Unlocking Innovation Potential at the Centre of Science, Ethics & Politics | Fern Wickson
...is it really a human invention when you've made some kind of little modification? so assessing it as if it exists in isolation or in a vacuum is really misleading that's the mistake that innovation has done in the past and just how spectacular this planet is Hi Fern it's really great to have you here Thank you it's wonderful to be invited and to be having this opportunity to chat with you You are originally from Australia and now you are in the beautiful country of Norway how did you get from here to there? People say you move to Norway for either love or money and in my case i took a job and it was a postdoc position at a university in Norway my PhD was across the natural and the social sciences i chose to do an interdisciplinary PhD across those two different faculties and people said you're not a specialist in anything what are you it doesn't make sense and you'll never get a job so when i saw this advertisement while my PhD was being examined for a postdoc in Norway that was looking for someone with exactly my interdisciplinary skills i thought oh i have to apply because i'm never got to get a job which has turned out to be not true at all interdisciplinary skills are in high demand and but i was looking and open for opportunities to work abroad and Norway came across the table and i jumped at it and i haven't left i plan to be here a couple of years and move on but i've been here now about 15 years not in the same place i've moved from the south of Norway to the north and i just love the arctic part of Norway it's absolutely beautiful it's extremely different to Australia obviously very exotic and the Norwegian culture has a lot going for it so i've been unable to leave You've worked on lots of really interesting projects some of the technologies included biotech GM maize so maybe we can start with that what was that project and what did you learn from it? Sure so i've had a number of projects on biotechnology and biotechnology governance and regulation and socioeconomic impacts and ethical issues one of the projects i had was focused on genetically modified maize and potential impacts in Mexico but i've also looked at GM maize in Spain in South Africa and Uruguay and i think that looking at the same kind of innovation or technology in different social contexts has actually been really really important and really informative it's important actually to see how things operate in different social and economic contexts and political context because we often talk about the impacts of innovation and they're really different depending on where you are and what that context is and that was one of my learnings by looking at genetically modified maize in different places around the world the impacts are not the same And that's an interesting question because i think when we talk about when we think about emerging technologies most people who don't specialize in say responsible innovation or policy they think about the technology itself so you just mentioned about the ethical socio-political issues around technologies could you go into that a little bit more? It's actually one of the things that really attracted me to Norway my PhD was focused on the regulation and governance of GMOs of biotechand in Australia looking at how do we regulate them how do we make decisions are they safe for the environment or not what's the quality of the science we make our decisions on and when i was doing that work i was seeing that not only were there problems and uncertainties in the science regarding environmental impacts but when there were public hearings a lot of the comments that were coming from society from the public about what they were worried about what with this technology and why they were against it or protesting or concerned all of those kind of things that were coming up in public hearings were being deemed outside the scope of the assessment because the assessment focused on potential risks to human health and the environmental safety and all of these other things was outside the scope of the assessment and my PhD was saying well there's a problem here you know you've got social disagreement and rejection of this technology or concern and you're... it's outside of what you're considering in your regulation but in Norway they have an assessment of risk to health and safety in the environment but their legislation on biotech regulation also requires an assessment of social utility what's the value to society what's the contribution to sustainable development and is it ethically justifiable as a technology and back in the early 2000s this was really unique in terms of regulation and legislation around innovation governance to have this kind of broader set of criteria so that was one of the things that made me think Norway is an interesting place to do work on innovation governance because it already is accepting this around biotech and of course if you're going to regulate something and have those considerations even if you've got those great criteria in the legislation you need research to inform it so i started looking into okay what are some of these impacts what are some of the concerns why would we have questions around ethical justifiability one of the interesting ones on a biotech example is something like intellectual property regimes and ownership so in the case of genetically modified crops which is different to crops bred in other ways using other forms of techniques and technologies you can have a patent on that product and patent means you've got monopoly ownership rights for a defined period of years whereas other types of plants you can have plant breeders rights but they're a bit restricted you have to have openness to research and so on and so forth and people said the patent on a living organism was unethical because once you call it a patent it's deemed an invention so is it really a human invention when you've made some kind of little modification and there are big ethical concerns around that there were also ethical concerns around crossing species boundaries so in the early days of biotech there was a big focus on crossing not only species but kingdom boundaries so taking DNA from a bacterium and putting it into a plant you could cross animals and plants and so on and people were saying that's unethical it's not right we've got concerns because it's not the way we understand how the world is put together and the way we see the world nature doesn't operate like that and we have ethical concerns but there are also ethical concerns about what are the products being developed for what's the reason behind it is it for more company profits or is it to feed the starving millions for example so these were the kinds of ethical issues and the social impacts were what happens when some farmers choose to grow these crops and others don't how do the relationships change and shift who has more agency more options available to them who becomes more dependent on different organizations and so on so something like Mexico was an interesting case because they don't permit GMOs to be grown they don't permit GM maize to be grown that's because maize is really important to their culture the indigenous communities there have been growing maize for thousands of years and their creation stories actually say that they were born from maize they weren't made from Adam and Eve they were born from maize so it has this deep cultural significance and there was documentation that genetically modified DNA was getting into their traditional and native maize varieties and of course they didn't have the kind of scientific laboratory equipment in these small rural indigenous communities to check if GMOs were there they didn't have a worldview or a language that talked in terms of genes to be able to think about do we care if our crops of these ancient varieties are contaminated so there were kind of interesting social and cultural impacts in Mexico that we didn't see other places because it didn't have that deep significance whereas when we looked in Spain the impacts were social and economic the challenges for organic farmers to continue to survive when GMOs came into the scene and they were basically pushed out of certain areas it became impossible to do organic farming because of the requirements to keep contamination out which those kind of economic impacts weren't... that's not what we were seeing in Mexico where it was a more cultural impact and impact around agency and knowledge and dependence and that kind of thing The thing that you mentioned before was quite interesting in terms of Norway way early on already started to consider the socio-political ethical aspects of innovation what do you think made a country like Norway to be to have started looking at those things much earlier? Yes it's a really good question and i... i don't know i don't know is the answer
one of its previous prime ministers Gro Harlem Brundtland was very much involved in the development of the concept of sustainable development and Norway has a kind of pride in that and has therefore kind of adopted sustainability and sustainable development as an important part of its social and political discourse whether they're always great in practice is another question but so i think it was quite natural for them to say okay a potentially contested or a socially controversial new technology let's include this idea of sustainable development and of course it's also a very egalitarian society they really truly value this idea of trying to lift the bottom up and keep the top from getting too high and making sure everyone has a kind of more we have a more even society where there's free access to education and medicine i mean that is a genuine value that kind of surprised me when i moved from Australia i thought uh egalitarian societies it's something we say but we don't really try and implement in practice but i learned that Scandinavia is culturally different like that and i think that that can also make you sensitive to social impacts we're not okay with things creating big divides between sectors of society and therefore we want to take into account how this might play out in society how it might redistribute power or money or control or whatever we want to try and make sure that we're not giving certain groups a huge amount of advantage we want to try and make sure we're in a society where there is a baseline in which we want to maintain so i think that they have the sensibility to social utility and social impacts potentially because of that of that kind of egalitarian society value that they have It sounds like a more culturally embedded outlook isn't it do you find that therefore it is in every single aspect of society not just the way that the look at say innovation but also education workforce It's taught me a lot about what culture is and what culture means just moving internationally i think anyone who's done that or exposed you know you really there are these different these subtle differences that you don't recognize that have been part of your own culture until you're exposed to another which is again just really emphasizes if you're interested in social environmental or economic ethical aspects of innovation context really matters you can't say okay i'm an innovator i'm going to make a product and i'm going to consider its ethics and then release it globally because people in Malaysia are not going to feel the same way as people in the south of Spain or wherever the context really matters when you think about social ethical and environmental kind of dimensions of innovation And the other project that i found to be super interesting is your beekeeping project would you go through go into a little bit more about that project as well was it quite similar findings to the GM maize project The work we did with beekeepers was really interesting and it was sparked by a legal case that was brought in Europe so there was a beekeeper an amateur beekeeper in Germany who brought a case to the court in Bavaria because his honey had been contaminated with GMOs with genetically modified DNA that was through the pollen and the interesting thing was these GMOs were not approved in Germany so it was just a trial field site actually that had contaminated his honey hives and he thought that this was you know unacceptable so he took it to court and then it went all the way to the European Court of Justice who ultimately said well if you've got GMOs in your honey it should be labeled as a genetically modified food which then had these huge ramifications for the whole beekeeping industry in Europe which now had to test put money into testing is honey now containing GM pollen what level do i need to label it so there was massive economic demand suddenly placed on beekeepers and interestingly beekeepers are really dependent on farmers decision makings very often they don't own their own land they kind of move their hives around and to different kind of areas that are near farms and they're dependent on what the farmers decide and if farmers were choosing to plant GMOs then they would suddenly have to think about it and they had to do all this testing so we started thinking okay let's look into what are the impacts on beekeepers from GMOs and so on and the legal case got very interesting and it got redefined it depends if pollen is a constituent or an ingredient of honey so there was a big legal debate about that and this went on for years we were documenting that and looking into that but we were sort of really interested in the social and economic impacts now on beekeepers and ultimately in Europe there it turned out that they redefined pollen as constituent of honey rather than ingredients so you didn't have to label it in the same way there wasn't the same requirement because it would rarely pass the threshold for labeling of GMOs in honey but we were also then looking at both beekeepers in Spain and beekeepers in Uruguay just to see different markets their different contexts what are the impacts and what was interesting there is that in Uruguay there was primarily what they call roundup ready soy so soy beans designed to tolerate glyphosate and so you could spray them with this herbicide and they just keep growing while all the other plants die and this had led to a real change in agricultural systems in Uruguay they were growing they were no longer small family medium mixed farms they were becoming these really large farms often owned by foreign interests the chemical rates were going up and the beekeepers were really suffering so their bees were dying they were being pushed out to marginal areas because they were trying to avoid GM contamination in their honey but what was really interesting was that the bees they were dying but they weren't dying because of the GMO directly or necessarily because of the glyphosate directly or the roundup directly they were dying because they were starving there was literally no flowers left for the bees to eat so all the flowers that would normally grow around the edges or in between the rows were disappearing because you now have this technology or an innovation that looked great to a farmer because you could just spray over everything but it was terrible for the beekeepers they were losing their bees they were losing their markets because they couldn't export because they had high levels of glyphosate in their honey as well and because there was this risk of GMO contamination so when people think of impacts on agricultural actors from innovation in technologies they think of farmers primarily and so we were saying well you've got this other group that's really vulnerable because they depend on farmer decisions and they can't often decide what gets done but they're impacted and you've got these unexpected impacts when you look at regulation it's often asking does the technology kill a bee for example just to simplify and the regulation does some testing and says no the technology's safe for bees but then when you look in the field and the context of the practice that's required for that technology to work it's the context the system of practice that has the impact and that's not considered in the regulation very often and it's hard to do of course it's hard to consider that system of practice but in reality a GM crop or any other innovation doesn't exist outside of that relational network that makes it function in practice in reality so assessing it as if it exists in isolation or in a vacuum is really misleading it doesn't work like that in practice so the beekeepers really taught us about the importance of looking at the whole system and considering unexpected impacts considering vulnerable groups we really learned a lot from working with those actors actually Could you explain a little bit about the methods that you use to look at these kind of projects because it sounds quite complex right you got so many different stakeholders so many different things and of course technologies being disruptive or new it's very difficult to even start mapping out different issues could you work through...how do you start a project? I mean it's different in the different projects right and i'm quite eclectic and my team has been eclectic so the methods we use depend a lot on who's in the team who's doing the research what are our questions and what are your specialties what do you know what are we trying to access do we have the language do we have the skills do we have the time do we have the money so there are a lot of factors that feed into what methods you use often we're using a combination of social science and natural science methods but in these socio-economic impacts of a whole system they're often more social science that's things like interviews and ethnographic work and talking to people participating in their collectives and their group discussions and so on you might be monitoring literature in terms of their newsletters their conversations on blogs all of these kinds of things but it's engaging with the actors but we had a really interesting method that we used in a project called the agricultures project so we said we want to understand the difference between organic agricultural systems genetically modified agricultural systems conventional chemical systems and small scale agroecological that's a huge question okay let's start by mapping and we did what we called multi-sited ethnographic work and cartographies we went and we did a method that you can call "follow the thing" which means okay let's start with a maize seed and follow it where does it go how does it go from being how did it get to be a seed where did that come from who was involved and then you follow it through the whole farming system or the agricultural system and you think that's a farm and a supermarket but when you follow the maize seed there's so many places in between there's research and development sites there's the seed growing sites there are processing facilities drying facilities and all of these spaces in between so we were following it where does it go who do you meet there let's talk to the people that you meet there and we did that for all the four different systems so maize seed in these different systems and then we literally drew maps and we collected information at each of the what we were calling nodes so the farm was a node a drying facility was a node and we interviewed people we took pictures we took videos we made notes of what goes on there what were the issues we have a website called seed-links.com where we put all those maps up and you can go into the nodes and find the information that we uncovered so just collecting whatever you can along the way but for social impacts you have to talk to people you have to talk to them and you have to find ways to follow their conversations in various spaces not only the conversations they have with you directly in an interview where they might tell you things that they think you want to hear but follow their conversations through other means and methods and ways but of course the economic impacts that's a whole different set of methods and they're not ones i'm particularly familiar with but i've worked with colleagues who do more kind of economic analyses and looking at markets and market shifts and imports export changes and so on So you're currently working at the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) could you tell us a little bit about your work what does it involve maybe share some of the interesting projects that you are working on So i moved from being a leader of a research team with lots of projects to an intergovernmental organization which is this North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) so what the commission does is it provides advice to the governments of our member countries which is Norway Iceland Greenland and the Faroe Islands on the conservation and management of marine mammals which is seals and whales and in the provision of that advice we have to take the best available science into account but we also have to take user knowledge and hunters' knowledge into account my job is the Scientific Secretary so i have to receive from those member countries what their desires for advice are so they might have a species or an area or a request where they say please give us advice on minke whales in Norway we want to know how they're going how many could we potentially hunt because all of these countries hunt these animals as a local and sustainable food resource and often the advice begins around catch and harvest levels that are sustainable but of course these days there are so many issues that are affecting marine mammals in terms of climate change pollution noise disturbance from shipping and so on and we have to take all of these issues into account when we're giving management advice and my job is collate that advice to bring the scientists who are experts in that field together and have them meet and discuss the requests that we've had and deliver their advice and i have to write it up so they might meet for four or five days to discuss it and that could also be meetings over several years and the scientific secretary's job is to be the bridge between the science and the policy worlds and try and find ways to communicate and collate information across those two different communities i've never worked with marine mammals before if you look at my body of work around research and innovation governance and biotech and nanotech and sustainable food systems and responsible innovation you don't see anything on marine mammals but the skills of working across science and policy environments that i have and i also had experience trying to bring together the knowledge of local communities with scientific knowledge and trying to deliver that into a policy context and of course these issues of environmental management and environmental decision making there is a lot common there there are a lot of challenges in environmental decision making generally around how science ethics and politics interact and communicate that have proved to be transferable skills that i have You could see there were lots of similarities could you give some examples? Yes so absolutely i mean i think one of the things i've always been interested in is how environmental decision making is an really interesting blend and mix of science ethics and politics scientists often think it should be purely science politicians will often pretend it's purely politics and publics often hope that it's purely valued you know it's it's based on our ethics and our values and in practice it's this really interesting blend of all three of those and i was always interested in how that worked how we understood it how we got the best blend and communication and how we respected the fact that all of those three things are in play actually understanding that has been really valuable because i can see in my current position and in previous positions and all work with environmental decision making when you see those different communities vying for power you have that ability to say yes, we need a little bit of what you're doing we need science but we also need values and we also have to accept the realities of politics we have to make compromises we have to negotiate interests in decision making and so being able to not sit in one of those camps or not prioritize one of those camps and say let's find ways in which we bring this together and create space in which all of those voices can influence environmental decision making if you are a pure scientist i think you would struggle with understanding and including and making space for some of the more political or ethical aspects of decision making in policy you know with something like responsible innovation step number one recognize and understand diverse values and interests because i think that's the mistake that innovation has done in the past when i think about something like biotechnology where there was no recognition before releasing these things onto the market that there might be a different set of values or positions or interest around that innovation there was this is going to be great we're going to make money i'm going to release it and everything's going to be wonderful and then the pushback was surprising for many people in that industry just to say why are people so upset about this and that's not understanding that there can be diverse values and interests you can have conversations across value differences where you seeking to influence the other or change the other's mind or see if there's any scope for illuminating a path that might be different to what people are in but it's pretty rare that people change what they care about it really is that's the politics that's the compromise the negotiation the trade-off the challenges but i often prefer to see it as not the difficulty and not the challenge it's the creative opportunity because actually i can imagine and come up with things that are really novel and new that i would have never come up with on my own if i hadn't been confronted with different values and asked to amend what i'm doing to please a group who thinks really different to me so i can see that as that's a blockage it's stopping me i have to change their mind or oh wow i have to find a creative new space and i have to take a different path and i'm grateful for that i'm grateful for the opportunity to be creative to be novel to go in a new direction as long as you have a flexibility in your own way of thinking as an innovator i think you can really see it as a gift as a value you know but it's not easy you also have to potentially come to a point that you may not be able to satisfy a hundred percent of the people 100 percent of the time concrete example of something like that might be something with biotech where we say we're against biotechnology and people say well why what is it about it that's upsetting to you or why do you think it's unethical and then they say it's this crossing of boundaries between different kingdoms animal kingdoms plant kingdoms bacterial and so on okay so maybe we can do what we want to do without the crossing of kingdom is still biotech but does it make a difference if i do what's called cisgenics rather than transgenic so instead of inserting a bacterial gene into a potato maybe i just change something within the potato and i do it with high level biotech techniques but i do it in a slightly different way and you might find people say oh yes actually i'm a little bit more okay with that or people might say no i'm still not okay with that i want you to spend the next 20 years doing it kind of the old-fashioned way for the innovators it looks painful probably but if you step back and look at the trajectory of how biotechnology has developed as a field as a whole the techniques that are now being developed and now being used are in some ways a result of that public outcry and pushback so you might not have come up with something like genome editing if you hadn't had that pushback there's still pressure and attempts to change genome editing as well it's not like okay that's a perfect point no now let's think about how we shape that and that's what public protest does that's what regulation does and that's what all these soft types of governance do things like RRI where it's not regulation but it's still trying to shape and mold where we're going not because we're ever going to get to the perfect place where we've got perfect social and ethical harmony in our innovation systems but the pushback the navigation the kind of attempt to find common ground in solutions that's what's important Let's do an exercise let's say let me step into your shoes which means i can now look at emerging technologies with the critical eye right and let's just say it's Sunday i'm having my breakfast and i'm watching the news and i see that a commercial space company has landed on a planet somewhere apart from the technical achievement of being able to get there what else should i be looking at what else should i be thinking? One of the things that people working in RRI often talk about is anticipation anticipation horizon scanning future scenarios so one of the things you would want to do is okay what could this mean for a society as a whole or for life on earth what does it mean let's scan and imagine different kinds of futures and that could be well then we think we can just destroy planet earth because we've got now the possibility to expand into all these other planets or it might be that humanity splits and we suddenly "specie-fy" because some move and some stay and maybe then we have wars because some go and some stay or who gets to go how much money does it cost to go can everyone go is it only the rich who can go and that's playful you know that doesn't have to be real scenarios but you're projecting out into the future to anticipate where could this lead what could arise what could happen and i would say you would want to think about some of these classic things like power how does power get distributed who's going who gets to control this new innovation and populate that planet or decide what gets done there who gets to do that and is there a democratic process around who's involved or so on and so forth this kind of distribution of power and control and these are classic themes when you're looking at sort of social and ethical impacts i would say but also the the kind of narratives what stories are being told now that we've landed there what does it mean for humanity on earth that we now have this new capacity and we have this new technology and technique how does it change our understanding of who we are what's important what our future should look like the narratives of who we are and our place in the world and how the world works does any of that shift or change is anything illuminated there and maybe the shifted change is good it's not a good or bad but there are classic themes i would do If we have a look at all the emerging technologies that's coming out are there any particular ones that you are worried about? I mean it's funny my initial reaction is to say that i'm worried about all the emerging technologies coming out but that's because of the kind of person i am and i'm and i know many of them will bring wonderful changes in my life i mean i use a mobile phone i drive a car i mean i'm not you know i do use new technologies but there is a part of me that is always hesitant and that's just naturally who i am i think i feel i'm passionate about life on this planet i'm passionate about the diversity of life we have and planet earth and the future of life on earth and there is a hesitancy in me around emerging technologies which i... but i recognize that is also problematic you know it's something that i do reflect on because i think if we want to actually make a difference in terms of the future of life on earth we need innovation we desperately need it if we're going to move into a more sustainable and resilient future we have to find new ways of living the lives that we're currently used to so we do need innovation so i am trying to open up my mind and say if we hope for a better future for life on earth we're going to need all our creative capacities and all our innovative capacities and there will be emerging technologies that are useful there but things like the role of artificial intelligence and algorithms and the mapping and the kind of ability to monitor our societies and monitor our movements and our interactions and target things more specifically to who we are and what we might want and what we might want to purchase and buy and that makes me deeply uncomfortable but i'm sure there's potential in there as well and this is why i need to be exposed to people with different values to mine to highlight to me the values of some of these technologies i've also been very skeptical to biotechnology in the past when i've done all my research i've been thinking this is not taking us in a direction that is valuable for the future of life on earth because the agricultural systems that they've helped perpetuate have been so monocultural and so destructive that i've been very skeptical on that but i am i'm excited to see what possibilities there are with genome editing but i'm yet to be convinced that it's going to help us shift our systems of agriculture we need systems that are diverse and supporting diverse life but it's interesting i am just generally internally skeptical towards emerging technologies but that's why i love studying them and working with people and innovators who are genuinely excited by them it's valuable to me to see to hear their perspectives and see their side Even though you had a variety of different roles over the last 15 years plus there's clearly a consistency in terms of all these roles are focused on environmental sustainability why this area in particular? Yes it's a good question um i have said in the past that i think it's because i was given the name Fern and because i was always asked as a child oh does that mean your parents are hippies and i always thought what is a hippie they care about nature and the environment so it's kind of a nominal determinism my parents called me fern and that turned me into someone who became a kind of environmentalist in a way i mean i grew up on a research station and a farm and i was surrounded more by plants and animals than i was by other people and so i just had this deep love of nature and had it always and then studied kind of ecology and political science and ecology just taught me where we're all interconnected it's one little blue marble in the vast expanses of space and we all share it we have this one home and in it when you look from space down at this little blue bubble that some is how is floating there full of all our life we're not we're not separate we're not somehow superior or... we're all entangled and our fate is entangled and just how spectacular this planet is i'm fascinated by all the diverse forms of life that have arisen on this little blue bubble you look around a praying mantis is a fascinating thing a penguin is a fascinating thing a maize plant is an incredible thing and that we're all here it seems so precious and we're losing we're losing biodiversity every single day people are very concerned about climate change right now but i wish people were even more concerned about biodiversity loss we are losing forms of life on this planet every single day and that's happening right now that's not a future impact that's present right now and we're all interdependent we're losing that magic we're in the sixth mass extinction that humanity is kind of perpetuating and that just seems seems criminal you know that we're letting these forms of life not just letting them but facilitating their loss from this planet and that just seems a loss from our ourselves our broader identity you know our identity as as a planet we're becoming less rich, less beautiful, less magical i want to fight for it so i think it's my name it's my studies in ecology it's my growing up on a farm and it's just the gift and the privilege i've had to travel the world and see so much biological and cultural diversity that i've realized how precious that is too and how magical that is and so i wanted to work with that in the work that i do i wanted to try and advance sustainability on this planet and resilience for sure Then what is the one thing that you think could help do that if you had one message for people or would that be? One message? hmm...
that's so difficult it's a good question but it's difficult what would make a real difference i mean the thing that i've in my research the thing that i've consistently been passionate about is how we feed ourselves the impact of our food production systems on our planet is enormous it has an impact on biodiversity on water on pollution chemical pollution and other forms of pollution on habitat destruction what we eat and how we feed ourselves is crucial and i think if people really took the time to reflect over what they put in their mouth and it's interesting because it's your basic relationship with nature how you feed yourself is that it's the foundation how you relate to nature and people we do it if you're lucky in an industrialized society you'll feed yourself at least three times a day probably more and yet we don't often think about where does it come from who developed it how is it impacting the planet how is it impacting me is it building the kind of world i want when i put my money into this food item is that building the kind of world that i want and i think if people who are more aware and reflective over the food that they put into their mouth and the impact that had on the planet it could make a huge difference because people care and they want a planet that is sustainable and that is treating animals with dignity and so on and yet that often doesn't spin back into something they that everybody does multiple times a day it's so widespread and has such an impact so if people could think carefully about what they put in their mouths and what they invest their money in i think it could make a huge difference Wonderful! Thank you so much for your time and i hope we get to speak again soon. Thank you. Yes thank you so much for the opportunity