A lot of your work has drawn from very strong criticism. It's one of the sadder parts of science. There's two ways to get really ahead in science. One is to do something that is significant, and the other way is to criticize someone who had done something significant. We've chosen the former, some of our critics have chosen the latter.
People know that our data is substantially superior in quality to what has been produced elsewhere.
When a protein is just a target for developing a drug against, it's not the drug itself, it's not the vaccine itself, then our philosophy is that those should be broadly available. When you have something like insulin, or a therapeutic antibody, it is essential that you be able to get intellectual property on those or the genes that code for them. Intellectual property is absolutely essential to develop diagnostics and therapeutics. The public will not see any new ones if that intellectual property is not available. The challenge is having all this information drive future discoveries, that's what we're in the process of now.