Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Thanks for inviting me here today.
And today, I want to take you on a little bit of an adventure.
It's a personal adventure to be quite honest.
I was going to start the talk by asking you a question
but I thought that was a little unfair so early on.
So before I ask you to give me something,
I'm going to give you a little bit of something of myself
in return, a little exchange.
Now, are we in mid as we are?
That's great.
So a little bit about me as a way of introduction,
when I was in my early 20s, I used to live here,
this was in Israel and my job was in a dog yard and it was
to make cages of the dogs.
And after a period of time, I was able to progress
up the ladder to the dog trainer.
Here is me with a Rhodesian Ridgeback teaching it not
to eat the chicken on that occasion.
[Laughter] I moved then and became a full time climber.
I spent most of the time in the Alps but then went
to live in South America.
And I tried to just to be testing equipment.
We were writing articles for magazines.
At a certain, I was a bit unsure about putting this in.
I wondered if it looked a bit like a 1980s boy band
or something [laughter].
For those, that's me in my younger days.
I moved in to Australia and I lived in the Outback
and I worked on the Flying Doctor Flights and my job was
to make a piece of equipment that we could fly
out into the aboriginal settlements to work
out the amount of tuberculosis in the aboriginal populations.
We used to drive around in this Land Cruisers with a kit
and it was an incredible adventure.
And I love adventures which is why I'm going to talk
about this trip today as an adventure.
I left Australia and I came to UCL.
I did a PhD here and I did my postdoc.
And it was one day during my postdoc
that I got a telephone call from a TV company.
And quite simply they said, "We want you
to go in search of genius."
I was up in a bit of a bad day with the MRI scanner
so the thought of just trying to tackle genius,
let alone my scanner was at the time nearly beyond me
but there was a certain sense of adventure
that I fancied in this.
And the first thing that you need if you're going to search
of genius is ideally a genius and quite conveniently
at that time I-- there was a rumor
that Einstein's brain still existed.
And this was a fascinating rumor to me.
One of the early questions that came up between myself
at a chat called Jim Al-Khalili, someone on this adventure
with was rather genius, was biological
or whether it was cultural.
This is the question I want to put to you guys,
I want you to imagine this scenario.
It's now 1905, Einstein's in a shed at the bottom
of the garden, he's worked tirelessly for three months
and has expended all his energies, loss tons of weight,
he just pens those three marvelous papers.
And what would've happened if he'd never published them?
He'd written them all down, but he never published those papers.
They'd never come out into the culture at that time.
Now I want you to raise your hand
on whether you think he would still have been classed
in your eyes as a genius if he done all the work,
but he'd never published the papers.
Then I'll ask of course, for those people think
that genius is only when that information comes
out into the culture at the time.
So if you still think that Einstein would've been a genius
if he'd written all the papers but never published them
that they have never come out since the public arena.
Do you think he would still have been classed this remarkable
genius in your eyes?
Put your hands up if you think he would still have been
a genius.
That's probably, about 50 percent of the audience.
And if you only think he would've been a genius
in your eyes if that information had come out into the culture
that time, put your hands up.
It's probably slightly less.
I used to be with you first guys at one time, 'cause the idea
as a neuro scientist, if genius somehow is embodied
within the biology, within the brain,
that's a great avenue for research.
If it's culturally dependent,
it's a nightmare to try and analyze.
However, I changed my views over the course of this program
and I'm going to show you a clip
from this 'cause it emphasized the endless debate
between myself and Jim Al-Khalili on this topic.
It also is a little [inaudible] to be quite honest.
You know, it's great being a scientist sometime.
Okay, so the adventure had started, but it wasn't really
until I met this guy, that the story starts.
This is Thomas Harvey who was a pathologist.
And in 1955, the day that Einstein died,
he gets a telephone call to come down to the mortuary.
He comes down and what he sees is the dead body of Einstein.
Now at that time in '55, everybody knew Einstein.
He was globally famous even at that moment in time.
Thomas Harvey thought this is going
to be a remarkably especial autopsy.
He described to me just the Y incision in the chest,
he opens up the chest and what he found is
that Einstein had this dilated aorta, an aneurism which burst
which the why he died.
And that time, they always opened up the head,
they removed the brain.
Essentially incision, they two halves.
And then there's that moment, it's that moment
when this young pathologist probably wanting
to get up that a little bit.
He's holding Einstein's brain; this is the brain
that changed everything about our world.
I mean, what would you do?
Would you maybe take it home, put it on you mantlepiece,
you know, [inaudible] around.
Or would you as you're supposed to put it back into the head,
stitch the head up and send the body off for cremation?
Well he didn't do that.
He was opportunistic.
He took the brain and he took it home.
[Laughter] Unbelievable, I know.
These were the first photographs that were taken hours
after he'd removed the brain.
He removed the brain and then he sliced it
into 240 pieces labeling each point, each piece,
and marking that on a map that he detailed.
The family went berserk [laughter], not surprisingly.
The executor of the will went berserk.
The hospital went berserk.
Years later, he lost his job over this.
It was an incredible cross to bear this brain
and he disappeared and the brain disappeared with it.
He was classed by many as a grave robber
and this why I'll argue that I don't think this is the case.
There are collectors, I think it was in the 90s,
they were offering round about 10,
15 thousand dollars per individual slice
of Einstein's brain.
And if you imagine, it was 240 pieces to start with,
each of this could be readily sliced into 100 small sections,
10 thousand dollars per one of this,
it's invaluable, this brain.
This brain was worth an unbelievable amount
of money, 240 million dollar.
Yet when I met him, his last job was in a plastic molding firm,
he wasn't a doctor anymore, he was virtually pennyless,
but he carried this brain with him continuously.
The question was, which is what I post him, where is the brain?
By the time we'd reach him, he'd actually given the brain
to somewhere else which was a bit of a trauma
after spending two and a half years trying
to track this guy down.
But the brain had gone as our journey led us to this woman.
This is Marian Diamond who works in Berkeley, California.
And in 1985, she received
through the post a craft mayonnaise jar with 4 pieces
of Einstein's brain and a letter, "Dear Marian,
4 pieces of Einstein's brain, could you investigate this?
Thomas Harvey."
She couldn't believe her luck.
Marian at that time was involved in looking at glial cells,
and she found that if you put rats in enriched environments,
there are more glial cells.
And she developed lots of neuronal stains
and I'm sure Thomas Harvey knew about this work
which is why he sent the pieces to Marian.
She sectioned up parts of the frontal lobe
and the parietal lobe and this was actually the first piece
of Einstein's brain that I saw.
She had one of the original sections
when she did the neuronal and glial stains.
And what she found was that in the left parietal cortex,
an area called "area 39" was that there were more glial cells
in that area, or to be more accurate,
the glial to neural ratio was higher.
It was published and there was a lot of publicity around this.
One of the things that they didn't know
at that time was what the area is observed.
This is some work from Z Elizabeth Isaacs here at UCL.
And she was investigating a group of children
that have normal IQ, normal verbal IQ,
normal performance IQ.
But the one thing they couldn't do is simple math calculations.
Sometimes they don't understand the ordinal relationship
of numbers.
They scan these children and what they found was
that one part of the left parietal cortex had a lower
density attached to it.
It was in the same region
that Einstein had this unusual neuron glial to neuron counts.
Now this seems to underpin the area for mathematics.
When I don't this to kid's lectures across,
all the kids come off to it and they go, "Well,
it's the reason I can't do mathematics cause I've got part
my brain missing."
[Laughter] Now it doesn't mean you can all go back
to your lectures now after this and explain you've got parts
of your left parietal cortex missing.
It's actually quite a rare phenomenon.
But it does emphasize the relationship
between mathematics and this area.
Next, more macroscopic structure,
the brain disappeared again for years.
No one again tracked it down, Thomas Harvey moved from place
to place to eventually cross the Canadian border.
He went to see a woman called Sandra Witelson and she got hold
of the original photographs.
Some sections of the brain and looked at the gross structure.
And what she suggested was that in this region here again,
the left parietal cortex,
something was unusual structurally.
This post-- these grand canyons of the brain,
the postcentral sulcus connects with the Sylvian fissure.
But this Sylvian fissure normally extends
through this region here.
For some reason, there was a larger or greater mass
in the left parietal cortex.
Well they concluded at the end
of that paper was quite simply our findings do suggest
that variation in specific cognitive functions,
that is perhaps his genius, maybe associated
with the structure of the brain regions mediating those
functions, emphasizing this relationship
between structure and function.
So for us, the question was why was this brain,
where it disappeared to?
And Thomas Harvey, given it to this guy, we'll put it here.
I'm going to-- very quickly flick to it then--
actually I don't need to 'cause he's up there.
I'm going to leave it here so if you want to come down
and I'll show you the macroscopic changes
on a-- where they are to it.
Here, you can see here, this is the one
of the grand canyon, the Sylvian fissure.
This is the large parietal mass, the left parietal cortex
which was unusual in Einstein's brain and it was compared
against age and sex match controls.
The question for me is this, what does this mean
for us as individuals?
And is there anyway that we can use this information to tap
into our own creativity?
Now this is-- will a little bit of a playful look
at this to be quite honest.
But I want to start with chap called Tommy McCue [phonetic]
and this was-- again,
it was about 6 years ago now, Tommy wrote to me.
Tommy has had a stroke and he was
in the hospital, and he was in a coma.
And he describe that when he came out to the coma,
he wrote a sentence, then a next sentence rhymed
with the first sentence.
He started to write pages, I mean pages
and pages profusely of rhyming poetry.
He comes out of hospital and he starts to create murals.
He's never done any artwork in his life, whatsoever,
and he starts to paint.
He comes down in the middle of the night and hacks all
up the dining room tables,
starts to create sculptors out of it.
Its call-- is the walls, the doors, the ceilings
so his flat are all completely covered with these paintings.
It was as though something had bubbled up to the surface.
The stroke had similar-- have somehow allowed something
that was perhaps innate to come to the surface.
Now just different times with anyone else, this is work done
by Bruce Miller in California and he's interested in patients
with frontotemporal dementia.
These are patients who have problems
in this part of the brain here.
And he followed one artist Jamsey Chang [phonetic]
and as the dementia progressed, as the damage progressed,
she was an artist, her painting changed.
And the paintings type changed from a very representational
to a very abstract form over the progression of the disease.
And again here, you can see this from this very representational
to this very abstract.
And what they concluded from this was that the release
of creativity and the originality represented an
unexpected and unexplored feature of dementia.
It was as though something was being released
by changing parts of the brain.
The question is whether this is learned and innate-- or innate.
This is a drawing of the 3-year-old drawing a horse
and certainly my 3-year-old will be pushed to do that.
Something I might be pushed to do that 3.
But no idea wasn't-- no idea was an incredible drawer
at 3 years of age.
Is this learned or is this innate?
3 years old, she is.
Allan Snyder believes we all have an innate ability
and we can tap into that innate ability by altering
or changing the brain.
And he uses a technique called Transcranial
Magnetic Stimulation.
You put this little glorified hair dryer on and these coils
of wire through out it.
You put a current through the coil of wire,
create some magnetic field and it knocks out
or stimulates the neurons beneath that.
And what he did was to start to play with or knock out
or stimulate the area, the same area,
as the frontotemporal dementia patient,
this frontal part of the brain.
And then what he does is to get you to draw, stimulate the brain
or knock it out, and then draw again to see
if he can release the cre-- inner savant in all of you.
And I'm just going to show you this, it's a--
let you judge whether you think there's been a mild improvement
before and after.
Before, after.
I was never overly convinced by this [laughter], really.
Until I found this the other day
which was again an anecdotal report and someone else had been
for this with Allan Snyder.
Practice before, during and after.
I think they're getting better.
I really-- it didn't-- base on that, they're getting better.
This is all very anecdotal stuff
but it does question whether this is innate
or that this is learned.
Now in my final 3 or 4 minutes, I'm going to try to alter,
change or adapt parts of your brain in an experiment.
And it's based on the visual cortex, which is part
of the back of the brain, just here.
And within the visual cortex, there are different areas.
We've got the main vision area right at the back, V1 to V2.
Color, just slightly towards the side V4.
But the area I'm interested in is V5.
So as you are watching this moving target, your vision area
of the brain is being activated.
And I'm going to activate it to start
with by using an art video.
It's a video by Tony Hill who I think one
of the most exceptional video artists I've come across.
So firstly, if you get motions sickness,
don't watch this, okay?
I'm serious.
So-- or if you starts to fell a little bit ill, just look away.
Can we turn the lights down a little bit, let's try to--
[ Pause ]
Can we take the lights down?
[ Pause ]
Okay. Oh, great.
Okay, here we go.
So we're going to think about the [noise]
and that activate the motion of the brain.
[ Noise ]
[ Inaudible Discussion ]
Okay, so did you get that?
That wonderfully strange feeling where that motion sickness,
where you get sort of that dissociation
between the visual system that's telling you your world is going
round with it.
But your [inaudible], your vestibular system is saying,
you know, "I'm horizontal."
and it's that, you know, disconnect between the two
that gives you that car sickness feeling.
And so that was an active area which is activating the visual.
The next thing, I'm going to try to get it to change,
alter or adapt in a very short period of time.
Now if you suffer from epilepsy, don't watch this.
If you get motion sickness, definitely don't want this.
And please don't watch this if you get epilepsy.
I'll tell you when it's finish,
so then you can look up again, okay?
So I warned everybody.
Okay, at the end of the video just to--
I'm going to flick the lights up; I want you to look
at the back of your hand, okay?
You got that?
Okay, I want to white--
watch the white dot in the center of the screen.
The information is going down you eyes,
down your optic nerves, specifically
out to those motion areas of the back of the brain.
And in time, those areas start to change, they start to adapt.
In only the15 seconds that you're looking at this,
I want you to keep looking at the white dot.
Now, look at the back of your hands, it's stopped now.
[Laughter] On that point,
what's remarkable is your bring can change and adapt
in a very short period of time.
Whether the changes in the glial cells
that Marian Diamond found were just the results of the fact
that Einstein did tons of mathematics,
and because of that there was a reorganization in that area.
Of whether the work that Sandra Witelson did to show
that there was this gross macroscopic changes,
areas of extra connectivity throughout the parietal cortex,
bringing areas together to do with vision, perception
and spatial reasoning.
It was that that where I--
that Einstein could think so well conceptually.
[ Pause ]
The one thing through all this is I've been saying
to everybody is to keep an open mind,
keep an open mind, keep an open mind.
And so Lewis Wolpert the other day and I--
put this quote and I love Lewis from UCL and I was banging
until he sent me this and he even said
"An open mind is a very bad thing, everything falls out."
[Laughter] And on that note, I'm going stop there.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you Mark, I think we can all see why Mark won all
these awards for engaging in science.
And I'm sure there are some questions.
If you have a question please raise your hand and wait
for my colleagues and [inaudible] to come
down because this lecture is being streamed online,
they have got to hear you on the [inaudible]--
>> Do we have any idea what-- about Einstein's IQ was?
>> That's a good question.
Feel as though I should know that.
Embarrassingly, I don't know that to be quite honest.
Now, does anyone know?
>> 169.
>> 169, thanks, so high.
Yeah, high.
[Laughter] I have in mind.
>> Anymore questions?
From the right, to other front there?
[ Pause ]
>> Thank you.
I'd like to ask, have you tried to, for example--
I'm not from medicine, so maybe my question doesn't make any
sense but is it possible for example in rats because you said
that when they were in a very stimulating environment,
they had areas of their brains with more glial cells.
Is it possible to artificially inject
in someway some glial cells, maybe some embryonic
that would reassociate with their brains and see
if they somehow in a rat level becomes smarter?
To see if there is that cause of relationship?
>> So this-- I mean there's a lot
of stem cell work going on in the brain.
I don't think anyone would even start
to contemplate whether you could increase someone's IQ
or creativity by injecting stem cells.
But the general notion is that if you got a piece
of tissue that's not functioning as well as it should be,
that you could inject cells into it,
those cells then would integrate into that existing tissue
and bring back the function.
Those studies are going on at this moment in time.
But I think that's a long way from trying, you know,
make someone super intelligent.
And I would struggle with that
to be quite honest if that was the case.
I'd love it, but are we first in the cue, but I think it was--
we're a long way from that but the principle is right.
>> Next one, gentleman here.
>> Hello, can you please explain to me what we were suppose
to see when we looked to the back of our hand
and whether everybody saw the same thing?
>> Now, what [laughter]-- probably if you've got an IQ
of lower that a 100, it's very [laughter]--
so, I presumed most people saw it now except the--
what you were supposed to see is that when you're looking
up the areas moving that your brain tries
to effectively keep those areas still, you're trying
to adapt to that movement.
So that when you look at the back of your hand,
it's actually not going in a same direction,
will going actively in an opposite direction
as your brain tries to keep your world sort
of stationary and normal.
It's adapting very quickly to that movement.
And then when you look at something that's stationary,
of course that moves as a compensation of trying to keep
that illusion quite still.
So it would have move, your hand-- to answer your question,
is what should have happened is
that you should've seen a slight rippling throughout your hand,
it would've change the sort of visual cues related to that,
so you see this bizarre rippling.
>> Lady at the top there.
>> Just about-- you know, when you're talk about the dogs,
the before and after should--
>> Oh, the dog.
I think [inaudible] training I was thinking that--
[laughter] But it would've been a good effort, yeah.
>> You know, the brain about--
when you were talking about the before and after
and how some people saying it was better,
surely there's a difference between the ability to copy
and image and autistic creativity.
>> Yeah, I think that's--
>> And you can't really compare the two.
So when you said something is better,
what are you referring to?
Like the 3-year-old, clearly copied
that horse really, really well.
But to somebody else's opinion,
it may not have been as autistic.
I'll say the other 3-year-olds for example.
>> Yeah. So this-- I think this is emphasized by Tommy's case is
that he has this profound desire to create
and he endlessly paints.
But because he's got no background and skills in that,
it's very difficult for him to do perhaps what he want to,
he needs to have those background skills.
The other extreme of that
of course is these people have got a small amount
of background skills that it seems to enable them
to do something that's slightly better.
But it's-- whether it improves that creativity,
I think it's a long way from that.
I think there was a study and I'm right in saying this
that in terms of learning languages
and I can assume we're all aware of this that the notion
of disinhibition, being a little bit more relaxed,
enables us to get a bit more out of ourselves.
So when you've had about 2 1/2 glasses of wine,
that's when you're best at speaking a second language,
it's that very narrow window of opportunity
that we all know about.
[Laughter] After that, it's just we think we're really good
speaking a second a language.
[Laughter] I think it's a question.
Just to a clearer a mic.
There's one down here and there's one
at the back over there.
>> Thank you.
I was just referring to-- and I think it was Allan Snyder?
His--
>> Allan, yeah.
>> Research with the dogs.
Only 5 out of 17 volunteers had got better at drawing the dog.
But what about the other volunteers what are
disadvantage, what side effects
to the head dryer thing that he did?
>> [Laughter] That's right, they limped out.
They-- so I presumably, they didn't get better.
In his defense, he published this but not with the drawing,
it was in terms of, if I remember right, numerosity.
So, he hasn't, as far as I'm aware,
published the drawing study and I think he maybe--
for whatever reason, I don't know.
But he has got some other data
and there's several studies being published showing
that TMS can improve certain cognitive functions,
memory for example, certain motor tasks as well.
I think Allan has been struggling to get good numbers
on this and it tends to be anecdotally at this level,
the drawering and creativity.
I don't think anyone's published any stories related to that
that purely related to individual tasks.
But people all getting better performance following TMS.
>> There's a question [inaudible].
>> Is there a link between this discussion and neuroplasticity?
>> Say this-- sorry.
>> Is there a link between this discussion and neuroplasticity?
>> So the obvious link is-- or to this--
two really early obvious ones is that if you--
there's two studies that look at sort
of microscopic structural changes on brain imaging,
technical Voxel-based morphometry.
And there was one study when they took taxi drivers
and studied their brains, ones that haven't learned a knowledge
and then taxi driver that had learned a knowledge,
maybe takes in two years to acquire all the street names
in London and you compare the brains.
And the taxi drivers that's had learned all the street names had
larger-- were large--
have larger parts of their hippocampus in certain regions.
So presumably, all that's story
to all those memories had caused some degree of neuroplasticity
and increased that area in size.
And there was another study with jugglers, when they started
to get people juggling, within about 6 weeks, 8 weeks,
it already started to see the structural changes
in the brain associated with the sensorimotor cortex
of learning these new tasks.
So already, yes, we can see reorganization in the brain
and you can see it quite early on.
And there's been some animal reports, preclinical reports,
experimental reports, showing that after only five days
of learning a task, these were mice, they to swim
around the tank and they have to learn where the platform is.
Only five days of doing that, they were able
to see hippocampal changes so--
which is a very short period of time.
One report that's about to be published has shown that only
after two hours of learning, you can start to see white matter
to changes, structural change in the brain.
So reorganization those-- happening incredibly quickly
in the same way that you can change and adapt
to that illusion that we saw last of all.
So I think to bring that back to Einstein,
I don't think you can reorganize big cortical folds.
That's something that happens very early on in development.
But the neuronal glial issue, I'm sure that that can be change
by and, you know, doing a task repeatedly.
So the reorganization around that--
whether that was the case, Lord alone knows.
>> We got one at the back and then one over here.
>> Hi.
>> Oh sorry.
>> Yeah, it seems like you started answer my question
but from the neuroplasticity section.
But I guess I'm trying to understand.
So have there been clear imaging comparisons between say artists
and scientists as in--
I know I'm sort of being a bit some flip and describing artists
and scientists, the people who perhaps--
>> Yeah, the artists have a very small brain compared
to the scientists.
[Laughter] It's a--
>> I'm the scientist.
Have there been any sort of classic differences in pathology
that have been seen or documented?
And if not, is it more about kind of task learning
that perhaps leads to the reorganization?
So basically, scientist trying their best
to keep doing artistic task
or do you think it is the foremost stimuli
around that perhaps will help that reorganization?
I guess I'm trying to understand, is it stimuli
or perhaps trying to do the task, the new task
that might lead to changes?
>> So can I do the art
and science thing 'cause I quite like, you know--
Sandra Witelson did some very early studies looking at males
and females and the difference
in white matter and corpus callosum.
Of course, that seemed always incredibly controversial.
I'm not aware of brain studies that sort
of compare artists and scientists.
Although, Simon Baron-Cohen has published some preliminary
studies showing that scientists on average are more systematic
than artists an artists
on average are more empathic than scientists.
And the question is whether you believe those are innate
predispositions that we have that you are born
with those traits very, very early on which then allow you
to go into particular disciplines
and probably via the educational system that's we--
we're not all born a blank slate, you have certain
in regions that we know about.
Certain people have predispositions
for certain traits.
Maybe scientist are more systematic by definition.
You've got those areas, you come in contact
with an educational system
that might push you down one direction.
You get lots of reorganization.
You have the systematic qualities.
And maybe the art and science divide happens very early on.
I guess the question for us educationally and culturally,
is that if we're all born a blank slate, then what do we do?
We have to recognize, that's the case,
that people have certain predispositions.
And then we say, "Well maybe we've got to start filling
in those gaps because the systemizing traits,
they'll probably do very well at those,
just put in the right environment, they'll love it."
But maybe their empathic or maybe their artistic
or creative sides needs to be encourage
because they don't naturally lean towards that
and creating a more rounded person actually does
as better in the long run.
And I think that's probably where the arts and sciences
where we can learn from-- if there is a divide,
I think there is in Simon Baron-Cohen's work.
I think we can bring the two together, you can reorganize
but also an acknowledgment that there are differences.
>> I think we've got time for one question
if both the question and the answer are short.
That's over here.
>> Thank you.
I was curious where-- in returning to the side of study,
whether the cap that he placed
on his subjects induced the negative symptoms of dementia
in addition to the unexpected artistic release that we saw.
>> Sorry the-- so this, is you are referring
to the frontotemporal dementia patients, is that right?
>> Yes.
>> And whether that-- whether there were just specific things
related to their artistic creativity,
whether they were the effects?
>> No it's Snyder's subjects so where the putting
on this inhibitory cap--
>> Yeah.
>> Induce the dementia symp-- the symptoms of dementia.
>> I'm not aware of that but then there are.
It's not just as simplest
as just stimulating or knocking out.
I-- and I'm not aware that anyone has tried
to reproduce pathological symptoms with it.
I think Allan's always trying to give a--
the way of using the device very subtly to try to get what--
probably what he describe is something kind of disinhibition
that allows something to come to the surface that is there
that maybe is held back in the same way that Tommy.
When Tommy had that stroke,
something that was released 'cause he described it,
something that bubbled to the surface
that you already have there
and I think that's what Allan is looking for.
>> I'm very sorry to bring us to a close.
I see there are more questions.
We do have to finish [inaudible].
Thank you for coming.
Thank you all for your question.
I'll say thank to Mark.
>> And thank you guys.
Thanks very much.
[ Applause ]