-dilutive capital. So we've been able to generate about 780 million in non-dilutive funding. And what that means is that we haven't had to raise money in the capital markets in over five years. That has its advantages and its disadvantages, which we can talk about later. But I think in the current environment, a lot of companies are looking for creative approaches to advancing their pipelines as we get through it. And I hopefully we'll get through it soon. Great. And Rajiv, you've been the sort of elephant in the room for virtually every biotech, pharma, every kind of investment opportunity there is. And the world's changing. A couple of years ago, you could have two... Anybody's move forward in a deal and people would invest in it and the stock would go up. What's the difference now? And I don't think you've changed a lot, but how's the investment world changing? Thanks, Sam. I feel much better investing in the current environment and I'd echo some of the comments made from last year as well. And the current environment is one of high uncertainty, cheaper, and in some cases, extremely cheap stock prices of the biotech industry, particularly, which I don't view as necessarily economically sensitive. And in a period of great innovation, as we know, and the possibility of some real breakthroughs in fundamental science and translation in the clinic. My approach has been long-term, fundamental driven. And so in the framework of very favorable valuation setup, about a third of the industry was trading at below cash, a historical low, even low at one point in the last 12 months, then it was at post the dot com bubble crash. It's really set up a very exciting moment to be a stock picker. As we know, this has always been a stock picker's industry. Most drugs fail, but the few work really well. They go from becoming the worst businesses in the world to the best businesses in the world. And oh, you need a handful of them, maybe a dozen of them really every decade. Great companies like Gilead and others, top biotech companies in the last decade that we know of, they go up 20-fold, 50-fold if you buy them early and you've got the fundamentals right. So my focus continues to be doing the bottoms up fundamental stock picking, doing the work and making sure we can manage risk through this period. But overall, my excitement and enthusiasm for the sector continues to be high, particularly because the innovation is exciting and the valuation framework continues to remain tough for a lot of companies that need capital. It gives us an opportunity to try and recapture these companies. And I'm hopeful that in the next three to five years as the macroeconomy settles down, the fundamentals will emerge and people will care about that. And so that continues to be approached and the overall tenor, my thought in this moment is quite positive. Right, well that's important and hearing it from you- Yeah, the fund is almost 20% year over year as of May 1st, you know. Amazing. And it's sort of like kind of surprising to me too, given how depressed everything is. We haven't even emerged from the depressed status yet. So I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed. Again, it's a tough industry. You gotta get the fundamentals right. There's disappointments everywhere. So you gotta be able to manage risk through that and be well capitalized. Well, that's actually a perfect lead-in for some things I'm going to ask Steve Knight because I am a firm believer that about 95% of the startups out there, that venture invests in our garbage or me too stuff that is no longer interesting. So I don't know how many more CAR-T companies are going to be established or how many more companies in immuno-oncology but I find it to be the height of absurdity and I know Rajiv is very careful not to jump into that. So I'm gonna ask Steve what does venture look at to be innovative? Cause I actually am one of the people on the planet that thinks venture lives in paradigms and that's the antithesis of innovation. Well, thank you, Sam for that setup. And in this era of partial truths and disinformation I realized that you have to counter every single statement and make sure you don't let it go unanswered for just for the record. We did not change our name because we wanted to make some fidelity, it was just to reflect the fact that there was confusion in the market with Rajiv who does all of the wonderful investing and his group and other funds. And our group, which as you point out is on the venture side and fidelity is our largest LP. So that ended up being an important thing. So just point of record. But I actually knew that I was just trying to poke me. You were just trying to poke me. Yeah, and so I would say in terms of venture and I think Rajiv is right, we don't invest in public companies. So public companies right now are, I think there's lots of opportunity and in part you have to do the hard work if you're a public investor which we're not of separating the week from the chaff because not everything that's down is good. There's some that are down for a reason. I think that in terms of where we are right now, we were fortunate starting out 20 years ago with maybe a little bit of insight and maybe a lot of luck choosing rare disease and FoldRX which developed to Fambodist for TTR was really our first investment. But that set the stage for looking at Rajiv and said the fundamentals and what we liked about rare disease or what it was called orphan disease back then was the fact that one, the unmet medical need was large. We were really curing patients which certainly I'm old enough as you noted before with the color of my hair, I was in medical school. There were things that we cured but not a lot of things that we cured and therapeutics was more akin to, in some ways, the way I played with my chemistry set in middle school shaking a lot of things in and hoping for the best and that's obviously a rhetorical overstatement but I think that what has happened and it started with some of the focus on genetic diseases is that we are really understanding which is what we liked the other part is I wanna know the molecular mechanism of a disease and I wanna know the target and I wanna actually be able to test the target. I think that one thing that, and hopefully those insights into rare diseases will lead to therapeutics that have more broad appeal and TTR is a great example of that. The original disease was only 10,000 patients worldwide and if you followed 5,000 of whom were in Portugal and if you followed missionaries and Jesuit priests from the 15th and 16th century, you could find everybody else but afterwards the cardiac manifestation of disease is a much bigger population and so that that required a lot more capital. In terms of, so I am in terms of the overall sentiment I am very excited about this decade. I really believe that life sciences and medicine is to the 21st century, what physics was to the 20th century in that I think the most exciting things are going to happen, large language models aside but there are lots of there are some headwinds. So I think that pricing for instance, especially in some of these smaller diseases, trying to, I would say break through the proper noise of really bad practices that the pharma industry and the biopharma industry has had around pricing so that drugs that are really providing an unmet medical need and we're really rewarding innovation, those are some of the challenges but in general I am very excited and I don't think prices in the private market have properly reset as they have in the public market but that will come in due time, so. Well, by the way, you're absolutely, I have to agree with you, it's just not always that easy. I remember when I was at Case Western as a medical school, since I'm an immunologist they were only talking about T cells and B cells then we now know the immune system is much more complex than that and it's a fascinating time in medicine, you're absolutely right. So that brings me to a question again for Chris V. Bachar, Steve just talked about pricing and we see now with Lilly's phase three data which is different and in a different area than biopharma's work but nevertheless, if everybody that is going to be treated, everybody with Alzheimer's that would be treated with these antibodies because they're just desperate even though I believe there is only an incremental change, we'll bankrupt Medicare immediately. So what are we, and I know that indeed we'll save some time of people, some of them sitting in nursing homes or getting their faces dabbed with a napkin to stop the drool, so we'll save that money but this is a big moment in a world where there is real desperation for these patients, what are we gonna do about pricing and how do you look at incremental changes versus changes that are big? Cause you're now in a universe with Biogen and others are in that same world where we're not looking at a cure yet for AD, we are looking at an incremental change. Well, first I will argue that it's not an incremental change. It's certainly, if you look at the studies that have done, this is the first breach in the wall against Alzheimer's since Alzheimer's started looking at patients with autopsies and looking at the plaques 100 years ago and this is the first study that really demonstrated the benefit of reducing those amyloid plaques on cognitive function. Now we know that actually we're probably not treating the patients at the right time and so as we get blood diagnostics and can go earlier before there's too much neuronal death, you're gonna see an increased benefit and you're gonna see a benefit over time and so I would argue that when you look at also activities of daily life where caregivers see specific changes in people's behavior or their ability to participate in the community and look after themselves, that this is actually a breakthrough therapy. That said, the point is still valid on costs and I think there's two points I guess I would make. One is that as a society, I think we're gonna have to do a better job of choosing where we're gonna spend the money. 75% of healthcare budgets go to chronic diseases, many of which are preventable. So we're spending an awful lot of money where actually behavioral change and different diets, different exercise regimes could actually save an awful lot of money. So personally I think we're gonna need to save our scarce resources for those people who have illnesses for which they can't really do anything. You can't help it if you get cancer, you can't help it if you get Alzheimer's and I think we're gonna really have to help people there. Do we need to spend as much as a society on weight loss drugs when there is another solution which is much cheaper, for example. Obviously the world is not a rational place and you can go broke thinking that it is, but as a result, I think there's still gonna be pressure on prices. I think we're gonna see over the next 10 to 15 years things that look a lot more like Europe on pricing and I think the response that we as an industry have to have is twofold. One is the bar for innovation is gonna continue to grow. To your point, how many cartee companies do we need? How many PD ones do we need? That's not gonna fly into tomorrow's world. We'll have to spend our research and actually upping the ante on innovation and the second is we're gonna have to get a lot better at healthcare economics and really being able to assess the economic value and not just the medical value of our medicine. So I think there is a number of things, but I think we can't afford not to treat Alzheimer's and rare diseases and oncology, but I think there are some other areas where through preventative measures we could actually save the healthcare system, the money that's needed to fund those catastrophic illnesses. I can't agree with you more and there is so much waste in our system of payers, especially in the U.S. and everything from unnecessary PBMs to people going to an emergency room with a cold and getting charged $25,000 for that. So we have a healthcare system that's broken that needs to be fixed and the last place that we need to fix it is inhibiting innovation. So I'll go back to Daphne who tries very hard to use innovation in the way she thinks forward and tell me, and one, how are you looking at innovation as a biotech person, really biotech-y? And secondly, how do you use that in a creative way to move products forward? So the way I look at innovation is are we bringing an innovation, an innovation, a new solution for patients? So are we able to change the lives of patients? And for me, that's innovation if you're able to do that well. And one thing that we're excited about that I'm personally excited about is the idea that one could build on work that's been done before where there's been already a new modality, a new target that's advanced to the point of getting some initial signals of human efficacy, but then it had some drawbacks that were not, that looked, they seemed insurmountable at the time that the drug was developed. We have new technologies and tools now to unlock important new classes of medicine and through innovation and bring those new classes to patients. So I'm personally very excited about that. And Raji, what do you think about that? Well, how do you look at the fact that there is dramatic pressure on pharma and biotech from a reimbursement point of view and should we worry going forward? Well, one thing that stood out for me in the last 12 months, even in this period of macro pressure on the biotech sector has been that the big pharma companies are cash rich and they recognize that they've got I think 40 or half the revenues going off patent by the end of the decade. And so they look to the smaller companies to the venture capital universe, as well as the author of public companies to make those, to provide that innovation. I was, you know, you see companies like Biohaven and Seattle Genetics, Horizon, Prometheus recently, Chemocentrics, Iveric, Bellis Health, they've all been acquired for 70 to 100% premiums relative to their valuation of the market in the last 12 months. So I guess my point here is the industry recognizes the fundamental importance of innovation and is willing to pay up for it, particularly in the context of the uncertainty around reimbursement globally. The only way you can do that is to have an honest, honest discussion with the pairs and this is what it's gonna cost without the innovation. And if we can provide, keep people out of the hospital, we can move people towards cures, that is gonna save a lot of money and alleviate a lot of suffering. And I think I'm still a believer that while we go through moments of irrational behavior, like maybe some elements of the IRA, I think in the longer term, societies are going to do the right thing. And that the truth will prevail. And I think there's no easy way around here. I think the point that was made earlier as well taken, having the 10th or the 15th PD-1, that's a real questionable investment, but having a novel drug that's really improving activities of daily living in a dramatic way like you've never seen before in Alzheimer's disease, that is really important. And when you go to the earliest stage patients, that could have a dramatically positive impact in improving elderly people's lives. So the truth in my mind, I think it's just getting closer to the truth. I agree with you. I agree with you Rajiv and we forget the fact that about 40 plus percent of people who reach the age of 85 are going to have Alzheimer's, which also by 2026, with all by itself bankrupt our healthcare system and just taking care of them. So we do need to do things in a dramatic way, but for innovation. So Steve, how do you choose between something that's really important or something that all of your colleagues are investing in and you're investing in also? Well, I think it comes back to something Rajiv was just touching on. I mean, what is going to be a fundamental improvement for patients? And then sometimes if you're able to be fortunate enough to figure out a great target, then you have a lot more confidence. I think that sometimes, and this is where I would, I really have applauded Biogen over the years, certainly what we thought about when we started Denali, there are areas where you have to just, you have to collect a lot of money and you have to start picking apart the targets. You're gonna have to find the targets on your own. You can't, for neurodegenerative disease, you can't just rely on what's happening in academia and get lucky. I mean, just as a side note, maybe to add a little, maybe be a little bit of a provocateur. And I'd have to disclaim everything by saying I'm a great friend of Al Sandrock. I think the original, I had no problem with the approval of Aducana-Mab. I actually think the real sin was in the pricing. And I was alone in our, I mean, most of our group for the record was against the approval, but I think that there is a reason why regulatory agencies should for, as Chris was pointing out, for diseases in which there is nothing and you can't give patients anything, we have to actually follow those patients with something that is incremental. And, but it has to be priced appropriately. If you're not curing someone, and I agree with you, Sam, I think that these are, that this is the first break in the wall. It's not, these are not answers, but they're the first hope that these patients have had. And I'd like to follow these patients, but you can't expect society a lot. As a final note, I would agree with you. I mean, I'm also old enough, Sam, that when Charlie Janeway taught immunology to me, it was still just T cells and B cells. But one thing that we've learned over the pandemic is just how miraculous the immune system is. And figuring out how to program this particular system is going to be one of the big areas. And it's certainly an area that we're very interested in at this point, so. Well, I fully agree with you. And Charlie and I collaborated when he was at the NIH before he went to Yale to teach you. So I love that. I'm going to ask Daphne a question before I do, because of the technical difficulties that are going on with our Chinese colleague. I just want to say that Teresa says area where she's moving forward is trying to become a global company. And Sino-Bio Pharmaceuticals is trying to do things in innovative areas. Full disclosure, they even are working with me on rock too. But what she is doing is doing things like they just bought a company in England, F-Star. So I think they were confused and probably thought they were buying Steve Knight, but it wasn't F-Prime, it was F-Star. And so it was in a different area of bi-functional antibodies. And they bought a delivery company in Belgium. So Chinese companies are going to move and the world will change. They won't just do me too, they'll start to get innovative. And that brings me back to Daphne for a moment because Daphne has always been someone who has worked not in one area, a single drug, a single CAR-T, a single K-RAS mutant inhibitor. And Daphne, you get two different points of view, but what's your point of view on how to develop these programs in a more prolific fashion? Daphne, you're on silent or I can't hear you. Sorry, one of the things that strikes me about this industry is that there are certain things that are accepted and are in fashion or broadly accepted and people don't really question them. And one of those is this preference towards single asset or single therapeutic area companies. And I think this may be because the investors like diversifying their portfolios themselves and single asset companies make it easy for them to focus on what they're investing in. There's also a perception that single asset companies make better M&A targets. But I'd like to make the case for companies with broader pipelines, a little bit more diversification. And I believe they have their own advantages in that they mitigate binary risk and the management incentives are aligned with shareholders in terms of prioritizing the winners. So there's less incentive to continue a program that has mixed results. And it's frankly a more efficient way to develop new medicines because there's on off times when you're developing new drugs. I'm also not sure from an M&A perspective that diversification is less attractive because if you look across the top 15 pharma companies they have on average seventh therapeutic areas and there's certain ones like oncology, immunology and neuro CNS, which are common in many of the top pharma. So I would just throw it back to you, Sam. What do you think about this concept that diversified pipelines in biotech are less attractive? Yeah, I would say I've always lived in a world where I've had more than one drug that I can work on at the same time. I just live in a world where everything I pick is always good. So that's the only difference between me and the rest of the world. And I say I do these things to make some of my colleagues smile, but it's true. So I think interestingly, you're absolutely spot on and I think that's quite important. Look, biotech, as Chris said, is this blend between a startup and a large pharma. They have more than one program and Chris can move more than one thing along at the same time. So I would just add a thought on that and I would say that I think the traditional view of thinking about therapeutic classes, I wonder if it's becoming less and less relevant. I understand the commercial sides of it, but it just feels like as you grow towards atomic level resolution and you've had this journey in the last 30 years from replacing proteins to blocking proteins to now getting into the cellular machinery in a deeper level, you're starting to figure out some of these fundamental principles of how cells work and how they regenerate and how they communicate. And so, and you've got machine learning that can enable these processes. I just wonder if in the next period, it's going to be more about solving the problems on a more, you know, not in the traditional way, right? No, I think, good. You were turning sideways. I mean, you get to some fundamental codes in the network. I think I might have got cut off there, but you'll get to some fundamental nodes in the network and it has broad applications. And you know, you see in the overlap in immunology and oncology and it's, you can't really think about therapeutic classes anymore in my mind if you really want to figure out breakthroughs. Yep, I totally agree with you. I think that more and more now, you know, we had Erwin Schrodinger even before Steve Knight was born talking about genetic code for the first time in his book, What is Life? And I must say that was before DNA and it turned out that DNA was very important. I am now a firm believer that DNA is informational and all of the genetic codes important, but what happens sequentially like the cytoskeleton of a cell movement, plasticity of the immune system, more important and we're now learning that and we're learning how to intervene in things that we never thought we could do before. So I fully agree. And so I'm going to ask Chris, I think are we down to the last moment? What's our time right now? We got four minutes, Sam. Four minutes, okay, so perfect. I'd like all of us and I'll start with Chris to tell us what the world's going to be like two years from now. What world are we going to be looking at in two years? We've got a world outside of our industry that looks like it's ready to go to shit any moment. So that world I'm really worried about, but I agree that innovation is exploding. So what's our world going to look like in the next two years, all of you? Two years is tomorrow, Sam. I always say actually tomorrow is three years in this industry. I think you probably look at it. Tell me what's going to happen. I agree, what's going to happen in the next three to five years? First, I would certainly echo what Rajiv has said about the therapeutic classes. It's Elia Sohouni that said, we describe too many diseases by their symptoms or where we find a tumor, not by their cause. And I think we are certainly moving towards that as Rajiv has said. I think there is going to be first on the biotech side. I don't see the financial markets really changing all that much. The higher interest rates are here to stay for a while anyway. And I think we were in a world where there was too much money chasing too few opportunities and a number of opportunities got financed that shouldn't have been. And I think we're going to first on the biotech side see an awful lot more need to have evidence and clear data to justify financing, but it is going to stay challenging. And I think we're going to have to take that careful eye on the political situation. The IRA is going to have a definite impact on how much gets spent. And we as an industry have to be extremely vigilant in making sure that the situation doesn't get worse, which means really ensuring that the value proposition of our industry is broadly and widely understood. Well, I think that's great. I'm going to say what Sinobiopharmaceuticals, Chairwoman Teresa Tsai would have said three to five years from now, there are going to be some real global Chinese players. I look at that with some trepidation, but I think that's going to be real and it's going to be done via acquisitions of what biotech. So Stephanie, what's going to happen three to five years from now? I think one area where there's going to be, there's opportunity for a lot of innovation is clinical trials. And there's been concepts like decentralized clinical trials that have been talked about and done for years, but some new tools, new technologies for remote monitoring and remote follow-up with patients. And just, I think there's going to be things like vocal biomarkers really are going to change the landscape for decentralized clinical trials and clinical trials in general. Cool. I have forgotten and I'm going to use the fact that Rajiv kind of told us already what was going to happen as did Steve. And I'm going to go to Simone of BioCentry to ask a quick question. And then I have to ask Ajay from Lazar to ask a question or I will be beaten by a Karun when he sees me next, which I do not want. So Simone, ask a question of anyone you want. Yeah. Well, actually I'm going to sort of ask everybody and a couple of you have raised the IRA. And I'm interested to know to what degree that is going to create an inflection point. You think that that will create an inflection point how the industry develops? How are you, for example, changing investments, portfolio prioritization or deal valuations right now? Or do you just think the industry is going to adapt? Well, I'll start. I think the industry ultimately has always adapted but there's no question that the cost of developing drugs keeps going up and the IRA shrinks the returns that you're going to get from that investment. So I think the willingness to invest in healthcare innovation is under threat. And that's where, as Daphne pointed out, we're going to have to get more efficient on things like clinical trials and we're going to have to have the ante on innovation. I do think with the IRA, some of this duplicative research and development goes away. And there will be some changes. There is a clear bias in favor of biologics over small molecules and that's playing out. It's the idea of developing a small indication first to de-risk and then go after the larger indication as a strategy that's also dead. So there are going to be some changes, but I do think that we have to do a better job of explaining even the geopolitical importance of the competitiveness of countries that is so dependent upon innovation. And short-term measure to try to save costs puts the long-term innovative capacity at risk and we have to make sure that that doesn't come to pass. Ajay, what's going on in the banking world? Well, there's a lot going on in the banking world. Don't make for another discussion. But Sam, I know Andy teased you at the start of the panel, but people often say it's actually tougher to ask a good question than to give a good answer. You certainly have asked some very, very good questions. So compliments to you on that. I want to ask the following question. Steve, you mentioned earlier that this is going to be the century of life sciences much like previous one was the century of physics and I totally agree. So here's my question. Hypothetically, if each of you had a billion dollars and I think for some of you that's not a hypothetical question, where which technology would you invest it in? Would you put it in and you get to pick only one and you get to answer only in three or four words, not a full essay. Would you put it in RNA? Would you put it in precision medicine? Would you actually go contrary and say, I think there's still a lot to do in gene therapy or gene editing. Where would you, which technology would you invest a billion dollars in? Well, since we've probably already done that in gene editing and gene therapy, as I indicated before, I would right now do it in immunology. And that's not saying much because that's just now a word. And I think as Rajiv has pointed out, we're talking about targets and pathways, but I think that understanding and de-convolving the complicated machinery in immunology and learning how to put it properly. By the way, that's, I'm supposed to close out now, Steve, I happen to agree with you, but knowing how to use immunology is not easy. And I think I'm one of the few people who know how to do that stuff. That's okay. So we're finishing up now. So thank you all and thank you, Karun. Thank you. Can you put the false leg, please? Question that we'll be pulling over the next few minutes is, what do you most expect to see over the next year? A, capital markets will start to open by the end of the year. B, new company formation will plummet. C, the IRA overhang will cause companies to reconfigure their pipelines. Or D, two or more women will be appointed as CEO of major biopharma companies. There we go. So this one is a little bit more distributed in terms of the answer. So the question after the investment outlook panel was what do we expect to see most over the next year? And I guess the number one answer that almost half had voted was the IRA overhang will cause companies to reconfigure their pipeline. Capital markets will start to open by the end of the year. So there's some optimism that comes out of that panel, but distributed answers. So terrific. So as always, thanks to the audience for participating.