John Burn-Murdoch

But would the hope be, again, that when they become platforms, they become commoditized and that the prices drop rapidly?

That brings us on to the topic of money here, right?

I obviously understand that there is a certain inevitability to things getting cheaper as you scale them up.

But is there an issue here around the incentives on the firms involved to bring the prices down?

We've got a little punchy question here from a listener called Adrian who says, given the impact that this all has on equitable distribution of medicines, can we rely on Sojourn

to be fully impartial on the subject of intellectual property and the bias in favor of richer nations and their pharmaceutical giants.

Is there a fundamental conflict of interest here around getting these treatments out as cheaply and as broadly as possible, or are there incentives that will at least encourage companies to go slower on the cost reduction?

Thank you for those first two questions to Ruxandra and Adrian.

This next question is from Christopher, who asks, how far away does Sir John realistically think a cure for cancer is, and what makes you think that?

That's fascinating.

So this would be both a lifespan gain and a financial gain.

A huge financial gain.

And that, as you say, the key there is the early detection means that it's a more routine treatment.

And the other thing that strikes me as really interesting here is that

There's been this trade-off discussed about if we get too good at detecting cancers, you end up with a lot of people having these quite nasty invasive therapies.

Whereas presumably what we're saying is if you detect them at that earlier stage, there is no trade-off.

The treatments there are not invasive.

I mean, you've been in this space for decades.

Would this be the most dramatic advanced breakthrough that you've seen?

Remarkable.