Welcome to the centre.
Personalised Medicine podcast hosted by G.U. and the president of the Oxford Personalised Medicine Society and me, Dr. Unexceptionable,
junior research fellow at the centre, the centre of Personalised Medicine Short CPM is a partnership between the University of Oxford.
Welcome Centre for Human Genetics and Sundowns College.
The CPM provides opportunities for students, academic clinicians and the public to explore the benefits and challenges personalised medicine.
This first episode is part of our Meet the Advisory Board series.
We have the honour to talk to Dr. Mark Delana, skipper, geneticist and editor in chief of the journal Nature.
She is over 18 years of experience in science publishing and has made history as nature's
first female editor in chief and first editor in chief from a life sciences background.
Lena, thanks very much for joining with us today. It's my pleasure to be speaking with you.
Congratulations on being the first woman as an editor in chief and they train history.
How is the environment for women in science changed over the course of your career?
And what do you think still needs to be done? Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on the podcast.
It's a real pleasure and an honour, actually, to be speaking with you and sharing my views with you.
So turning to your question specifically. There have been some really impressive changes for the better during my career.
And indeed, as you said, I'm the first woman in the role of editor in chief of nature in its hundred fifty year or 151 year of its history now.
But of course, it's really important to acknowledge that the number of women in senior roles in science is increasing, has been increasing.
So, you know, look at the recent appointments to OSTP in the US,
the head of National Academy of Sciences, the head of UK are I the chief scientist in Australia?
And of course, there are many other examples where there are outstanding, impressive women who are role models in these very prominent positions.
And of course, women researchers are much more visible at conferences, in conference programmes, on discussion panels.
And of course, that's really important. And a number of event organisers, including actually major conferences, which, you know,
this editorially led conferences that we organise as part of a nature portfolio.
Events have come forward to actually state clearly that they want to have gender diversity amongst the speakers in discussion panels.
And these are really important initiatives. What I should also say that it's not just the presence of women in these roles that matters.
What really matters also is that the focus of research itself is more inclusive of women and for example,
in animal research, that more and more attention is paid to the sex of animals that are being studied and given studies.
And so, you know, to extend this, once upon a time, women were not included in clinical trials or very rarely.
And of course, it's really important that, for example,
drug toxicity and efficacy are tested in women as well as a matter of course, across different populations.
You know, we've all heard the story of safety equipment being tests such as, for example, seatbelts.
I think that has become a really well known case, that originally seatbelts were designed for male anatomy predominantly.
Which, of course, has meant that they are less protective of women.
Final thing to say here. I have been very upbeat. I think that reflects my general outlook on life.
But of course, the problem has not been solved.
We don't have equity and parity in research in positions of decision making.
And actually, during the last year and into this year, during the pandemic,
we have seen that women have been disproportionately affected in professional settings.
We, because of our focus, have made me looked at women in research and clinical practise.
But of course, right across the spectrum, in terms of, for example, job losses, women have been affected more,
for example, because they tend to be maybe more and more frequently on short term contracts.
So while I am optimistic and I think it's important to recognise the progress that has been made,
there is quite some work to be done to improve the situation.
So you all careers is a bit different than a traditional research career.
I think the traditional career we still see is doing a bit at stake in the postop and then trying to become a great leader.
What made you decide to go into science publishing and is there any tips you could give to people,
maybe postgraduates, Allegri researchers that find that quite compelling?
So first thing I would say is that I would challenge the notion of there being a traditional career.
I think we should liberate ourselves from this expectation that, you know, one way is the default way and other ways are somehow non.
I'm sometimes asked to give talks as alternative career for scientists.
I flippantly respond to this, you know. Well, I'm very happy to talk about my career.
I don't think there's anything alternative about it.
And to be honest, if you look at the statistics, it's the minority of pages and postdocs who become P.I. eyes.
So which is it? There is an alternative career. Of course, it's a bit of a tongue in cheek approach.
Nevertheless, I think it puts things in perspective. So why did I decide to move away from the bench?
Because in my case, it really was working at the bench. But very importantly, I never wanted to leave science as as an ecosystem, as an environment.
And so, you know, today I don't call myself a scientist or a researcher because of.
I don't discover or participate in research as such.
But I very much feel that I'm still part of the research ecosystem and that was always very important to me.
So my own view of this was or has been that I've always loved the scientific process, the discovery,
the knowledge accumulation, the asking of the questions, which is why I decided to become a researcher in the first place.
And in my case, genetics was kind of the real love for me.
But then as I was progressing and I left active research after first postdoc, I realised that I actually was interested in too many things,
and especially in these earliest stages of career, in order to make a real contribution, make a mark.
You have to focus. You have to focus in. Because, you know, let's say let's face it, science is a jealous profession.
It requires your dedication and time. And I realise that there may be an opportunity to make a contribution in a different way.
And for me, it was actually moving to science publishing to become an editor.
My first job out of academia was was to be an associate editor on literature,
reviews, genetics, and it's allowed me to broaden my interest in that way.
That sort of fulfilled my desire.
And at the same time, to give something back to the community through working with authors and commissioning reviews back then,
working with them, too, if you like. Tell that story in the review better.
All of these things that's commissioning reviews editors do on major reviews,
journals, but of course, in other cases when other publications and other journals.
And so that was my sole trajectory and my reasoning for it in terms of advice for people.
You know, I I would say the most important thing that you do in life is the thing which gives you satisfaction,
which gives you a sense that you are making a contribution.
And it may be a contribution through original research, analysis, experimentation, whatever it may be.
It may be a contribution through editing papers, commissioning papers, as it was in my case,
maybe a contribution through supporting research or helping communicated or perhaps something completely different.
Phil. But the important aspect is that you are fulfilled yourself.
Now, let's get to scientific publishing topic.
What do you think the innovations and the things that are changing in publishing and that should be changed from your perspective?
Yes, thanks. Thank you for that question. You know, part of me thinks that scientific publishing has not evolved fast enough.
And one thing that I'm a little disappointed by is that sometimes when there are discussions about evolution of scientific publishing,
they are mainly restricted to conversations about whether something is published.
Open access or under subscription. These are important conversations.
But there is so much more to explore in in science publishing.
If you think about how a paper looks today.
By and large, it hasn't changed very much over the last 20 years or so, or possibly much for 20 years.
A good framework. Of course, what really to my mind, what enables this evolution and modification is in fact the Internet like the Web.
And so when I think about the kinds of things that we have collectively, we have begun to experiment with, but we could do much more.
Is indeed enabled by the amazing connectivity of the web.
So in my kind of dream world, I think of papers as being much more dynamic, much more interconnected, almost Modula if you like.
I mean, to give you a trivial example of what I mean is think about the method section of a paper.
If you are a researcher who applies the same kind of methodology to different problems, to to find different solutions,
the chances are that the method section of your paper is pretty much the same, regardless which paper you write.
Well, you can imagine a world in which that method section lives as a module in and maybe
there is versions because you maybe you use tweaking some parameters or something,
but something that you link through to another section, a section of results that you build on.
And to some extent, analogies to this exist already.
But again, packaged Israel paper. So let's say, for example, in the Nature portfolio, we have a journal called Mitchem Methods.
So a paper and now a whole paper that in nature methods would be sort of conceptually equivalent to what I'm describing.
And of course, for example, there was another journal called Scientific Data where you have what we call data descriptor,
which really is a very systematically organised description of a complex data set which is available,
shareable, and that descriptor ANES and facilitates sharing of the dataset.
Because really, very quickly at a glance, if you have an interest in these data, you can say, OK, is this something that will fulfil my requirements?
Can I perhaps use it in a meta analysis and so on.
So elements of this exist. But I think we don't do well enough in terms of connecting these various elements.
And of course, indeed, surfacing data in papers released more recently.
In the last few years, we've moved towards having DIY numbers for identifiers for four data sets that can link through directly to data records.
So these are some examples where I think we have historically not taken enough advantage of that connectivity,
but we're moving that we're moving in that direction. And, you know, building on papers, versions of papers and so on.
And there's a lot to explore there. Again, there are trials out there hearing that, but there's some of the fun examples, if I may.
If I may just bring up another example,
something which I did when I was still a manuscript editor at Nature in the context of the code contortion papers was together with the authors.
We came up with this idea of threads whereby we were taking sections from different papers and threading them, if you like,
like beads on it on a string to tell a story which is sort of content conceptually orthogonal to the stories that were told in individual papers.
And I have to say, I know this is a podcast, but it makes more sense when you can see what I'm doing with my hands when I describe this.
But if you if you think of orthogonal storytelling, that perhaps is helpful.
So these kinds of. And this was just an example that an experiment really that was designed to delve even more deeply into this fabric of
that story that was told across a number of papers that came out as a result of the work of that particular consortium.
If your 20 years within this industry,
could you share with us some of the most memorable articles you have edited and what started a turning point in your career as an editor,
a science publisher? That's a tricky question. You know, as an editor.
So this is a bit of an insight into what it's like to be an editor who handles papers and whether it's a review,
as I did in the early days of my career or subsequently primary manuscripts that I evaluated.
I think you actually have a real relationship with each of the papers, each of the studies that you you work with.
Some of them require more work and more attention, others less.
But one of the things that editors always talk about is they talk about the papers as if those papers were their own.
So. So I and all my colleagues say, oh, this is a paper I published, you know, back in.
Yeah. Such and such. Or, you know, I published this paper from this girl.
I published this paper on this topic. And very clearly we are not authors on these papers, but we developed that sort of relationship.
We care. We champion these papers. You know, we'll, of course, take them through peer review, work with authors to try and help them revise.
And what's interesting and sometimes forgotten about is that even if that paper
in question ends up not being published in the journal for which we work,
we still care about the paper and one of the authors revise it and publish it.
And clearly, if it goes elsewhere, then, you know, we have to hand it over to two other editors to continue.
So specific examples are not very easy to come by.
To be honest, because over the years, I've seen very many papers. But, you know, maybe let me illustrate this with two very different examples.
And they both illustrate what it means to be an editor and why I said earlier that I feel very much part of
the research community because editors are really embedded in their communities in order to be an editor,
in order to evaluate the work that you read. You, of course, have to be familiar with the field that you serve.
So editors travel to conferences, go and do lab visits, and they're really familiar with the dynamic of the community.
And so you can imagine that as an extension of this for some papers that come in that are submitted to you, you know,
they're coming because, you know, that certain consortium or a lab or a group of labs are working on a certain topic.
And maybe you've expressed an interest in the work. You've had the work presented at conferences.
So some of these stories, you know, they are coming. And, you know, earlier I mentioned the ENCODE project.
So these very large consortia with the work of which is a long time in the making.
You know, another one is maybe from my time when I was handling manuscripts, you know, the Thousand Genomes Project and many others.
It's a long term relationship. So then when the papers come, they do kind of hold a special place in my heart anyway.
As an editor and as I mentioned earlier in the end quote, there was some really firm aspects of working with the Inco project because we
did some experimenting in the format of publishing around the publishing format.
So that was definitely very special. Another and this is not now individual paper, but group of papers or almost actually the whole field.
When I was the genetics and genomics editor at Nature, it was really the time when somatic cancer genome sequencing was beginning.
It was really the beginning of sequencing cancer genomes. That was a very exciting time to watch this and actually learn with the whole community.
You know, there's a there's a sort of almost them a joke in the research community,
which I think you will probably recognise, is that, oh, you can't publish a paper in nature if it doesn't have a mechanism.
And, you know, for me, as a genetics and genomics editor, I would say, well,
that actually is not true because an awful lot of genetics papers and genomics papers
have no mechanism and they could never have mechanism because if they are just that,
that's not the objective. Right. It's a very different way of discovering and doing science.
And so with the cancer genomics, the early cancer genomics papers, there was a time when, you know, I as an editor, of course,
with my colleagues on the team and the research community, was sort of making a decision that at that point in time, we wanted those catalogues.
We wanted those sequences of cancers. And the mechanism or other sort of functional insights were going to come further down the line.
And it's interesting to almost hear myself say this from today's perspective, because, of course, we have moved on now.
Now we are all interested in functional insides. But that in itself, it's useful to appreciate that.
Once upon a time, we were not there. We had to kind of chop them up before anything else.
And so my final example is going to be very different. And that's an example of a paper that I didn't know that was coming.
And it's you know, I've described this in the past and I genuinely feel this.
We're talking about a paper that I would have handled. I'm going to say easily 10 years ago.
I actually remember to this day how excited I was when I was reading this paper.
I had no idea this work was being done. And it's a it's a it's a story that is essentially a population genomics story in the monarch butterfly.
So, you know, monarch butterfly of these brightly coloured orange butterflies in my name in South America,
possibly exclusively, I am not sure, actually. But they are they're really well known for the mass migrations.
And it turns out that there is of a sub population that doesn't migrate.
But it wasn't obvious why it was that most populations migrate.
And that's indeed what's made the species famous and the subpopulation doesn't.
And the researchers use population genomics to home in on actually finding relatively simple genetic reason,
which is to do is molecular aspects of the muscle in these butterflies that mean that one group doesn't migrate and the others do.
And it was such a beautiful story. I genuinely remember sitting on the edge of my seat.
Mean Oh my God. By such a beautiful paper. Such a beautiful result.
So there are many others. You know, the many, many other many other examples of great papers.
We are going to move on to the more generic questions.
I think I've read somewhere that one of your goals is to ensure that studies are more reproducible and robust.
What are your thoughts on the reproducibility crisis being faced in the biological sciences right now?
And how do you think we can overcome some of the barriers in ensuring studies are reproducible?
A very important question, and you know, one, again, that's I think it's useful to use some time perspective on this.
So my sense is that our conversation in the community is moving a little from the focus on the reproducibility crisis,
per say, towards the importance of robust and reproducible science.
And the way explained this transition is that I think there was a specific time a few years ago
when we had a kind of an aha moment of realisation that there was a problem with reproducibility,
and rightly so. It was demonstrated very eloquently and very convincingly.
And so the focus was on reproducible crises, more examples of it and talking about it.
But of course, identifying a problem is absolutely crucial. But then you have to move on to how to solve it.
And ideally, how to prevent it from occurring in the first place.
And so I think that's where the conversation is now moving towards that we are looking at how to solve the problem and indeed how to prevent it.
So I think there are a number of important aspects which come to mind first and foremost.
And I would say if you asked me to answer that question, what what's the solution envisage of one word that I would say transparency?
The emphasis on transparency is really important because knowing that we have to be transparent
about our actions and what we do automatically forces us to be more systematic and more thorough.
And transparency to me also means clarity. Why do I say is important?
It's important because at least part of the reproducibility crisis was caused by inadvertent, sloppy reporting of what has been done.
And, you know, when I tried to explain this problem to people who are not scientists,
I give this very trivial example from cooking, which, you know, we all know is a bit like being in the lab.
Right. I say, you know, if I tell you that I made tomato soup last night and you want to make tomato soup, then, you know,
you may make a tomato soup, but the chances are that it will be exactly what I made unless I give you the exact recipe.
And so, of course, to scientists, this is an incredibly simple example, but I think it illustrates the point.
Well, so some of the problems have got to produce ability was lack of emphasis on the need for appropriate reporting.
And I should say that we and now I mean editors, publishers, journals at a certain time in the past didn't emphasise it enough.
And so, you know, now for a number of years, for example, in the Journals of Nature portfolio and of course,
many others elsewhere, we ask our authors to be very transparent,
to to fill in reporting summaries in in a very systematic, organised way to explain what was done,
how it was done, using what reagents, what analysis, what parameters, et cetera, et cetera.
So that is very clear when somebody wishes to reproduce this work, how they need to do it.
And then, of course, if they can't following this, then that indeed there may be a problem.
So all of that transparency and clarity of reporting standards of reporting and methodology and and all these other sort of research objects.
As I explained, I think it's generally quite clear that that's where the emphasis needs to be.
Now, where I think we're not quite there yet is sufficient training to really arm the the researchers, early career researchers,
but also established researchers so that they are able to appropriately report on the research that they do and indeed in the first place,
you know, design the research appropriately. I think we need to place more emphasis on this.
But we should also recognise and acknowledge when research is reported, when research is shared, when data and reagents are shared.
So in other words, reward and recognise the need for open science,
which is going to contribute to that robustness and reproducibility, reproducibility in science.
Again, this realisation is growing and in some circles and in some circumstances is very well recognised.
But I think across the board we have quite some way towards getting there.
One other thing I would add to this is I would really like to see us revise our position on what happens when something goes wrong.
So one thing is, as an editor, I feel very strongly about is there's a community.
We have a wrong attitude to retractions.
You know, sometimes I feel that if a paper is retracted, it brings out these sort of almost mediaeval feeling.
In the community, we want to, I don't know, throw stones or at least rotten vegetables because the pope has been retracted,
but papers are retracted for all sorts of different reasons.
And yes, there are papers which are attracted because there's been misconduct, there's been data manipulation or something like this.
And that, of course, cannot be condoned. And we have to be very clear about this.
But vast swathes, vast swathes of papers are retracted because a genuine and intentional mistake has been made.
You know, we actually have a beautiful example of this in nature. I always bring it up.
So allow me to share it with you as well. Of a paper which was retracted at a request of the author because the author realised that they by mistake,
use an inappropriate dataset to do the analysis in the paper.
In fact, is in our sciences and climate sciences.
And it was simply for the question that they wanted to address.
The data which they used was just inappropriate, could not have addressed that question.
So they were retracted the paper at their request. But the author had the appropriate datasets with which to address the question.
So they went back to the drawing board, if you like, took the appropriate dataset, performed the analysis,
came back to us with a new paper addressing exactly the same question now with appropriate dataset.
That paper was now rigorously peer reviewed, considered, and we have republished the paper because all the analysis, everything was exactly the same.
It was just now done with appropriate dataset. Now, to me, that is an example of great scholarship.
And so this is an important example of what we mean by making research reproducible,
placing emphasis on this transparency about how the research was done, but also transparency about when things went wrong and why is important.
But then in turn, we as the community have to be tolerant of that.
After all, you know, we say science progresses through self correction. So let's make space for that.
Do you think scientific research and publishing is accessible to the general public?
And how can we make it more accessible? I think scientific research should be accessible to the general public.
Of course, if you ask specifically whether, for example, a paper published in Nature is accessible to the general public as written,
I would say that most members of the general public would would struggle to really understand the implications of what was done.
But then, you know, a little earlier we talked about how we can expand on the papers to make the science
which which is presented within them to be more accessible to the general public,
but also to researchers from from other disciplines. And I think there are a number of aspects here, you know, clear communication.
There are many aspects to clear communication. It's important that papers are written clearly that a story is clearly communicated for any reader,
for any members member of the potential audience, including for those in the field, of course.
And as I said already, you know, for others in the age when we live,
where multidisciplinary work is so important to tackle many of the challenges that we face,
scientists, when they write papers, they have to think about the broadest possible audience, including long specialists, but researchers.
But then the general public and the need to to communicate science to the general public directly,
as it is an extension of papers, actually probably could not be clearer right now during the pandemic.
Everyone is talking about science.
It's actually impossible to listen to any news bulletin on the radio, on TV, see any news online without seeing some reference to science, be it.
Know microbiology or human clinical trials for social science.
Of course, in the context of the pandemic, I think we could all do more.
And if you look at papers as they are published today, journals, publishers tried to make an effort to in some cases,
for example, to add lay summaries to papers, in other cases to provide more accessible coverage of papers in nature.
And we often will write about papers, not just papers from our own paper pages,
but in general in the scientific literature of them that we will often write about them, let's say,
in news and views, where it's a much shorter piece where a context for a study is is provided,
or our journalists will write about paper or a set of discoveries interviewing.
The scientific community, or sometimes, for example, if it's relevant,
interviewing policymakers or in some cases politicians to provide that context to provides a way for somebody who is not in the field,
who's not a specialist, to evaluate the importance and the relevance of that work.
There are, of course, other ways of communicating science. And, you know, this this is where my age really comes to the fore.
Because, of course, I am not a digital native, but by virtue of how old I am.
But there are fantastic ways of engaging with younger audiences on the Internet.
So, of course, social media, visual communication, podcasts, video through YouTube and other other media.
I think we all trying to do this in some one way or another.
I think for a number of reasons. A particularly powerful approach here involves researchers themselves using these media to communicate,
even if it's facilitated, let's say, by journals or publishers.
But, you know, we have to remember that, you know, when these trust polls, surveys are done,
which professions are most trusted scientists often comes towards the very top and journalist often comes towards the very bottom.
So, you know, we as a community all too often leave science communication to the generalists and they can do a great job, don't get me wrong.
But I think sometimes we must miss an opportunity to communicated directly.
And some journals, including Nature Portfolio, offer some opportunities through which to do this.
And I should say that nature's mission statement, which is dates back to our very origins hundreds of years ago, actually has two parts to it.
So one is serve the research community. But the other one is actually to disseminate science findings to the broadest possible audience.
So it's a we've always you know, our founders back in 1869 already recognised that this was a really important function as set out.
First, let's let Senate finance expert press rest of society. While we are curious about your thoughts on this area and what are some of the
projects happening in personalised medicine right now that you're excited about?
Very good question. And, you know, in many ways, personalised medicine is, although I am not an expert by any stretch of imagination.
It's a field which in many ways is very close to my heart because I see personalised medicine as being absolutely enabled by the Human Genome Project,
which, incidentally, is almost exactly 20 years old this year, as in the draught human genome sequence publication came out in 2001.
And so often when we talk about personalised medicine,
we talk about it in the context of the Human Genome Project and the subsequent sort of genomic and make revolution, if you like.
So in terms of what's happening, I think very broadly speaking,
the thing which excites me and fills me with with enormous enthusiasm is actually the fact that it's only recently that we've really began to
reap the benefits of that bank of genomic and indeed other Omec information for many individuals across the globe and also for many diseases.
And of course, unsurprisingly, the disease area in which we have made the most progress in the sense has, of course, been cancer.
There are some really wonderful examples which directly link genome sequencing in various cancer context in clinical trials with therapy.
And so I'll give you two examples of things that actually we published in the last year or so.
So one of them was back in the summer last year. This was a a study that looked at lung cancer.
And so essentially umbrella clinical trial approach, which was used to test the use of gene sequencing results for lung cancer,
to match patients to target therapies and evaluate how successful this very genomic driven therapy selection was going to be.
And the results of studies like this, some really interesting because they allow us to identify cases in which this matchmaking making,
if you like, is incredibly successful.
But very importantly, they allow us to identify groups of patients who have lesions for which this much making is not that successful.
And that, of course, takes us bend to the next step to ask a question. Why is it then why?
Why does this sort of matchmaking formula works for subsets of patients, but not for others?
My prediction here is that, of course, we have to look to other omics to be able to move forwards in these cases.
But these are exciting studies which identify a specific path forward.
Another example, which I'd kind of classify as a more pragmatic resource management, if you like, was the drug rediscovery study or protocol.
And so this was essentially an adaptive. An oncology trial which aimed to identify genomic signals in patients that could define
tumour types for which existing drugs could be used outside of the approved label.
So in other words, repurposing of drugs for these specific patients.
If you think about studies like this, perhaps somehow, intellectually or conceptually, there may not be the most exciting.
But my God. Are they really pragmatically useful? Right.
These are drugs which are already approved. They already exist there.
And we don't know. But we have cohorts of patients that could know tomorrow, today benefit from them.
So incredibly valuable studies, both examples, although distinct, are only possible,
of course, proverbially today because we have that body of of data to compare.
And then, you know, something else, which is really very new and is emerging.
And in this of personalised medicine realm, of course, CRISPR based therapies.
And we've seen a few of the first examples of these being applied either through the sort of stem cell route or directly applied.
And I find that incredibly exciting. There's much to do very clearly.
But perhaps, you know, unlike in some of the other examples where some would argue that we should
really be talking about precision medicine as opposed to personalised medicine,
because strictly speaking, they're not tailored to one person, but rather a group of individuals.
In the case of some of these CRISPR based therapies, I think we can really be talking about this one person tailored,
personalised Metrick medicine in the true sense of the word.
So these are just some some examples, puto mind. There was one thing that I really wanted to say then I guess I didn't have a chance to say.
So if I may make a wish, if you like personalised medicine, as wonderful as it has been and as much progress as we have made,
the field has by and large focussed on a subset of the global population.
There has been great predominance of research on individuals of Europeans sent, and I think this is a tremendous opportunity.
Of course, it's an opportunity that the community has come to realise.
We have some way to go to catch up with what the information and the tools we have in these European descent populations.
But this is a tremendous opportunity to collect the data, but also engage those communities in the research that's being done.
Because, of course, you know, earlier we talked about different communities coming together.
It's also a matter of social sciences.
It's a matter of engaging individuals to really appreciate and understand what benefits can come from this type of research, but also,
conversely, to engage with those communities very early on to understand what benefits they would like and what benefits they would expect.
So I see this as a really important opportunity for the discipline.
I would like to invite anyone to everyone to, of course, look at nature.
One thing that I would particularly recommend is the nature briefing, which is our a daily newsletter by email.
You can just sign up. And the beauty of Nature briefing is that it is indeed brief and it's specifically
designed so that you can read it in its entirety without necessarily following the links.
Although if you are interested in delving more deeply than it's there and I can be found on Twitter.
So so do do look for me on Twitter as well. I, I occasionally have some interesting things to share.
Brilliant. Thank you so much again. Thank you so much for your time today.
Great. Thank you very much. There was a lot of fun. Thank you.
If you want to find out more about the centre of personalised medicine or are interested in joining us for one about upcoming events,
please visit our Web site under S.P. and don't well dot AC, doc QCA or follow us on Twitter at CPM Oxfords.
Thank you for listening. And we look forward to having you listen for the next episode.