Carmel Williams  0:10  
My name is Carmen Williams and I had the privilege of speaking with you all yesterday. I come from the Centre for Health in all Policies research translation, which is the multi-institutional centre situated in Health Translation SA, in summary that the Health and Medical Research Council, but it's affiliated with the University of South Australia, University of Adelaide and the university, Flinders University. So I'm really pleased to be joining you for this last, the last plenary session of the 2021 HEAL conference. Has is it been a stimulating and really enjoyable two days, you know, I've learned so much. I think we've been exposed to lots of rich ideas, really challenging issues, and I think emerging potential solutions, which hopefully we can continue to build on, as the HEAL conference and network grows and expands. So this afternoon session, this last session of the conference is really to draw our attention to the need to translate much of the research that we've been discussing over the last two days and capture that energy, and to translate it into policy and practice, which really results in delivering on the ground impact for both our environment and our communities. And today we're joined by four panellists from different regions across Australia, South Australia, WA, Northern Territory, and Victoria. And each of them will be sharing with you examples of how research has been translated, or because it's a difficult thing to do, has begun to be translated into policy and practice, and to hopefully generate this on-the-ground impact that we're each, that we're all looking for. I'd like to start by introducing Sarah Brown, who's the CEO of Purple House from the Northern Territory. Sarah, can I please ask you to take the floor?

Sarah Brown  2:09  
Sure. Hi, everyone. Thank you very much for having me this afternoon. I'd like to acknowledge that I'm on Mparntwe Arrernte Country in Alice Springs and I feel like a bit of a fraud because I think I've got more queries and concerns than I actually have fabulous answers for translation of research. However, I think that the case study of Purple House as a whole is a really interesting one that can show the opportunities when a group of people are able to come up with their own model of care, and be able to prove that there are advantages to it. So I thought I'd just spend a few, and I know we've only got a few minutes each, a few minutes just telling you the story of the Purple House and then maybe just highlighting a few of the challenges, particularly in the climate change area for us. So my bosses, our directors, Pintupi Luritja people from the western desert. So Kintore is seven hours drive west of here, except you can't get out there today because there's been rain and the roads have been closed for a number of days, and Pintupi people we have people within our family of directors and members and patients who walked in from the desert in 1984, 1985 to Kiwirrkurra having never seen white fellas before, never worn clothes, never been in a car. Our story starts when, in the 1990s, people started to get diagnosed with end stage renal failure, and were told that they couldn't stay on their own Country, that they would have to move to Alice Springs for dialysis three times a week for the rest of their lives. And some people were doing that but they were really struggling. English was their sixth or seventh language, they had no real experience of the hospital system, and all their identity, all their value, all the things that they valued were about being on a piece of country with a particular group of people. And so people were doing very poorly on dialysis and dying very prematurely. So Pintupi People went knocking on the doors of the politicians and asked for some help to get a dialysis machine and Kintore. At the time, there wasn't really any dialysis outside the hospitals in the NT and so the politicians told them that they were dreaming and to bugger off. 21 years ago, they had an auction at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, and painted some beautiful collaborative paintings, raised a million dollars in one night. Carrie Stokes bought the Kiwirrkurra mens painting for $340,000. And what that did was it gave people an opportunity to come up with their own model of care, because it wasn't government money, no one could tell people how to spend it. So they formed a kidney committee who were family for dialysis patients and they started to research what it would take to do dialysis in the most remote part of Australia, and how they could combine those worlds: the world of family and country and mutual obligation, and looking after each other with the white fella world of dialysis and tablets and risk management and clinical governance. And over the years, we've developed this model, which does quite successfully combine those two worlds, and dialysis patients walk into our services for dialysis and to see a GP and to get their feet done or pick up their tablets. But they're also coming to plan their trips home, to see a **non-Kuria** traditional healer, and to pick up some bush medicine, and all, that all those things work together seamlessly to help people with their health and well being. And so I guess what we, what started as the cube kidney committee doing their own research, with their lived experience of what it took to stay well and then adding the white fella hospital of how to stay alive if your kidneys were no good, turned into this model of care, which has three main goals: Ngurra, being on country, is in the middle of everything; then helping people to have a good life, the best life possible, whatever that means to people; and the third circle is **Jukururu wankanjaka**, which means doing things the right way. And in people's heads that's doing things the right way, culturally, but it's also about doing things the right way clinically, and for people who donate money to us. So it's become a really sophisticated model of care. And certainly one of the big challenges for us, these days, is our changing climate. And the fact that water resources in the desert are becoming more insecure, and and that the temperatures are rising. And so our directors are incredibly worried about trying to use Western technology to reduce our impact on the environment. Dialysis takes a lot of water, but also helping their communities to be able to future proof themselves so that they don't become climate refugees in capital cities. So we've got a lot of challenges. And on top of that, as you would know, Aboriginal people are the most researched, poked-about people on the planet and our directors are really wanting to be able to direct research, learn research skills themselves and beenin in the driving seat, not the passenger and on the research four wheel drive. They've got some things that they really need to sort out. If people are not able to be back on Country because of climate, because of dialysis, then they can't pass on their cultural knowledge to the next generation. And if it's lost to those families and those communities, then it's also lost to all of us because you need the right people, in the right place, at the right time for that transference of cultural knowledge. So there are lots of challenges. But our directors approach those challenges with an enormous generosity of spirit and our willingness to learn and grow and make the best of what they've got. And I think I've run out of time.

Carmel Williams  9:46  
Thank you so much, Sarah. That was really, really very helpful and it's such a wonderful story. And just to kind of briefly touch on some of the kind of the research translation enabling factors that I think you covered when you were talking. I mean, the idea of flexibility having to work, having to have systems that are flexible. And obviously your story drove that flexibility, having the families available, they've sorted themselves. And then I think this sustained engagement, and I think lived experience, obviously, you know, having the people that are affected actually driving and being in the decision making seat is really important. And all of those things are kind of emerging enabling factors in the research, policy, translation space. So thank you very much for your time. If you can stay on the line, that'll be great. But as we move through the rest of the panellists, if we have time, we'll have some questions. Thanks very much. I'd like now to move on to our second speaker, which is Jamie Yallup Farrant. There's a feedback happening. And Jamie is going to be talking to us from the Climate Justice Union and from Western Australia. Jamie, can I ask you to take the floor, please?

Jamie Yallup Farrant  11:07  
Hi, everyone. I'm just checking sound because we have quite a few tech issues here. So can somebody online just indicate that they can hear okay?

Carmel Williams  11:16  
Yes, we can hear you well. Thanks, Jamie.

Jamie Yallup Farrant  11:19  
Okay, great. So my name is Jamie Yallup Farrant and I am Zooming in from Boorloo, which is Perth, on Whadjuk Nyoongar Country. And as we know, always was, and always will be the Lands of the Whadjuk Nyoongar people. And I'm speaking from two places during this session, one as the convener of the Climate Justice Union, which is a member based organisation that works to restore a stable climate while taking care of people in place. And then my other hat that I'm wearing, as someone who's been working in the, sorry, I'm looking at people in the room, and I just got told to look at you, which is actually looking at me, which is very confusing. So the other, so you're just gonna have a look on my chin. So the other role is as someone who's been working in the space of climate and health for many years, and have been co-facilitating a community of practice here in WA around time and health. And when I look back at the lessons, we've learned a few things that seem important. So the firstly, building on some of what Sarah was just sharing there, is relationships. So everything in this work depends on and relies on good relationships. And these take time, they take care, and they take resources. And when you base your work on relationships, you're basing your work on the humans in the work. And as humans, we know we have a lot going on. So that becomes a part of the work, and a part of, and is totally relevant to the outcomes you're creating. We also know that this is a decolonized relationship to relationships. So we're talking about reciprocity and reciprocal relationships, not extractive relationships. These relationships between individuals and organisations are where transformational change occur. We also know that we need, yesterday the term boundary spanners was used and someone sent me a message to say, Jamie, your boundary spanner and I felt like a tool. But I think what they meant was bridge builders, those that can bridge between different cultures and when we think of the analogy of bridge builders, we have to take care of the bridge builders, many times people build a bridge from one community to another or from one culture to another. And people walk across that bridge, and they do the work and they create the results. And they forget the bridge was ever there, and the bridge can get tired. So we need to make sure that we're taking care of those bridge builders and those boundary spanners. Secondly, so first is relationships. Secondly, we want to make sure that we've got good processes. So if this works to be truly impactful and transformational and create change, we need good processes. So what do I mean by that? Everything. We need to make sure that people are remunerated for their work, if they're not, if they're here as part of their lived experience. We need to make sure, just like today that people can actually get parking in the venue that they're coming to. We need to make sure that people are provided the food that they need. We need to make sure that things are accessible to fit folks. We need to make sure that not only are people with lived experience, remunerated and provided with the resources that they need to participate at a level that they feel comfortable with. But we also need to ensure that if we're working with advocacy organisations, we're providing them with the resources so they can participate. Right now, our advocacy organisations are absolutely done. They're beyond stretched, and we want more and more from them. So we need to make sure that remuneration follows and resources follow that. We also need to look at decision making: who gets to make the decisions? How are they made? Are they transparent? Is it democratic? What is the accountability process in those decisions? And how is the community and communities involved in making those decisions? And how do you address, finally oh. Sorry. I'll get to that in a minute, and then timelines. So one of the projects we were working on the board and the researchers and the funders had a really clear timeline that they wanted to address. And it didn't work for the community. And it didn't work for the unions were working with. And there was this moment where they were like, no, no, the launch needs to be on this day. And some of our stakeholders said, feel free, the researchers can launch on that date, nobody will be in town. And so we had to go back to the organisation. And we had to say, that date doesn't work. And luckily, the researchers had the courage to stand up to their board, they had the courage to stand up to the funders. And they had to say, actually, the timeline needs to change for the community. And in that circumstance, it worked. But we all know circumstances where that's not happened. So timelines need to be defined by those that are in the process, and those that are supposed to be benefiting from those processes. And how do we balance that with outcomes and funding and all of the other things. And then finally, we want to look at power. So when it comes to climate, this work is about power, not renewable energy power or fossil fuel power, but the power to influence change. So speaking truth to power, building collective power, creating consensus and new stories. Are we sharing power and opening doors and then bringing other people with us through that door? Or is it about our own power, our own influence? Are we maintaining the status quo? Are we actually kind of rocking that boat if that's what's needed? Are we working to secure our own funding, our own research, our own roles? Are we actually challenging unhealthy established power dynamics? So this work is full of tensions. It's hard, and sometimes it's really hard. And it can have a significant impact on our emotional health and our well being. So I'm going to wrap up with something I'm practising, and this has been gifted to me by an Elder that I work with Noel Nannup, who's also part of this work, and Noel shares about the importance of the concept **Danjou, Dabba Can, Dabba Can**. Together, steady, steady. However, when it comes to climate change, it's down to **Dabba Cam, Dabba Cam, Kurrkin.** It's together, steady, steady, but a bit quickly. Thank you.

Carmel Williams  17:23  
Oh, I love that Jamie. That's wonderful together, steady, steady, but a bit quickly. And it was really lovely to hear about you introducing the issue of collective power and shifting power dynamics, which is so important in research policy translation. Because really, policy is really very tightly tied to politics and power. So it's really, really great to have that showcase today. And now I'd like to move on to our third panellist, Professor Phil Weinstein from the School of Public Health at the University of Adelaide. And we'll be looking forward to hearing what Phil has to say. Can I give you the floor now, Phil?

Phil Weinstein  18:03  
Thank you. So I'm just screen-sharing so people can see my PowerPoints. Okay, excellent. So that's me. And I'd like to ask two questions. Is biodiversity exposure good for your health? And does the evidence inform policy and practice? And they're sort of, at this stage of the day, you can probably guess the rhetorical question, if you need to go and have drinks, the answers are yes. And yes. Let me substantiate those yeses with three sort of very brief looks at a theoretical framework, one research example a case study, and illustration of how that research is actually translated into policy and practice. So the framework I like to use is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which has it that any functioning ecosystem is obviously dependent on the biodiversity that makes up that ecosystem. And it provides services which people are probably familiar with reading about, most obviously, provisioning services. Without food and water, we all die. But more interesting, perhaps from ecological perspective is disease suppression. And we've seen how when that goes wrong, we've got pandemics for example. So this framework has been criticised for being too anthropocentric, which is true, but nothing is a stronger advocacy tool than a sick voter. So in terms of trying to free up resources, Treasury interest, if you like, in providing funding for ecosystem health and human health concurrently, it's quite a powerful way of mechanistically linking ecosystem health and human health. And that mechanistic link, I summarise very simply as follows. If we have an environmental change, such as illustrated here, you cut down the forest, you lose the biodiversity and that disease regulating service, one of the ecosystem services provided by a functioning, biodiverse ecosystem, that regulating services lost and lo and behold, you get human disease outbreak. The most recent thinking around this, as other people have discussed at this conference is around microbiomes. And when we urbanise, the ecosystem change is one of moving us away from the traditional ecological environmental exposures that we are adapted to. And that can result in exactly the same way in this case, it's microbial diversity loss, we lose that exposure to microbes in the environment that train the immune system and that can, in part, at least contribute to the increase in autoimmune diseases, allergies, infections, etc. As you can see, in Singapore here, there's a couple of trees, but not the sort of exposure that you might like. This is the work of Craig Liddicoat, which is the case study I wanted to talk about. Craig has presented separately at this conference on other aspects of his work. And there's a reference if you want to look at more detail of that work. But in a nutshell, what he showed by looking at a range of environmental variables on the y axis here, against hospitalizations. So more hospitalizations on the right here, the adverse effect, fewer hospitalizations on the left. And as you would expect, obesity and socioeconomic status are top of the list, that basically shows you know the model is working. That's as we would expect. The surprise perhaps is that coming in at numbers three and four, are vegetation diversity, which is protective of respiratory health: so fewer hospital admissions with respiratory problems if you live in a biodiverse green environment, and distance to coast. Similarly, the closer you are to the coast, the better your health outcomes. So to me that says yes, is my first question. Is biodiversity exposure, good for your health? Yes, it improves respiratory health, there are fewer hospital admissions, if you have that biodiversity exposure. Does that evidence inform policy practice enough? Are we improving the health of ecosystems to which people are exposed or getting more people exposed to them? And I think the answer is yes. So if you look at an amazing summary of the evidence linking healthy Ecosystems and Biodiversity exposure, greenspace exposure, to positive human health outcomes, that was done for South Australia in a Healthy Parks, Healthy People programme, which Carmel led, and it was signed off by both Ministers of Health and Environment. I think in a sort of very innovative acknowledgment that these two things are inextricably linked. And all of the literature from all of the seven key areas were summarised in that report as a policy document, this is what South Australia should be doing. This is how these systems should work for health and human health. And the little study I've referred to that Craig did is just fading into this bottom point here: biodiversity, just as one example of you know, as university researchers are always guilty or you publish the paper and does it then go anywhere. In this case, we're pleased to say yes, it's fed into this enormous summary of the literature, that is then a policy document of how to improve both the health of the ecosystem and human health concurrently in South Australia. How has that translated into practice? And again, the answer is yes. Green Adelaide is an organisation funded and set up by the state government, specifically to rehabilitate ecosystems, plant trees, improve wetlands, to achieve a cooler, greener, wilder climate-resilient Adelaide which is, again is good for biodiversity conservation, as well as human health. So, I've given you an example of where a little piece of university research has fed into a giant policy summary. And that's awareness that that policy summary has created, has led to direct changes in practice implementation of on the ground restoration to improve ecosystems and human health in Adelaide. And hot off the press. Only three days ago, in fact, the state government announced $5 million to transform the River Torrens into a healthier ecosystem, again, benefiting both wetlands, biodiversity in them and the humans that are exposed to those environments. So research can inform policy, which can translate into practice. The key is to keep talking. If the researchers keep talking to the policy makers, keep talking to the practitioners, we can get somewhere. Thank you very much.

Carmel Williams  26:16  
Thanks, Phil, I really appreciate that. It's lovely to have Healthy Parks, Healthy People shared today. And also, I just want to kind of reinforce the really critical role of relationships, which picks up on what Jamie was saying earlier that relationships are at the heart of, I can't get my camera to go on, which is very annoying. And relationships are at the heart of all research policy translation partnerships. And it's been a really great relationship to work with the Healthy Parks, Healthy People team. It's a great pleasure now to introduce our fourth and final speaker and we really looking forward to hearing from Billie. I'd like to introduce Distinguished Professor Billie Giles-Corti. She's the director of healthy livable cities lab from RMIT from Melbourne. Billie, can I hand the floor to you?

Billie Giles-Corti  27:10  
Thanks so much. So first of all, we've you know, we've had a lot of impact. We. I moved to Melbourne in 2011 and I was invited to be involved in plan Melbourne 2014 and we were able to write the health and well being sections. And what I would like to call this now is my scholarship contributed, that wasn't necessarily my research, I brought together everyone else's research. But we got a great result. 20 minute neighbourhood, we didn't suggest that someone else did. But we did have set a direction which was about neighbourhoods that support safe communities and healthy lifestyles and we provided all the background information for that and help write the sections. Although the policymakers did a brilliant job of turning academic speak into a policy which was great. Our definition of livability, which incorporates environmental sustainability was adopted by the health and wellbeing plan for the state in both the early version 2015 and then the more recent ones. So our definition which has been driving our research, we've been benchmarking and monitoring livability in Melbourne and across Australia, and that's now being, that was picked up by the state government. The livability indicators have been used by local government. They've been using that to create more livable communities, local government in Victoria are required by the state government to look to the health and well being plan to drive their decision, to make their municipal health plans. So what was in the public health plan was really important because that influenced local government to look to it to think about what it should be doing and livability came up and a number of councils have used our indicators. Our indicators have gone into the national performance framework for the federal government. The federal government has 21 cities that over 80% of people live in 21 cities in Australia. And so we've provided in some of our indicators, four or five of them have been ended up in the national cities Performance Framework. We've provided those. And we've been involved in incorporating the precinct structure plans, which actually determined how we build new neighbourhoods in Victoria, that's just gone through a revision. And we've been involved in some of our evidence, not just ours, but other people's evidence as well, has been incorporated in that because we had a seat at the table. And the 20 Minute neighbourhood, which is the concept which was mentioned back in 2014, has suddenly now has been implemented. And a lot of the metrics that came from our research programme have been incorporated into the 20 Minute neighbourhood, along with other people's research as well, because they didn't just use ours, but a number of our research studies included there. Now the question is how did that happen? And Phil raise some of these issues. And I think it's really important for this network to think about that. There's lots of research and there's little take up so if you ask yourself the question how many papers are published every year, and how much of that is Translated into policy and practice? Well, there's annually there's about 1.8 million papers published annually. That was in 2012, probably more now. And only 50% of those papers are read by the authors and the journal editors. That's pretty sobering. 50% are read by the authors and the journal editors. That's pretty sobering. So why is there a gap between research policy and practice? And this was a question that drove me to look at this because I wanted to not tell policymakers, you know, their jobs, but to add something different to it to actually make them want to work with my team. And our our research because we were doing something relevant. And that was, that's what drove me to look at the literature. First of all, what you discover, when you look at the literature is policymakers and practitioners are on different planets. Robert Moodie wrote it where different worlds collide, talking about policymakers and practitioners. Brownson, Rob Brownson talks about travellers in parallel universes. And so what you get the impression is that researchers are over here, and the policymakers over here, and never the twain shall meet, except if we have the bridge builder, the boundary builders, the boundary spanners, the bridge builders, I call them knowledge brokers. So how do we close this gap about what we know and what's implemented? Well, there's a paper that we published in 2015, about translating Active Living research. It wasn't, it wasn't climate change research, but around how do we get this translated into policy and practice? And what was an important way pathway to chronic disease prevention, of course, what's good for chronic disease, it's also good for the sustainability of the planet. So there's very much good relationship here. So first of all, what kept became clear to me, and what has driven my research is understanding the policy environment. So our team has done a lot of policy analysis work. When we start something we that's the starting point, what is the what's going on in policy? And how and what are the requirements of the policy? Are there any quantitative standards, but that's what drives my research. But I'm not suggesting everyone does that. But I think understanding the policy environment is really important to understand what's the context to raise it, and it's really, really important, the one thing that they're saying literature about what chat translate, why we get research translation is when there is relationships between policymakers and practitioners and researchers, and where there's an established joint research agenda. So it's been wonderful today, having so many policymakers participating in the discussions in each of the states. That's brilliant. That's exactly what we need. And we need to build those relationships. So you end up with trusting relationships that respect one another, because that's the other thing that came out of that review, is what happens is that researchers don't trust or respect policymakers and vice versa. We're often seen as, you know, way with fairies, not understanding the policy environment, not practical in the way we do things. And sometimes all we need to do is change what we do, you know, five degrees either way, and it makes it suddenly relevant. So it's really important to build these relationships and to and to build mutual relationships, trusting relationships with policymakers. It's really important to understand, to undertake policy relevance search and understand the policy implications and the way that we've done that is work in multidisciplinary teams. It's not that we can be an expert in everything, but we do work in multidisciplinary teams with sectors outside of health. So I work with planners, I work with transport planners, urban planners, transport planners, architects, and having them on the team really helps understand. It helps me understand what the policy environment isn't, what the what the implications are, and also actually the policy makers themselves. So we present back there as bindings to them to actually understand what the policy implications are, we incorporate that into our papers. Understand, undertaking studies that are relevant to policymakers. And one of the things of course, in this area and climate change area, is really setting up some natural experiments to put in the early warning systems when things are not going well. I think this is going to be really critical for us as we try things out. We saw today in Victoria, a natural experiment of housing installation, and that's fantastic. But sometimes that's not possible and one of the areas we're talking about, but natural experiments that benchmark and monitor how things change over time. And importantly, I think, look at whether or not the policies are being implemented as intended. But Economic Studies, understanding the needs of the community is really critical, because it's what policymakers need to make the studies as to make policy as relevant as possible. Disseminating through multiple channels, not just writing a paper and having it in an academic paper, but looking at the multiple ways of doing that. We often produce policy briefs, we go and give talks in policy forums. And so it's not just sitting in our offices at university, but really being out there. And we find it really useful to work in partnership with knowledge brokers, advocates and lobbyists. So in in my own work, I've worked a lot with the Heart Foundation, the Planning Institute of Australia, because they're the ones that are taking, amplifying what we do, there's only so much we can do as academics. But having people work with us is really critical, because they take it another step further. And then of course, the other thing that we ,that the literature suggests is that there's needs to be research training, to policymakers and vice versa. Actually, I think we can learn so much from working with policymakers about issues about policymaking, it's really important. So doing that now, I wouldn't just want to add a couple of other things. And that is to say that there needs to be things done on the other side, I think this is critical. We need to know what the, if we want research translated, we need to know what the priorities are of the funding of the bodies that the researchers sorry, the policy organisations that we're working with, it's really important to communicate that. And there needs to be this fostering of collaboration between the researchers and policy makers. So this needs to come from the policymakers side, identifying, providing funding opportunities, communicating what the priorities are, and making available research assets so that we can actually use that for research. We also need to, within in their organisations looking at facilitating the use of research within organisations, we've just seen that with Carmel when she was working in the bureaucracy. It was really there was a there was a philosophy about using evidence to drive policy and really important, then there needs to be the act of promotion, of the use of research and to policy and practice and then ensures, ensuring that if a government organisation is commissioning research, that there are, this is coming out of New South Wales Health actually, this is what they do. They actually they asked the team members who are commissioning the research, what are the research Translation strategies that are coming from it, promoting the how evidence is using policymaking and commissioning evidence reviews, scholarship to inform policymaking? So not necessarily to generate new research. There's lots of things we already know what to do. But using that evidence. Is it guaranteed? No, not really, it's not guaranteed at all. But what's important is that when, what we need to do is to be involved, or to have the policy window open up. So our policy windows opens up, and we, Kingdon talks about this, is problem. There's a proposal, there's politics that come into changing policy. But what we need to make sure we do I think as HEAL is to be ready. When those policy windows do open up, I've got a there's a window. So and we need to involve, obviously, the community. Community is critical. They will highlight the problems, they will identify the proposals and they help shape the politics. So involving and working closely with community is critical. So thank you, oh, by the way, if some of the research that we've done, which might be of interest to people just to see what we've done as creating livable cities report, I just want to thank the funders and also the the Australian Urban observatory houses all the indicators that we have developed for 21 cities across the country.

Carmel Williams  38:01  
Thanks, Billie, that was really fantastic. And I think you know, as a previous policymaker, the way that you summarise the tensions, and the opportunities present in the research policy relationship is spot on. And, and yes, we all need to be ready for when those windows of opportunity present, we need the evidence and the policy brief in our bottom drawers to be able to get the Minister to sign it when, when they're ready and looking for a good news story. So let me just wind up I want to thank each of our amazing panellists for their really great insights and examples of your strategies and mechanisms and you know, how some of them are working and how we've got much more to do in this challenge of translating research into on the ground impact. And I think in the interest of time, again, I'd like to thank all the panellists.