I'd like to say one more thing about the… the Nobel prize itself. It… it… the short statement in the prize did not specifically refer to the hepatitis B, the longer explanation did, but it was given to Carleton Gajdusek and myself, although we had never worked together but our… our sort of style of… of doing research was very similar and that was noted by the Nobel committee, that we didn't work just on the virus, which is frequently the case in… in microbiological research, but it was the virus, the host, different responses of the host, the environmental factors that interacted with the virus and the host, the… the community, the population in which the host was and the effect of the virus on the population, not just on the individual host, and its interaction with behavior. And both Carleton and I had done, I think I pointed out before, we'd published papers in Anthropology and in Population Biology and Population Genetics, and I think that was… that was something that pleased me very much because the… the committee kind of saw the… the approach that we'd used and, as a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons I felt somewhat — as it turned out — uncomfortable at NIH, because they wanted to separate those ways of approaching science, whereas when I came here to Fox Chase, there was this kind of liberation, you know, I could work on… work on… I didn't have to work on some kind of category — there wasn't a restriction, there was less confinement into the style and the science. So that was very encouraging, of course, to… to get that validation, you might say, of what we… the way we'd approached the problems.