No, this is partly because of the commonalities approach. I can't emphasize this enough. I've been involved in this field for over 10 years, and my sense is that some conditions will receive more attention, in many cases because of the number of people affected. But there are many conditions that don't necessarily have a group to speak on their behalf, and I think that when we're setting research priorities solely based on diseases that have a strong voice, we may neglect conditions that equally merit attention. In addition, with a commonalities approach, when you're looking at multiple impact, we may be looking at something like repair in the white matter of the brain that has impact not just on major diseases, but also on other conditions.
There are really only three things that are the big problems with brain disease: one, cells die in a particular region; two, they don't connect well; and three, there are chemical and molecular imbalances. So looking at some of these underlying causes gives us clues to a much broader range of conditions. I think that is the right way to set strategy.