Want to welcome you to today's key opinion leader call with Dr. Jim Lalonde I'm Lou Basenese, MDB capital's president and chief market strategist. Jim, welcome to the call. I appreciate you -making time today. -Yeah. Thank you. Uh, happy to be -here. -Yeah. Well, I want to cover a couple housekeeping items and then brag about you a little bit, because it's always easier for someone else to do that. So I want to let everyone know. First and foremost, today's call is going to be recorded. I just want to make you aware of that. We are also going to have a brief question and answer session following the call. So if you have questions that come up along the way, I just encourage you to use the Q&A function in zoom to submit those questions so that we can see them as they come in. It'll just facilitate a much more efficient and smooth Q&A session as we get to the end. The other thing I do have to mention, because we will be discussing a company that has filed a S-1 registration statement for an initial public offering that is not yet effective but is nonetheless been filed in MDB capital and the broker dealer are acting as the sole underwriter. We have to provide some forward looking statement disclosures. There is the possibility that we will make some forward looking statements during today's call. We ask that you refer to the latest S-1 filing amendment to understand the risks and uncertainties that can come with any potential investment. And we also just disclosed upfront that this is not an offer to buy or sell or solicitation to purchase anything. So we just want you to be clear on that. And with that being said, I'm going to move forward and more properly introduce you to our key opinion leader here today, Doctor Jim Leyland. He is someone that is very well known in the synthetic biology space. I will tell you that he has more degrees than I can count and much more experience. And what impresses me the most about it. Is this across a broad range of science and disciplines as well as commercial expertise. So, um, I'm excited today to get into some of that background, but then also Invizyne technologies and what excites him about that technology and the potential opportunities. So Jim, welcome again and thank you for joining -us. -Yeah, no thanks for having me. I'm excited -to participate. -So I'm going to start with the end in mind because I'm an investor first and not a science person, although I'm a layman in that regard. So let's start with giving your career what excited you so much or enough to bring you to the point to join Amazon's board? And I'll preface that with you're also involved with several other startups as scientific advisor and board member. So just curious in how this fits into what you're seeing in the science -world and what excites you about it? -Yeah, no. I've always gravitated towards science producing products and value to society and, uh, you know, um, excited by enzyme engineering and biological strain engineering to produce materials. And, uh, most of my career has been in that area, and, uh, I've just been privileged to be part of the, the whole community and see things, uh, transition from kind of a boutique, small niche science to now we're talking about impacting, you know, global energy supply, for instance. And so it's it's really, really cool. So so that's kind of what motivates me is doing great science. But uh, and with the end in mind, being a product that people are going to use and it's going to change, change society. So so when I saw Invizyne and, you know, taking what nature has done and putting it in a format that's more amenable to things we want to manufacture in the mode that we want to make it, you know, instead of growing things or feeding animals and then, you know, harvesting well, putting things in a more manufacturing, um, format so that we can make materials at low cost and, uh, really, uh, help the sustainability of this, -this planet. -Yeah. No, that's a great, uh, insight there. I just wanted to just kind of let's define some terms that make sure everyone understands when we talk about enzyme engineering. How would you describe that to the layman? I mean, give them the quick science on what's an enzyme's function. What does it do? And then why does that need to be engineered for what we're talking about here. Yeah. So enzymes are the catalysts that really drive all life on Earth. Right. And they're proteins that, uh, that do all the chemistry that, that we need to survive. They take, you know, sunlight, uh, hitting a plant and converting that into energy like sugars and fixing CO2 from the atmosphere. Um, that's done with enzymes. You know, the way that we live and, you know, we we eat food and we, uh, have thousands of enzymes in our body that, that convert it into, uh, into tissue and to even the way we store our thoughts and, uh, you know, the, um, energy, you know, that we use to, to exist. It's all mediated by enzyme catalysts. And nature's done a fantastic, uh. create a fantastic algorithm for for adapting enzymes to to a changing environment. And so what we've been able to do is harness that for our purposes to, to adapt enzymes to, to make stuff that we want to make, for instance, jet fuel, you know, um, uh, at a, at a low cost. Um, so, so really enzymes are, are the catalyst that drive all life on Earth and energy conversion, you know, and creation of matter. And uh, and um, uh, enzyme engineering then is taking those enzymes and, and modifying them for our purposes. So the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded in 2018 to Francis Arnold for directed evolution. And that's kind of the type of technology that that I've used in my career where nature creates new enzymes by having random mutations and changes, and then if the environment is changed, like, say this, for instance, the CO2 in the atmosphere is going up, then, um, changing an enzyme, the way it functions with these random changes in nature, these mutations, um, allows that organism then to adapt to a new environment. And so, um, so we can do that same thing in the lab, but we can speed it up instead of taking thousands or millions of years. We can do it in, in days and weeks by creating a libraries of these enzymes and then testing them for the new function that we want to do, for instance, making isopentanol as a, as jet fuel. Um. Right. Which I believe is one of, uh, Amazon's target markets eventually, uh, potentially that they've talked about. So help me understand too, because you've been involved in this space. I think it was your post-doc studies in 8789 and bio catalysis. So how have things changed from that time when you're talking about enzyme engineering to advance? What are the big advancements that happened now, because you're talking about being able to engineer in days and weeks versus months, years, and, you know, longer than that? Yeah, no. When I started out in the 80s, you know, I was a straight organic chemist using old fashioned, you know, still obviously valuable technology, using organic chemistry to make stuff. But kind of a lot of it is brute force, you know, things happening at high temperatures and making not just the thing you want, but other, other things. And so, um, when I saw what, you know, uh, at the time, Kiwi Wong was a professor at Texas A&M using enzymes to make stuff. I was really excited to see the selectivity and the precision that these work at. So rather than brute force, it was a it was a very precise tool. Even that being said, though, there are still like Stone age compared to where we are now. You know, it was like like working with rocks and sticks. We could take enzymes from nature and we could try to make them do what we wanted. And there was a few enzymes that would that would do that. But, you know, the vast majority of them were very precise for doing things in a body or in a bacteria, and they didn't work outside that environment. So we had no way of engineering them in those days. And so we just took the few enzymes and everybody like published papers on one enzyme, and it was like hundreds of people doing the same thing basically. So when, you know, directed evolution came along, Francis Arnold and then Max again and Codex, um, it gave us the ability to, to make these custom enzymes bespoke for whatever we wanted to do. So that opened up a whole, uh, array of chemistry that we could do, not just that one enzyme that happened to work, but but really thousands of enzymes that we can adapt and create, you know, um, quite rapidly in the lab. -So. -Yeah. So with that in mind, now that we have these tools and InDesign is capitalizing on that, is there a limited universe of enzymes that Invizyne technology could apply to from your perspective? Is it, uh, cover the majority of the market? How does that flesh out, given your experience and knowledge with the whole side of the science side of the -business? -Yeah. No, there's there's really little limitations on it. And the kind of the whole area is blowing up that now, you know, we have high throughput ways of discovering new enzymes. And people are adding literally a billion genes that code for enzymes to their databases every year. You know, um, so, so there's really no limitation what what we're doing is, is, um, picking those enzymes that do what we want to do. Um, so again, in the case of, I said, butanol, um, taking a whole pathway that might take, you know, uh, 20 enzymes starting from a sugar or even backup stream from CO2 to make a chemical, um, with many enzymes that have been adapted from nature to work in a, in a manufacturing -setting. -Now, are you aware of again? I just want to start drilling down into the science. And what distinguishes InDesign from from my understanding is that they've removed the enzyme pathways from outside the cell. So that eliminates the obstacles that you talked about earlier where you just had limited byproducts, not necessarily high enough yields or titers. Uh, is that very significant? I mean, I think we hear that come from management as an investor, and that's one thing. But to hear from someone that has been involved for 30 plus years in the development, how big of a of a evolution or revolution -is that? -Yeah, it's it's really a big change. So, so enzymes typically up until say ten years ago were used to do one, one step. So they would take a chemical a to make chemical be what's great. Um, but oftentimes for instance, in nature, a pathway in a plant to make a chemical might be 30, 40, 50 enzymes. So the way people would do that was they would try to get an organism like a yeast or a bacteria, stick those enzymes in the organism and have it do the chemistry in a fermentation setting. So that was kind of the two ends of the spectrum. One enzyme, one reaction, more like chemical manufacturing, simple and easy, clean. And then the other end of the spectrum fermentation, where you've got a long pathway and you've stuck a, uh, foreign pathway into that bug and you're trying to convince it to make your chemical instead of, you know, say, for instance, what yeast wants to do is to eat sugar and make ethanol, you know, which is great, but it doesn't do much -else than. -That for wine drinkers and beer drinkers. -Right? Yeah. -Yeah, exactly. But, uh, but not much else. So convincing a yeast, for instance, to make, uh, a chemical, uh, that you want to use as a fuel has been a problem in the past because, you know, the the chemical is often toxic to the organism, so it can't make a lot of it before it starts killing it. And then there's a whole obviously, the organism is, um, designed or been evolved to, um, to grow and make more organism, not to make what you want it to make so convincing it. And by convincing, I mean changing the chemistry inside the bug is pretty complex because there's thousands of enzymes in that bug, and it's doing lots of things like creating more bugs and grow, growing a cell wall and protecting itself and all those things make it a super complex way of manufacturing and limited by, uh, the toxicity. So take for example, I said butanol. Um, you can't make over a certain concentration in fermentation because it starts killing the bug. So um, with the Invizyne approach, taking that just the pathway you want and not the rest of the living organism into the manufacturing setting, you can make, um, 300% higher concentration of ISO butanol because there's no toxicity. You're not trying to keep anything alive. Those enzymes aren't living. They're just protein catalysts that are inert. So, -um, um, right. -So we think and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong with this analogy, because a lot of us are familiar with more immunotherapies and cancer developments where the holy grail there is, like you mentioned before, selectivity, precision, and then low or no toxicity is the same. Is that same, you know, holy grail. Apply here to synthetic biology where if you can get those three factors and that really should produce commercial viable pathways. Yeah. But you kind of you're heading up against the wall if, if you want to use a fermentation, it's good at making things like amino acids or sugars or ethanol, things that don't kill the the organism. But there's no way getting around some of these things where, you know, um, uh, you hit a wall. So in terms of the, the toxicity, for instance, um, so getting everything out of the cell and into, uh, into a stirred tank reactor or flow column and more manufacturing setting, you don't have to worry about those things because it's, uh, it's not a living organism, so you don't have to -accommodate toxicity. -So that's the key advancement that, uh, Doctor Bowie and Paul and Tyler had been working on and now bringing here. Um, are you aware of anyone else? That's. I know that there's people that talk about and use the nomenclature cell free synthetic biology, but are you aware of anyone doing something similar to InDesign? Uh, in your experience? Yeah. There's nobody, uh, exactly in the space. Um, there are other people making other chemicals, and so so it's kind of a matter of degrees. Like I said, one enzyme, one step. That's the standard. Uh, it could exist. We did, uh, working with Merck, for instance. They they developed cascades where it was like five steps with ten enzymes. That's more approaching what Infosys is doing. But but in the case of codecs and Merck, that was to make an unnatural molecule which was a drug molecule. Um, and um the number of steps was was limited to something like 5 or 6. So in the case of Invisalign we're talking about 15, 20, 30 steps. And we're taking reactions that are closer to what happens in nature. But pulling them out of out of the organism and putting it into a cell free system. Yeah. You brought up Connexis in your time there. I want to, you know, just kind of tease out from that for people and share with them that you spent. I think it was about 15 years there and senior VP of R&D and really help commercialize their, you know, enzyme engineering platform. So you've you've not just taken the science, developed it in advance, that you've seen it move into commercial success and you've been part of that. Um, can you talk about what it takes to go from from the lab to the market? Right. What are the challenges? And then how do you see the opportunities for Invizyne and in that type of -environment? -Yeah, yeah. No. So when I started out, uh, 2004 Cortexes, um, that was just the early days of enzyme engineering using these kind of, um, we're still developing the tools at that point. And, um, um, one of the projects we worked on was Lipitor. You needed a target that was huge, big in terms of revenue, and it had a big problem, which is the manufacturing that you could replace it with a cleaner approach. And so Lipitor was the first kind of mega blockbuster. I think it's $14 billion a year revenue. At the time we we started on it, it was already commercialized. They had a chemical route. And, um, but we could improve that and lower the cost of goods dramatically by using enzymes. And so those kind of programs, the challenges then it was like, you know, two years and 25 scientists to do one enzyme. You know, it was wow, big, big spend. Now we're talking about you know, it Invizyne. It's a few scientists. A few months can do an enzyme. So it's been really, uh, a couple orders of magnitude reduction in the amount of R&D because of the, the the tools have gotten so much better. You know, we can synthesize DNA cheaply. We can use automation to screen libraries very quickly. We can use machine learning to to take the results of our experiments and, and predict where to go next. And all these things have brought down the cost of R&D and the, uh, increase the target. So now we can go after things that are, you know, a few dollars a kilogram instead of like Lipitor, which was thousands of dollars per, per kilogram. Yeah. Let's let's kind of go down into that a little bit more too, because earlier you mentioned that now there's really endless possibilities to explore pathways, what you can produce, what types of molecules, natural and unnatural. How do you prioritize that situation? Right. So now you have all these tools. You can do endless things, but then how do you focus what you're doing? What does that decision matrix look like and how does that apply to -InDesign. -Yeah. So we basically take a product evaluation approach to the product portfolio and say, um, does it fit with the technology or are we solving a problem, or is chemistry pretty good at making this molecule? You know, there's some molecules, you know, I don't know, say like ethylene oxide and polyethylene glycol that what are those? -We don't we don't know what those are. -You know, for example, bulk chemicals that are made cheaply using, uh, petrochemical derived materials. And they don't need any help from enzymes, as far as I can tell. So that's so that that helps define our world that we're going after then, um, you know, regulatory, uh, intellectual property, competitive landscape, you know, is the is the opportunity big enough? Is the delta that we're talking about, uh, by bringing in this approach, uh, worth the amount of effort that we're spending? So that's how we prioritize our opportunities to find ones that that will, um, you know, give us -the biggest bang for the buck. Um. -Have you seen from your time at Texas and then moving forward with the development of tools and stuff, what was your experience in terms of selecting a target, finding a partner and getting to market? What did that time frame look like? Those two steps target to partner. Partner to market. And then how do you think that's changed. Is that cycle been those cycles been compressed because of the advancements of technology? Uh, Invizyne etc.? Yeah, yeah. No Let's say 15, 20 years ago, you could only go after pharmaceutical molecules that had a really high value and had a big problem with a chemical approach, and that then they had to have a big market. So those three things narrowed it down dramatically. And, uh, so the number of targets that we could go after was quite small. Um, now it's, uh, you know, as the years progressed, say, a decade ago, that opened up because the tools got better, then you could go after most pharmaceuticals, you know. Um, now we're at the at the stage where we're not limited to pharmaceuticals. Now we can go after commodity chemicals and things that are much, much bigger volumes. Um, because we can use a more now, let's say, an R&D light approach, because we can very rapidly improve these enzymes. We don't need to convince or coax a cell into tolerating this. We're doing it ex vivo or in a cell free manufacturing approach. Um, so the number of targets is is opened up dramatically. So what about the time to get to partnerships? I mean, what are you seeing? What does it take to get essentially the, for lack of a better term, the proof of concept to convince a partner you can do what they want you to do and then -engage. -Yeah. Proof of concept is also decreased, uh, dramatically. So it's used to be many scientists, you know, could be six months to a year. Now it's 1 or 2 scientists. It could be as short as, you know, weeks or, you know, a few months to get to that feasibility where you're saying, here's, here's, uh, an enzyme, it does your reaction, it gives you the product specs that you need. And uh, and we can say with relatively good precision how much R&D it would be required to to take it forward so we can make a, you know, eyes wide open decision. Do we go forward with this or not? And so, um, so we've had quite a high success rate with that approach because, because we're, we're getting better and better at doing these programs. So help me and I don't know the answer to this. We're familiar mostly with biotech partnerships where there's some, you know, milestone based payments certain on upfront what's in synthetic biology. How do the partnerships typically get structured. And I understanding that it may be different in pharma versus a commodities based market. Um, you know, what were the types of deals that were done at Dexus while you were -there that got you to market? -Yeah. I mean, a preface that was saying it's really challenging to get paid. Uh, so, uh, we, we struggled with business model as the, as the technology changed. Right. So but typically, um, you could sort of capture what you created by selling the enzyme that you've developed to the, to the customer. So you'd together define the approach, say how this enzyme needs to perform and what kind of product specs you need. Once you hit that, uh, and they scale up in our manufacturing, then you could supply the enzyme. And since it's a proprietary to in that case could access, they could charge, you know, uh, a fair amount for the enzyme and try to recover, um, what had been developed in other cases, you know, people will do like on, um, you know, money up front and they have no IP ownership, you know, or they might do something on speculation and approach somebody and say, hey, we've done this, you know, do you want to license it? So it's really an array of models. And and if you look at the industry, it's really, um, struggled with coming up with the right models. Some people talk about sharing the delta improvement, you know, and um, right. You know, it's it's it's, um, it's challenging, but, um, -uh, so. -So that challenge, the business model has been a challenge to the to the enzyme engineering slash synthetic biology. Scaling has been another challenge that I think has been well vocalized. Um, how do you see Amazon fitting into that? Or, you know, is their approach hitting the sweet spot of the market? Uh, what do you what can you say from the science side, any concerns on their ability to scale relative to other, more traditional scenario -approaches? -Yeah. No, I mean, that's a big part of the cell. Free manufacturing is the ability to scale because you, um, if you're trying to keep an organism alive and say you're making a jet fuel with a yeast, you know, keeping that strain going at large volumes, and they need to be tremendously large, you know, hundreds of thousands of liter volume manufacturing to to produce enough of this material. Keeping it from getting contaminated while keeping the organism alive is a big, big challenge. And that's where people have stumbled. Um, InDesign isn't limited by that. They can get to, um, much higher, um, volumes without, uh, because, again, there's no living organism involved so they don't have to worry about, um, about, uh, either death of it or contamination with other organisms. Uh, and then they can get to much higher titers. So the amount of CapEx that facilities can be, uh, like ten fold smaller, um, so they spend and the risk that you're putting up front, um, is ten x less basically than a typical, uh, fermentation. Um, manufacturers. I want to talk and be cognizant of time. We said we keep this to about 2020 five minutes and I open up to Q&A. So I do want to focus really. Again, let's go back to to the end in mind. Um, you know, you've been in this space arguably for 30, 40, 40 plus years. Um, you have seen big innovations and advancements. Uh, when do you think everyone else figures out the potential for cell free synthetic biology? What is you know, what's the tipping point from your from your side of the world where you you've had a much longer, broader perspective to see things develop. Is it in the next six months? In the next three years? I mean, you have a McKinsey global coming out saying this is the next trillion dollar industry. Where do you see that inflection point happening? Yeah, no, I think we're in the midst of it. Um, you know, obviously everything I'm saying, here's my opinion. But the, um, I think that, um, that we are in the midst of it and InDesign has the advantage of being, you know, a first mover. And so they've created IP around, uh, around this approach. And, uh, but I think people will see their success and, you know, it'll turn heads and people will realize that a CapEx light, R&D light approach to developing biomanufacturing processes is pretty attractive. Um, so success will will draw in. Yeah. We typically see the market recognition follow. It lags the scientific recognition. What are you seeing from the scientific community, your peers that you've spent your career with? Are they catching on or do they see or what's the aha moment for -them? -Yeah, no, they're definitely catching on. And I think there'll be a benefit to to people that adapt. Um tends to be pretty conservative, you know the industry. So I think, um, Invizyne's approach is going to be working with more innovative companies. And uh, the larger ones will follow later. Um, so there's there's a lot of, uh, inertia around, you know, using petrochemical, obviously. And the facilities are built and, uh, you know, um, so getting people to shift, I think, um, that will be driven by success, but it's going to take some time, and I think InDesign will be in a good position to be a first mover to benefit from from this, uh, this approach. Okay. Well, listen, I'm going to end with one more question. Then we'll open up the question and answer. And it's, uh, kind of a double sided one. What's the what's the biggest risk or challenge you see for Amazon moving forward as they commercialize. And then what's the biggest opportunity. What excites you the most. Put another way, yeah, I think. It's just the incumbents being resistant to change is always a challenge. Um, on the commercial side, you know, I think I've had cases in my career where I bring a beautiful process to somebody and convincing them that they that they want to change what they're doing is just surprisingly difficult. So I think that's the challenge, is finding those opportunities, uh, the products that need to be made that are also, um, can be done with a partnership with somebody that's willing to, to, uh, be a to take a risk and do something new. That's that's always the challenge. -The second part of your question. -Was just what's the biggest opportunity that you see? What what excites you the most about being involved with Amazon and what's ahead of the company potentially? Again, understanding these are your opinions and for forward looking in nature. Yeah. No, I mean I'm excited by um, um, the sustainable aviation fuel and demonstrating sustainability, uh, that scale, you know, because you've got the benefit of regulatory, uh, especially in Europe, driving adoption of those things. So that's going to give the necessary, I think, um, protection as the, uh, economics grow. Because, you know, when you start out, um, you're building facilities, putting a lot of capital at risk. You need some, some basically some some support. So I'm excited by, um, taking products that are in that area of sustainability, um, that fit the technology well and then have the opportunity to be big volumes and really change the way everybody thinks about making materials. And do you see those? Because there's the regulatory pull or in Europe's case, the mandate is accelerating the process. I mean, you're seeing the players more engaged or innovators more engaged in those markets just because they don't have a choice or is there. And again, I'm bringing this up because we've dealt with other emissions control technologies where the industry players could just pay a fine as opposed to, uh, complying with the new regs. So is that the case here with Saff in Europe or these hard and fast regulations so people understand. Yeah. No, my understanding is is hard and fast, but I'm not in the details of it. You know. Regulatory expert in European regulations to. Know. But the nice thing about it is that, uh, with the relatively modest R&D effort that, you know, you can go after these big products and, uh, and go after more, uh, you know, smaller, smaller volume products as well to grow the company, to demonstrate the technology, build, you know, the infrastructure that's needed to, to deliver on this, uh, you know, um, so it's a nice, uh, kind of portfolio approach where you've got, um, valuable, but in a more, um, a pharma and, um, nutraceutical, you know, food additive type opportunities. Uh, and then the big, huge, -you know, things like fuel. -Yeah. No. And to that point, I want to just remind people, I think it's in InDesign, actually the the pitch deck that they filed, I want to say it's slide 7 or 8 where they talk about how to de-risk the process and get to market and what the incremental costs are for each step. And if you look at it, if I remember correctly, it's somewhere, you know, those early phases are $50,000 to 100,000. It's hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to a point where it may be make sense and a matter of, you know, less six months in some cases, and then the spend gets into 1 million or 2 where you can partner. Is is that accurate? Um, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. And obviously much lower barrier to to what it been, say, ten years ago. Yeah. Okay. Well, at this point, if you're okay with it, you'll indulge us for a few questions from the audience. I would love to get through that again. As a reminder to everyone, the easiest way to ask the question. We're not going to try and put you on screen, as well as just enter them into the Q&A box here in zoom. Uh, we will go through a handful of these here. Just encourage you. Please do not ask any questions that would, uh, about this specific offering or about forward looking statements or personal investment advice. We can't provide that we end up in orange jumpsuits if we do. So, uh, Jim and I do not want to do that. Uh, so let me start off. We've got a quick question here. Um, from David. He's setting the green energy label aside. I question the economy of creating jet fuel from sugarcane or corn. Is the production supply sufficient and sustainable? Is it cost competitive with fossil fuels? Uh, the biomedical applications don't seem to make more sense. So there's a lot there. If you need me to kind of unpack it piece by piece. I think at first is does Invizyne, if we get into the SAF, is it competing with the food supply, and if so, how do you how do you balance that? Yeah. No. Um, obviously there's been a huge effort in this country and in worldwide and in biofuels and people looking at supply chain, and I'm not an expert in that, but but my understanding is, uh, for instance, if you look at Brazil, where you've got sugarcane to make sugar and ethanol, uh, you also have bagasse, which is, uh, you know, waste, um, uh, agricultural waste that is cellulosic, that you can drive sugars from them. So there's a way to sort of co-produce and take value from what would be, uh, basically a waste value. Um, so you can use the corn husks and that, that waste in to, to drive these enzymatic reactions. -Yeah. Yeah. -Okay. Um, so I think that answers that question. The next one is, uh, Jim, what is your opinion of the status of the CIN bio sector from the viewpoint of the public companies that are out there? Do you feel that we're near a more positive time for the group based on the technologies, or is this sector going to continue to struggle because of the technological shortcomings of those companies that are already in the market? Yeah, no, I think the technology is moving forward really nicely, and I think companies that are able to capitalize, that will benefit. And I don't want to comment on the, uh, abilities of specific companies, but, uh, you know, um, just like any technology, you know, like we had the, the booms and busts and boom, again of, you know, the internet and dotcom and, and, uh, now I, you know, it's really akin to that, that there'll be there'll be people that fall out and people that succeed and, you know, but it's going to be, in my opinion, trillions of dollars, you know, produced by biological means. And, um, you know, I think so without. So without naming names, let me try something here. And you can refrain from answering if you choose. Were there any other companies that are public now in the same bio sector that you were approached to join as a board or scientific advisory member that you declined? -Yes. Okay. -They're fair. Shortest -answer of the afternoon. -Yeah. -So. -Uh. Uh, my, my also say just like, just like dotcom and all that, you know, you've seen, like, people thought, say, ten years ago it would be, you know, scenario and even where the term came from because we could just treat it like coding and DNA. You could just stick it in a bug and it would just do whatever you want, you know? Which was a huge oversimplification and turned out to be wrong, that bugs don't do whatever you want. They do whatever they want. So, um. So, um, just like, you know, um, in the internet and computers, in AI, our field is also had these booms and busts and booms again. But I think, you know, it's all part of becoming a -mature field. -Yeah. I want to end with just kind of, you know, I would say this is my personal opinion when looking at investments. The toughest thing to control for is is management, the team humans. Right. You just don't know. Um, so I want to ask you, given your experience on the science side, but then also with commercial applications with Texas. What's your evaluation of the team? The executive team that's there from, you know, Michael Helton and Zach and then the science team with Tyler Paul and Doctor Bowie. And obviously I want to say I have tremendous respect for all of them. So I know I'm leaving out some of the team members. So I want to be all inclusive. What are your impressions given your experience and working with -other organizations? -Yeah, no, I mean, that's how I got involved, actually, just from Jim Bowie's publications and meeting Tyler and Paul at conferences and and learning about what they're doing. And then I you know, I saw an opportunity with some of their work that they published and cannabinoids to, uh, to, um, apply some technology that I knew about, which was a cofactor recycling. And that's how we kind of collaborated at a scientific level, say, five years ago. So, so I've been, um, connected to them since then and really impressed with their ability, their creativity, you know, diligence and, and, uh, um, really cutting edge science. And now that, you know, um, the executive team, uh, has been brought in, I'm really impressed with their with their acumen and their expertise in the field. So, so as you kind of, um, hinted at the team is, is everything. And, you know, you can see companies with great technology and and they have some political problems in inside and they, they don't they don't make it right. So so it's huge. And I'm really enjoy working with this team and really -impressed with what they've done. -Well, I enjoyed the conversation today. I really appreciate the time you've taken, uh, give you an opportunity if there's any final things that you'd like to say, but by no -means no pressure. -Yeah. Uh, no. Just, uh, super grateful for being a part of this field and to be a part of the, uh, the Invisalign, uh, um, -offering. So it's, uh. -Well, we're thankful to have someone of your science stature and then commercial stature joined on the team as well. I can say that from my personal standpoint, on behalf of the MDB capital team. So, uh, I would like to also thank everyone for participating today if you have any questions whatsoever as a follow up, you can always email us at community at IMDb.com. As we mentioned at the outset, we have recorded this and we'll be posting the recording to the website website at InDesign as well as relevant social media platforms here shortly. So again, thank you, Jim, and thank you, everyone else for paying attention today and look forward to the developments that are ahead for InDesign. And this the field of synthetic.