Jun 4, 2024
What makes multidisciplinary collaboration the key to health
and life sciences research and innovation? What is the impact of
bundled, integrated solutions on the patient experience? And how
can we invest in what matters most in research while streamlining
the entire process? We will learn all that and more in this episode
of Research in Action with Frank Baitman, Digital Health, Data, and
Technology Executive; and former Chief Information Officer of the
US Department of Health and Human Services.
-------------------------------------------------------
Episode Transcript:
00;00;00;02 - 00;00;27;22
What makes multidisciplinary collaboration the key to health care
innovation? What is the effect of bundled, integrated solutions on
the patient experience and how can we invest in what matters most
while streamlining the entire process? We'll find all that out and
more on Research in Action. Hello and welcome to Research in
Action, brought to you by Oracle Life Sciences.
00;00;27;22 - 00;00;52;08
I'm Mike Stiles. And today our very special guest is Frank Bateman,
a digital health data and technology executive. He's currently a
senior health IT advisor and was a former chief information officer
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Oracle Life
Sciences has an e-book on the next phase of growth for the Life
Sciences industry, and Frank was a really valuable resource for
that.
00;00;52;08 - 00;01;22;00
He's got a lot of great thoughts on how pharma and biotech are
investing in tech to support things like personalized medicine,
improved clinical trials and drug safety tracking. That's why we
wanted to get him on the podcast. So Frank, thanks so much for
joining us. Thanks. It's great to be here, Mike. We appreciate it.
Well, we got a lot of ground to cover, but I know you went into
corporate strategy in the beginning of your career and through the
bulk of your career, but obviously somewhere down the line you
started crossing paths with government.
00;01;22;00 - 00;01;42;04
So what did that involve? How did that happen? Well, I've been
lucky enough to pursue my interests wherever they took me. I hadn't
expected to pursue a career in the life sciences and health care
when I started out focused on nuclear arms control. But my interest
in technology actually came about from my work on verification
measures for a nuclear test ban.
00;01;42;21 - 00;02;09;05
Technology first took me to IBM Research and then under IBM
corporate strategy, as you mentioned, when in in corporate, I
oversaw the company's ten year outlook. And as a tech company, we
saw high performance computing in the life sciences staring us in
the face. We needed to be in it. And our chairman at the time, Lou
Gerstner, accepted a recommendation that we invest 100 million to
launch a business unit focused on the life sciences.
00;02;09;19 - 00;02;36;24
So I love the idea. You were actually serving in the Obama
administration. White House Entrepreneur in residence. I love the
idea of an entrepreneur in residence because one doesn't quickly
equate government with speed, original ideas and innovation. Were
you impressed by or frustrated by the speed at which you could
bring things to full fruition in government? Impressed? Absolutely
frustrated.
00;02;37;00 - 00;03;04;25
Yeah. Our times sometimes there are arcane processes that get in
the way of novel solutions, but I always thought that had great
admiration for the dedicated dedication the mission demonstrated by
civil servants. Doing things differently was really a hallmark of
the Obama administration. It wasn't just the Entrepreneur in
Residence program you mentioned. Obama appointed the nation's first
chief technology officer, the first chief information officer.
00;03;05;06 - 00;03;31;08
He launched the US Digital Service to provide agencies with a
different approach to software development. He created challenge
that guards as a means for agencies to seek innovations by awarding
modest prizes as opposed to large government contracts. It brought
new voices to light. I look at our current government a lot, like
most governments, it's inherited its structure from the industrial
age.
00;03;31;18 - 00;03;58;12
For the most part, it's organized by industry, by vertical. There's
an Agriculture Department, energy, health, defense and so on. The
congressional appropriations process is what exacerbates the
problem in this information age. I really believe that Multi-disc
culinary collaboration is what brings about solutions. And I don't
have a background in biochemistry, but I worked with biochemists to
explore therapies that made effective use in both of our
disciplines.
00;03;58;25 - 00;04;23;21
If you think of Tesla for a moment, the company has innovations, it
has inventions. But its real success was that of an integrator. It
brought together knowhow from battery management, aerodynamics,
automobile engineering, software development and legacy. Automakers
had been working on these problems in building an EV for years, but
their approach failed to deliver a car with mass market appeal.
00;04;24;00 - 00;04;47;06
And I think that's precisely what we need to do in the life
sciences now, is bring the disciplines together and organize to
solve problems. Now, I think the listeners are starting to see why
you're such a fascinating person to have on the show. You've been
exposed at high levels to nearly every component of health care,
and through most of that you were tasked with being really a
futurist and a trend spotter in it.
00;04;47;06 - 00;05;08;17
So just keep my head straight. I'm going to cover things with you
in buckets now. The first being what the challenges and
opportunities really are in life sciences. Fun fact for our
listeners can bring up at their next dinner party. When things get
dull, it takes about $2 billion and 10 to 15 years to get a drug to
market.
00;05;08;17 - 00;05;30;27
Now, for most people who have gotten used to rapid advancement,
getting things they want and need on demand, that sounds absolutely
crazy. So can technology kind of change this equation soon? Mike I
don't think that's crazy at all, and I really believe that we're on
the cusp of change. One of the startups that I worked with, Empower
Medicine, is a really great example.
00;05;31;11 - 00;06;04;00
What they're trying to achieve is a complex endeavor. It depends
upon bringing together people from different disciplines to work
across the universe of stakeholders. And going back to the Tesla
example, GM and Ford built highly structured teams in engineering
designed propulsion. But Tesla was a software company from the
start. So I think the challenge is how do you, as a life sciences
company, mimic what Tesla did to bring together the disciplines and
focus on the entire process of drug development?
00;06;04;14 - 00;06;33;17
It's almost like if technology isn't the answer, what is? For
instance, it's the only way really to capture the volume and
sources of adverse events, right? We always look at adverse events
and drug discovery thanks to that observation. Technology can do
wonders, but it isn't nirvana. I it does great things, but I think
it's always important to remember in health care there needs to be
a human touch because health care at its core is about people.
00;06;33;28 - 00;07;02;27
Technology is already making waves in clinical trials and there's
so much more to come. We're on the early stages witnessing that
impact. Things like electronic patient reported outcomes and
various sensors are beginning to gather data from patients during
trials and during real world use. And this technology facilitates
the capture of adverse events actively and passively, leading to
just a wealth of data and deeper understanding of therapeutic
effects.
00;07;03;19 - 00;07;31;23
This could uncover unexpected drug interactions or shed light and
personalize or genomic attributes. Sometimes, though, adverse
events are not obvious. And that's that's really another role that
technology can play because of its ability to capture so much data,
it may find unexpected things to match what's going on in the
market. Actually, Oracle just merged its health care and Life
sciences organization late last year.
00;07;31;23 - 00;07;55;24
Why do you think those two things are coming together? I know you
talk about bringing things together and that's just like one
example of it. Yeah, I think that's a really great example. I like
to think of health as being all encompassing. The life sciences
exist to support health. The same could be said for payors,
providers, physicians, health systems, pharmacies, patients, Cros,
even employers.
00;07;56;09 - 00;08;24;11
Each has their role to play. The vast majority of companies across
the health sector have a mission or model that says something like
Patients are the reason we're in business. Well, I'm not
questioning it. In fact, I'm pretty confident people are involved,
they're sincere. But if serving patients is your mission, I'd ask,
when was the last time you took a look at your organization to see
if it is optimally designed to address the needs of patients in
this information age?
00;08;24;28 - 00;08;54;23
We know that siloed organizations underperform multiple disciplines
and experiences are not considered. Information isn't shared in
much. The way I spoke about HHS is being a reflection of the health
sector by having a research component, by having a regulatory
component, by having a provider component. I think that those
companies that integrate health disciplines need to step out of
their comfort zone in the same way that Oracle combined those
pieces.
00;08;55;07 - 00;09;24;18
Now put I want to put that futurist hat on and tell us which
innovations you think are going to have the most profound impact.
On average, Mike's like me and say the next decade, What do you see
coming? So I think it's important to have a framework to think
about this. And and I've begun to craft a mind map to identify
emerging use cases for AI because it's their adoption that makes
real change possible downstream.
00;09;25;01 - 00;09;52;06
The framework that I propose is first, think about what are the
emerging use cases where good enough, where is today? Suffices
seconds Think about the next hurdle that generative AI crosses.
What does that hurdle enable? And third, when you look at the first
use cases of health, what are the second order needs that become
possible? Things that haven't been able to be addressed.
00;09;52;20 - 00;10;19;05
The good enough example concept deserves an example. There's a
startup by the name of Hai Labs that makes use of artificial
intelligence, and for disclosure, I'm on the company's board. Hi
Labs motto is We clean dirty data to unlock its potential for
health care. Heaven knows if you've been around health care, you
know about Dirty data. Hai Labs has mastered the capability that it
is good enough for health plans.
00;10;19;05 - 00;10;49;18
Who can address incomplete claims, claims data, flawed provider
directories, even incomplete clinical data plans. Love the product
because it solves the problem they have today. Tomorrow, it might
be good enough for clinical studies. It isn't today. And that's the
framework I think we ought to be exploring when we think about what
is generative. AI's impact on health care, what's possible today,
what's good enough, and what's that going to train the large
language models to do tomorrow.
00;10;50;05 - 00;11;24;20
Another example I find rather inspiring is a nonprofit by the name
of Every Cure, launched by David Feigenbaum. Based on his own
experience as a med student, he was diagnosed with Castleman
Disease, a cell disorder of the lymph nodes and he nearly died
after discovering that a 25 year old drug would block Castleman his
pathway. He started every cure which is making use of AI to sort
through well-documented commercial therapeutics to discover what
might be repurposed.
00;11;25;02 - 00;11;47;27
You just don't know where AI is going to take you. And I think you
need to look at the indicators in the marketplace to say, Oh,
that's happening now. What possibilities does that create for the
future? So the next bucket is personalized medicine. We've also
become a culture that's really used to getting catered to from
grocery stores, knowing what we usually buy to Netflix, knowing
what movies will probably like.
00;11;47;27 - 00;12;12;26
We really gotten used to that. Health conditions are seen by
patients as a very personal thing. So what are the remaining
roadblocks that we're hitting and delivering? Truly personalized
and customized medicine? So I have every confidence in personalized
medicine. I have worked around it for years now, and there are
things to know about individuals that are cheap and easy to
collect.
00;12;12;26 - 00;12;41;08
But there are also things that are really difficult and costly to
capture. And for each category, I think we need to be asking
ourselves the question, What can I do with this knowledge? If I
know something about this individual, can I do something? And
personalization powered by digitization. I think a good example for
patients with type two diabetes, It's moved quite swiftly because
that knowledge is easily captured and it can be turned into
coaching and medicines.
00;12;41;19 - 00;13;16;16
But there are many other diseases where personalized option doesn't
yet offer a therapeutic advantage. How do you protect health
information while also making it widely available and shareable to
everyone who needs it? Isn't that another barrier? It is.
Ultimately, I think patients need to be in control of their own
health records. It's the only viable solution if patients are
always wondering whether their data is under someone else's control
or someone else is profiting from it or using it in ways they don't
agree with, then they're not going to share their data.
00;13;17;01 - 00;13;39;15
So we need to find a mechanism to empower patients to control their
data, their health data granularly. We've talked a lot on this show
about real world data and real world evidence. Should we be am I
overhyping what our would and RW we can lead to? Well, I think
electronic health records are full of errors. We all know that.
00;13;39;24 - 00;14;07;29
But the question we should be asking is what's good enough and for
what purpose? As more medical doctors are born, digital people
coming out of med school in their twenties now have only done
medical digital like the tech industry, collaborates on standards
and competes on performance. Real world data will get better and
generative A.I. will have an effect as well.
00;14;08;11 - 00;14;35;23
So I think we need to look at again, it's an evolution. What's good
enough and understand that we're heading in that direction because
all of our stakeholders are increasingly doing their their jobs
only digitally. So the next bucket would be clinical trials. What
can we do from a data collection angle to make clinical research
move better, more efficient and faster to work better for the
patient?
00;14;36;07 - 00;15;09;00
I was with a startup by the name of Empower Medicine and Mark Lee,
the CEO of Empower, has a set of PowerPoint slides that I think do
a great job of illustrating. The problem is analog to clinical
trial data is a greenhouse. It's purpose built for one study. It's
costly and the investment cannot be repurposed. When the study is
completed, the well-manicured greenhouse is the most that isn't
economically sustainable, nor does it capture evidence that might
inform science.
00;15;09;16 - 00;15;36;28
So I'm on a separate note. I think we're missing an opportunity to
capture data from populations that are representative of the
disease being researched. It's obviously a bit more effort and
takes some creative thought. So while there's pressure to enroll
patients in studies, the lack of diversity impairs our
understanding of the disease. And to your earlier question, it
slows down the adoption of personalized medicine.
00;15;37;14 - 00;16;09;00
You know, in all honesty, none of my guests have ever exactly rave
about the state of electronic health records. How do you think
those issues have to get solved in order to improve clinical
trials? Well, Mike, I'm not raving, but ours have come a long way
over the past 15 years. Your question is interesting, though,
because it focuses on clinical trials and for the most part,
providers at the point of care are not focused on clinical
trials.
00;16;09;16 - 00;16;44;03
That's pharma's interest. Our challenge ought to be to make
electronic health records better for everyone. If we take seriously
the opportunity to reimagine clinical trials, why should the data
from point of care be separate from the trial data? You could argue
it's a historic anomaly akin to our discussion of siloed verticals.
I'm not saying there should not be a separate clinical trial system
that might manage the trial or produce analytics about the trial,
but the data about patients should be captured in the EMR and not
through a redundant data entry.
00;16;44;03 - 00;17;04;22
Let me give you an example. I used to forget my wallet or my keys
every time I left the house. Now my phone has all of those
responsibilities and more. It's become more valuable and I rarely
forget it. So I guess the question I have is how do we make our
more valuable to all stakeholders? And I think that's something
Oracle is really leaning into.
00;17;04;22 - 00;17;37;10
With that acquisition of Cerner. It finds itself with the largest
components of that equation, so it can then proceed with solutions
that do connect clinical trials to points of care. Do you think an
undertaking like that is just an example of common sense? I do, and
I suspect that many tech vendors are racing to make this happen.
It'll be a while before the evidence is sufficient to enroll
patients, but generative AI is ready, suggesting patients for
studies based upon our data.
00;17;37;19 - 00;18;05;23
So in some sense, where it's good enough for some purposes now and
we can only imagine what it might be around the corner, you know, I
think of about how clinical trials could be fundamentally changed.
I think about reduction of chaos really by using standards and
automation. That's accepted pretty much throughout the industry,
which means more digitalization. Am I an idiot thinking that's
possible?
00;18;06;23 - 00;18;34;27
I'm not going to say that, Mike, thanks. But I do think your
question is a certainty and I'm betting on it. Meaningful
digitalization requires a rethink. However, of what we're trying to
achieve and what the necessary steps are along the way. So doing
unneeded steps faster won't have much of an effect. Amazon didn't
just give you a shopping cart for your goods.
00;18;35;12 - 00;19;02;18
They changed the shopping experience by providing suggestions for
accessories, storing your payment information, delivery
preferences, and giving you reviews of those products. We need to
be thoughtful about how do we change the process rather than
speeding up the unnecessary stage gates along the way. It's all
about simplification with a focus on the patient. I don't mean that
as a platitude.
00;19;02;18 - 00;19;27;13
Every drug company, as I said, talks about its work in terms of the
patient, but it's about understanding the patient's preferences and
prioritizing them. I love that. Well, when you said, you know,
doing unnecessary things, unnecessary steps faster doesn't get us
anywhere, that's very smart. You touched on it, but AI and drug
development specifically is kind of its own bucket.
00;19;27;13 - 00;20;04;07
How is pharmaceutical research and development about to be
transformed because of a I mean, what roles does it play in getting
these drugs to market faster so they can help people sooner? So the
mind map that I mentioned I think is informing second order
outcomes. And using this framework, I've begun to focus on a few
areas. First is clinical research asking the question how does
clinical research change when generative AI solutions become good
enough to enable patients to provide raw, real world data from
digital health devices?
00;20;04;18 - 00;20;32;02
Will that make it easier to recruit patients? And then there's
another question what responsibilities the sponsors have when those
devices deliver worrying evidence. The second area that I've been
thinking about, the second order outcomes is the patient
experience. It's never fun to be a patient, but in the current
environment you need to be a bookkeeper, an administrator, a note
taker, a risk manager, a data interpreter and an advocate.
00;20;32;12 - 00;20;58;27
There are impressive A.I. solutions to each of these challenges
that I've seen in development now. So the question we ought to pose
is what happens to the patient experience when these solutions are
bundled and integrated with one another? And does that amount to a
virtual concierge? Since it weaves data across providers, labs,
pharmacies, payers and tech stacks, the patient wins.
00;20;59;10 - 00;21;24;22
But I've come to wonder which health sector is when and which lose.
Are there any ethics or security concerns that's unique to applying
AI to health care? Certainly we've heard the criticisms about, you
know, well, AI scrapes the web and turns out not everything on the
Internet is true. So, you know, is there any kind of danger of bad
data being pulled in and applied by A.I.?
00;21;25;08 - 00;21;44;26
There are tons of concerns and there are think tanks out there
publishing reports on these. But the truth is, the genie can't be
put back into the bottle. A number of companies have put forward
thoughtful ethics guidelines, particularly from the tech sector.
But we can't allow the rules to vary from company to company, and
we can't depend upon self-policing.
00;21;44;26 - 00;22;09;22
The stakes are just too high. Instead, we need Congress to act in
established guardrails that allow the AI industry to grow without
causing harm to individuals. Congress largely ignored privacy over
the past couple of decades, while the rest of the world moved ahead
on that front. We shouldn't allow this to happen again because A.I.
arguably poses a much greater risk.
00;22;10;07 - 00;22;35;03
When states are forced to act, we end up with a patchwork of rules
that are easy to circumvent. Yeah, you brought up a really good
point that, you know, while our focus is on medicine and pharma and
clinical research and patients, government and business does enter
the picture, how are the pharma companies responding to things like
the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and the price pressures that
they're facing?
00;22;35;15 - 00;23;03;05
Well, I can't speak for the pharma companies. I do observe their
attempt to prevent it from going into effect, the price pressures,
the controls. But I think ultimately we need to get to a point
where there is meaningful digitization to allow a rethink of what
we're trying to achieve so we can streamline processes. You
mentioned about how other countries jumped on the regulation of AI
so much sooner than we did.
00;23;03;26 - 00;23;34;11
What are the drug costs and medical procedure cost disparities
between the United States and seemingly the rest of the world? I
mean, it seems like our costs are always so infinitely higher. They
are. And as an American, I've got to say, I can't explain it and I
am frustrated by it. And I'm frustrated when seniors or people who
don't have resources can't get the medicines that they need because
they're being gouged.
00;23;35;08 - 00;24;01;10
Pharmaceutical companies who are charging two and a half to three
times what they charge in Western developed nations in Europe. I
really do think there needs to be a rethink of the way pharma does
its business to streamline it and take unnecessary steps out of the
process that could reduce the costs of drug development. Yeah, and
a lot of that cost in our system isn't even directly healing
patients.
00;24;01;10 - 00;24;30;20
It's administrative costs. It's inefficiencies in everything from
staffing to supplies and other verticals and other businesses.
Those are areas where tech is really being aggressively applied to
get to those efficiencies. And you're saying maybe health care is
playing catch up? I think it is. You know, there are two sectors
that are laggards in adopting technology globally and it isn't just
in the U.S. it's government and it's health care.
00;24;31;02 - 00;24;56;19
Health care has gotten on the bandwagon, particularly in certain
sectors like pharma. Every sector in health care needs to do this,
though, because the economics of health care are not sustainable,
as in other industries. Health care writ large needs to ask what's
best for the patient and determine what's the most efficient way of
getting there. Delivering that those who employ the greatest
creativity will serve both patients and shareholders interests.
00;24;57;02 - 00;25;25;11
So, you know, as I think about what a pharmaceutical company looks
like today, or I think about what a payer looks like today, I think
the question I have is, is there something outside of your sector
that you could do that would deliver value to patients and better
outcomes? If there is, why are you doing it? Are you happy with the
degree to which research data is being shared?
00;25;25;20 - 00;25;54;15
Currently? Let me suggest that we ask the question just a little
differently. Could we improve the sharing of research data? And
without a doubt, the answer is yes. What if we think out of the box
here and we empower patients, as I said earlier, to make the
decision, perhaps all informed consent going forward could include
a question where the patient consents to release anonymized data
not only for the sponsor, but for all of science, for all
researchers.
00;25;54;28 - 00;26;21;16
Putting on my privacy hat, I think it's fair to say that we all
expect to have control over our personal health records, and we
need to empower patients to make these decisions. And I suspect
there are enough examples of this now. I suspect that when patients
are asked, will you make your personal information, your health
records available to science for future generations, the answer is
almost always going to be yes.
00;26;21;28 - 00;26;47;16
Yeah, I agree with you. Turns out not everyone's a nice guy like
Frank here. Cybercrime is real. Health care organizations,
particularly have been in the news lately for all the wrong
reasons. Oracle's Larry Ellison and Seema Verma just wrote about it
and the Wall Street Journal. Is that a winnable fight? It feels
like we're getting to a place where everyone's just accepting that
there is no security and we're just going to have to live with
it.
00;26;48;03 - 00;27;09;19
I think it comes down to how you define winnable. I hate to tease
that out, but there will be cyber attacks and there will be
breaches. You can't stop them entirely, but you can sure cut down
on your risk profile. Companies who are diligent can dramatically
reduce the risk of appearing on the front page of the Wall Street
Journal as opposed to the Opinion Page.
00;27;10;00 - 00;27;50;28
There's no silver bullet, though, and it's unlikely that
proprietary technologies can beat attackers, especially when nation
states are involved in the attack. When I was in government, I got
a close up look at the industry, the health care industry and
cybersecurity. We were in the early days of creating industry
specific communities. In particular, we launched the health ISAC,
which means information sharing and Analysis Center in 2010, and it
immediately provided a view into breaches, a view that enabled
others across the health sector to shut down the vulnerabilities
that were successfully used to attack someone else.
00;27;51;20 - 00;28;15;20
In many instances, it wasn't the technology that failed us. It was
social engineering that led to the breach. So expound on that. The
difference between, well, obviously technology can do what it can
do and that it has its shortcomings. But what do you mean? It was
social engineering that failed us. Usually attackers will find a
vulnerability. It could be a helpdesk.
00;28;15;29 - 00;28;44;15
It could be someone in an accounting office that has access to the
system. They'll call and they'll sound serious. They may even have
gotten some personal information from someone else to pretend that
they're that person and doing that, they will change a password.
They will gain access to a system. So it isn't the technology that
failed. It's that there were other access points to the technology
that someone socially engineered.
00;28;44;26 - 00;29;04;27
So humans are fool able. Oh yeah, we are not you and I, of course.
But you know, other humans are. I hold in my hand the last bucket,
which is if I were in charge of everything. If you were in charge
of everything in the many components of health care, they would
listen to you and follow your recommendations.
00;29;04;27 - 00;29;30;29
What would those recommendations be? As we sit here today, in 2024,
I can dream, can't I? Make sure you can. I'm putting I'm making you
head of HHS now. I guess my suggestion is what I call threading the
needle. By that I mean laying out a business process that begins
with life sciences research and ends with providing life saving
therapies to patients.
00;29;31;14 - 00;29;59;13
And then ask yourself, how can we invest in what matters while
streamlining the entire process? Because there are just too many
stakeholders, too many people taking a profit, too many unnecessary
steps in a process that, as I said, was designed during the
industrial age and isn't needed anymore. Technology can play a
crucial role, but so too will company culture, expertise and
perhaps most importantly, stakeholder engagement.
00;29;59;29 - 00;30;32;18
Everyone has to be on board for changes, these kind of structural
changes to succeed. Does this mean bringing back some aspects of
clinical research into pharma away from crows? I don't know. Maybe.
Does it involve making use of hours for real world data? I think
certainly perhaps it involves personalized medicine and genomic
testing would make it unaffordable. But in a world of value based
care, is there a way to use the outcomes to pay for the entire
therapy?
00;30;32;28 - 00;31;11;22
I think it's quite likely that generative AI is going to change the
health sector, making it more efficient, less bureaucratic, better
integrated around delivering value. So I think those companies that
don't act could very well find themselves with a consequential
decision down the road. However, companies that pursue a strategy
that really rethinks with the patients in the center and delivering
therapies and the science behind doing so, I think will see their
benefits to not only their bottom line, but they'll provide the
best care that they say they want to provide by focusing on the
patient.
00;31;12;17 - 00;31;33;20
It's really great advice that should probably be heeded. Frank It's
been great. Again, thanks so much for being with us. I'm sure our
listeners may want to follow you or find out more. What's the best
way for them to do that? Well, I'm currently on a social media
hiatus, and for you, I do avoid it. But certainly anyone can follow
me or connect to me on LinkedIn.
00;31;33;28 - 00;32;05;25
Okay, great. And for our listeners, if you want this level of smart
all the time, go ahead and subscribe to the show right now. And if
you want to learn more about how Oracle can accelerate your own
life sciences research, just go to Oracle dot com slash life dash
sciences and we'll see you next time.