Good morning, and welcome to Syncona's interim results. This has been a busy period for us, and we are pleased with the progress across the portfolio, and in particular, the increasing maturation of that portfolio. We've made strong clinical progress, and particularly we now have five companies at the clinical stage, and we've had seven clinical readouts this year from Autolus, Gyroscope, Freeline, and Achilles. Quell and Swan Bio continue to make strong progress, and we would expect Quell to be in the clinic early next year, having recently received the approval of their CTA. On the new investment side, we've made an exciting new investment in a company called Clade Therapeutics, and we'll look forward to talking you through that later in the presentation. NAV is down during this period, and that reflects, I think, some of the volatility that we will see as part of our business model, and has been predominantly driven by the public holdings, particularly the values of Freeline and Achilles. However, we think the portfolio is at an exciting stage and is on track to deliver 15 clinical milestones by the end of the calendar year 2022, and it is these clinical milestones that will really demonstrate and reveal the value embedded within that portfolio. We remain positive and excited about the potential across that group of companies. This has been a period of very active engagement with our portfolio. We're always closely operationally involved in our businesses, but this has been a somewhat challenging period, and during that time, we've been making significant progress through active involvement in the portfolio. Chris Hollowood, Chief Investment Officer, you'll be hearing from him later on, and also the Freeline Chair has been very actively involved with the Freeline board, as we have updated the executive leadership team in that company and appointed a new CEO, Michael Perini. I was, for a while, the Chair at Autolus, and worked with the company as they focused on the delivery of the AUTO1 pivotal study, and we have now recruited a new Chair to the business, John Scott, and we're excited about the role he will play in the company and working with him. Of course, we announced earlier this week an exciting partnership with Blackstone, and we'll talk about that later during the presentation. Across the portfolio, we work on multiple fronts with our companies, whether that's continuing to hire world-class teams to those businesses. For example, Richard Francis, who's doing an excellent job as CEO at Purespring, one of our early-stage companies to be building out manufacturing capabilities. For example, Quell, who have just taken actual delivery of their suite at the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult in Stevenage and are building out the manufacturing facility there. Or to continue to progress our assets into the clinic as we've done with Anaveon. It's also been an active period for financing of our portfolio. We've committed just under $400 million has been committed to the portfolio year to date, with around $30 million of that committed by Syncona. I think that really demonstrates our ability to leverage significant pools of capital to our portfolio, whether that's from traditional financial investors or from more diverse sources of funding, as we've demonstrated with the Blackstone partnership and the recent announcement of Sanofi's investment in Gyroscope. We've deployed just under 51 million pounds during the year, and our capital position remains strong at GBP 535 million. We've guided historically that we will invest between GBP 100 million and GBP 175 million per annum into both existing companies and to new investments, and we continue to believe that's the right guidance going forward. As we've talked about with our shareholders before, our model is really built around three components, which is working with world-class academics to found companies, particularly early in the lives of those companies, to put operational resource into them, and then to recruit world-class management teams to them, and to be able to fund those businesses right from their inception with potentially relatively small amounts of capital through the later stages of those businesses as they drive their assets through the clinic, and ultimately, we hope, to regulatory approval. Of course, that all leads to the Syncona team. We've been expanding that team during the period, and we believe that the team is increasingly executing well on that plan. We have five clinical companies with 12 ongoing clinical trials, and this is a period where we are both continuing to build companies but also taking decisive action within the portfolio to drive the operational performance of those businesses. Just a comment on pipeline. Obviously, this has been a period where COVID has impacted our business. I've been encouraged by the way we've been continuing to source and identify innovative areas of technology to create new Syncona companies and remain excited about the strength of the ongoing pipeline. Now to move to the portfolio and give you some updates of the companies themselves. First of all, Autolus. We were really delighted at the beginning of this week to announce the partnership between Autolus and Blackstone. Blackstone have committed $100 million of equity finance and $150 million of project finance to Autolus, which puts the company in a terrific position to continue to develop its lead program and pipeline, but particularly the lead program. We've talked to you before about our excitement around the AUTO1 program. We believe that has the potential to be a best-in-class program for the treatment of relapsed/refractory adult ALL, and we look forward to seeing more data from that program, in the middle of next year when the pivotal study will read out the FELIX study, which we believe will be a study that's subject to the positive outcome of that study, has the potential to be an approval study for the AUTO1 program. Obviously, it has been a challenging time for Freeline, and Freeline has been a company that has been significantly impacted by COVID, which really precluded the company's ability to advance its clinical programs in the way we would have hoped. That said, the company has now reinitiated those programs, and we expect we've seen this data from the second patient in Fabry disease, and we are enrolling for the run-in phase of the HOPE-B program in hemophilia B, and we would expect to initiate the third program, the clinical side to the back end of this year, and to start dosing patients during 2022. The company, we believe, is back on track in terms of enrolling patients in the clinic, and we're really delighted that Michael Perini has stepped up to be CEO of that business, and look forward to working with him in the years to come. Moving to the other companies, Gyroscope has made very strong progress. Again, earlier this week, we announced an exciting partnership with Sanofi, who have invested $40 million up front with a commitment to invest a further $20 million in the next financing round of the company. On the product side, we put out data earlier this year, which demonstrated our ability to deliver the gene therapy being developed by Gyroscope, which is a gene therapy to deliver an inhibitor of the complement system, which is part of the immune system, to the back of the eyes of patients suffering from dry age-related macular degeneration or dry AMD, as we call it, which is the commonest cause of blindness, particularly amongst the elderly in the developed world. What that data has shown is that in a relatively small number of patients, but it has shown that Gyroscope is able to safely deliver that therapy, and over quite a significant period, you know, many months now show consistent delivery of the inhibitor and also to show inhibition of the complement system in those patients. The reason that matters, I think, is really exemplified by data from a different company, a company called Apellis, during the period, which demonstrated in two separate large phase III studies that inhibiting complement was capable of delaying disease progression in these patients. That's an important milestone for Gyroscope, and it's actually an important milestone for Syncona because it demonstrates that this disease is tractable through complement inhibition. We think Gyroscope now has the potential to be a best-in-class modality there using gene therapy targeted specifically to the back of the eye to allow long-term complement inhibition, and we hope to allow that to translate into significant clinical impacts for these patients. The business is making strong progress. Achilles is also making strong progress, and we would expect to see data next year from the high-dose cohorts of their therapy. You will recall that during the year, Achilles released data from the low-dose cohorts. That data demonstrated that Achilles were able to safely manufacture their program and to deliver it from patients. We saw some promising data around the stability of the cells that were given to those patients and their so-called persistence, which is how long they survive in those patients. What we're ready now to see is the high dose cohorts that will come online next year, and that's when we think we might get a better window on the clinical utility of that therapy. I should also comment that as a public company, it has been volatile for Achilles, and the company has been exposed to that, as has Syncona. We remain confident in this business. Our enthusiasm is undimmed. The business is extremely well-financed, and we think is now very well-positioned to deliver that key data that has the potential to drive the value to that business through next year. Next to Anaveon. Another company that's made extremely good progress over the last year. This business is developing a type of protein called an IL-2 agonist. It's a way of stimulating the immune system, and we are now dosing patients with that agent, and we've dosed a number of those patients, and we look forward to demonstrating that data to you through next year. We think this program has the potential to be a best-in-class agent for the treatment of certain cancers, particularly those cancers that are immune sensitive, so-called immuno-oncology applications, if you like. We look forward to showing that data to you in the first quarter of next calendar year. Headline message, the business is executing extremely well and we're excited about the potential for that agent. Now to the rest of the portfolio, and I could spend several hours talking you through this, but I unfortunately only have a few minutes, and so I'll have to give you rather a snapshot. In the subsequent meetings that we have with many of our shareholders, we'll look forward to more detailed conversation. First of all, Quell. This is a business led by Iain McGill, making terrific progress. The company is a cell therapy business for the treatment of rejection of organ transplantation. The business has had its clinical trial application approved. That's the document necessary to trigger entry to clinical studies. We would expect to be in the clinic at the beginning of next year dosing patients. We think this has the potential to be the world's first engineered Treg product being studied in a clinical study. The team has been expanded. We've been really delighted with the quality of people that Ian has been able to attract to his team, and we look forward to seeing that business both deliver technically in terms of clinical data, but also financially, we would expect to see that business looking to move forward on the financial side as well in the near to medium term. Swan has made very strong progress, and will be in a position to enter the clinic in calendar year 2022. This is a gene therapy technology for the treatment of diseases of the spinal cord, and we would expect to move into the clinic next calendar year. Next to Resolution or RTX as it's listed here. Resolution is a cell therapy business using a type of cell called a macrophage for the treatment of end-stage liver disease. The first program is actually in the clinic. This is an academic program, which we think is really the pioneer program, which Resolution has rights to, and we would expect to see that data mature early in calendar year 2022. This business is led by Ed Hodgkin, a Syncona partner, and an important member of our team, and we're excited about the progress that he and his team are making there. Across the other businesses, I can only afford to give you small snapshots. OMass very recently released details on their pipeline, and the different targets that they're going after, and we're encouraged by progress there. Neogene is moving forward well, and we would expect to be in the clinic next year, and so we would expect to be moving to that clinical phase. I mentioned Purespring earlier. It's very well led by Richard Francis, and he's building out an incredibly strong team there as well, and we're moving forward. That's a gene therapy business for the treatment of kidney disease. We think that's the world's first kidney-focused gene therapy business. Finally, Clade Therapeutics, which is a new investment made during the period, and we'll talk about that separately. In aggregate, and this is a really important chart for Syncona because our business is all about the delivery of clinical milestones. Recall that when we set up a business, our core business, the found part of our mission, if you like, which is to go to talk to an academic, typically a key opinion leader who maybe has 20, 30, sometimes 40 years experience in the field, and figure out how we might build a company around them that can take their technology through into the clinic to address a significant unmet patient need. If we start at the beginning of that process, typically it's going to take three, maybe four years to get into the clinic. There is some lag time here. What's encouraging about the Syncona portfolio is that as that portfolio is maturing, we are having an increasingly broad and diversified clinical portfolio. Diversified by the stage of investment and diversified by the companies involved, diseases targeted, and the specific technologies in question. That's what you really see here. I will call out a few of the catalysts that we would expect to play out over the next year or two. Obviously, right at the top of that is Autolus's readout from their pivotal study, from the FELIX study in the middle of next year. We would expect to see reinitiation of three clinical studies in Freeline. Gyroscope data demonstrating that this efficacy that we've seen at the level of inhibition of the complement system in the eye translates into clinical data. We would get that really through the back end of 2022 and into 2023, Achilles clinical data with their high-dose cohort. Anaveon will look forward to presenting data in oncology in the first quarter of next year. We're excited about Quell and SwanBio moving into the clinic on a similar timeframe. Now I'd like to give you an update on a new investment that we've made during the period, Clade Therapeutics. Syncona has deep expertise in cell therapies, and for some time, we've been looking to make an allogeneic cell therapy investment. Allogeneic cell therapies are those therapies where a third-party donor delivers cells which are grown externally into very large volumes to be used across many hundreds or thousands of different patients. As you can imagine, there are many advantages to that in terms of industrial scale. In order to do that, you really need two skills. One is the ability to take the stem cells that you take from that donor and differentiate them into the core cells that you want. The second is to be able to immune cloak those cells. I'd just like to provide a minute on what we mean by immune cloaking. As you can imagine, if you take cells from a donor and you put them into a different recipient, generally the recipient will reject those cells very quickly. They'll recognize them as foreign and will reject them. What you really want to do with a cell therapy is not to see it rejected. You want it to persist for a long period to deliver its efficacy. In order to do that, what you need to do is deploy a broad set of technology that shields or cloak those cells from rejection from the recipient. That's exactly what Clade has world-class expertise, both in differentiating cells, stem cells into the cell types of interest, but also cloaking those cells. That was the profile that we'd been looking for for a long period of time in order to make an investment in the allogeneic space. We were delighted to work with the CEO, Chad Cowan, and the President Chief Business Officer, Jim Glasheen, to lead the Series A investment here, $87 million. Syncona committed $30 million and remains, and is the largest investor in the business. Chad is a world-class scientist with a long track record of translating innovation in a biotechnology setting. He was a scientific co-founder of CRISPR and was also the chief scientific officer at Sana. Jim, who's the President and Chief Business Officer of the company, I've worked with many, many years ago. Over 20 years ago, we worked together. It was through Jim that we actually got access to this opportunity. I've enjoyed working alongside Michael Kyriakides and the Syncona team to build this, to structure our investment in this company. What I'd now like to do is give you an update on how we're thinking about financing our individual portfolio companies. We provided some color on this at our annual results, but this is very much the way we're now thinking about individual companies going forward. First thing to say is that there will be no single playbook for every company. Each company is different, and they differ in the size of the opportunity, the risk, the amount of capital to get to a particular value inflection point, and of course, the competition. There will be an element of what we're trying to do is to fit the financing to the specifics of that company. I think you will see an increasing diversity in the number of financing options that we're taking. Very much as you've seen during this period with Blackstone as a partner in Autolus, and with Sanofi as a partner inside Gyroscope. Particularly for our early companies, we're really thinking about this, doing in at least two ways. Either funding solely through the preclinical stages ourselves, or at least a distance through the preclinical stages before syndicating prior to clinical entry, and then move forward, generating clinical data with those investors on board. Or alternatively, funding ourselves solely through the clinical phase, so through preclinical and through clinical. At that point, we would then have a decision of whether to syndicate more broadly then, or to continue to finance on a sole basis. I think you will see both of these strategies going forward. Numerically, I think you'll see more of the second strategy than the first, but both strategies will be played out, and we'll look forward to, if you like, decorating these strategies with some examples in the next period. What I'd now like to do is pass to Rolf to give you an update on the financial review. Thank you, Martin. I'd like to start by introducing myself, having joined the company back in July. I've worked for over 30 years in financial roles, most recently at BTG, where I was CFO for 10 years. I was attracted to Syncona as I saw a business that had deep scientific knowledge and understanding of the commercial markets into which that science translates, and a balance sheet capability to fund investments through inherently volatile proof of concept and clinical development journeys. Since joining Syncona, I've really enjoyed getting to know the company, its portfolio, and I look forward to working with the team to deliver the strategy. Now, moving to the financial performance. Our NAV has decreased from GBP 1.3 billion - GBP 1.15 billion, a decline of 11%. This was driven primarily by a reduction in the performance of two of our listed companies, Freeline, which saw a valuation decline of GBP 121 million, and Achilles, which decreased in value by GBP 70 million. These declines were partially offset by an increase in our value of Autolus and an increase in the NAV of Cambridge Epigenetix, one of our life science investments. Together, these two positive valuation movements added GBP 27 million to our NAV. Gross capital deployed in the new and existing portfolio assets in the period totaled GBP 51 million, bringing the closing value of the life sciences portfolio to GBP 618 million. A negative return in the portfolio of 21% in the period. While the performance of our listed companies has been disappointing in the first half, we continue to be confident in their long-term potential with all three of these companies well-placed to deliver on upcoming operational and clinical milestones. Overall, we've deployed GBP 51 million in the six-month period. We are pleased to announce a new investment in Clade Therapeutics via an $87 million Series A financing led by Syncona, in which we committed $30 million, of which we've invested $15 million in the period. In addition to the Clade investment, we also saw tranche drawdowns from Quell, SwanBio, Purespring, and OMass, reflecting the progression of these businesses and keeping us in line with our full year guidance of deploying between GBP 100 million and GBP 175 million in our life sciences portfolio. As a life sciences company builder that takes a long-term view of its investments, one of the key competitive advantages is our balance sheet. Our capital pool at the end of the period was GBP 535 million. We have GBP 103 million of uncalled commitments across our portfolio, all of which to tranche against milestones. As Martin has just covered, we've been optimizing our financing approach, and I've been really pleased to see $397 million of capital committed to our portfolio companies in the year to date. This includes $87 million in the Clade Series A, $60 million in the Gyroscope/Sanofi deal, and $250 million in the Autolus Blackstone deal. Syncona has committed $30 million as part of the capital raised, demonstrating our conviction in our company's long-term potential, balanced with our critical focus on managing risk across the portfolio. Our capital pool remains highly liquid, with 85% held in cash in short-term UK Treasury bills. This highly liquid balance sheet enables us to fund our portfolio companies to deliver their next key milestones alongside the high-quality investors we have brought alongside us in these companies. Overall, I'm pleased with the disciplined approach we take to managing and deploying our capital, which critically enables us one of our core targets to becoming a portfolio of 15-20 companies that can deliver strong returns for shareholders over the long term. I'll now hand over to Chris. Thank you, Rolf. Syncona's growth remains heavily underpinned by the promise of cell and gene therapy. It was inevitable as these technologies gathered greater clinical experience that the performance of therapeutics would be better understood. This translation phase would identify issues that need addressing and once resolved, would allow the field to mature and fulfill its promise. Syncona's strategy has anticipated and mitigated these issues, and its balance sheet allows it to support its portfolio until investor enthusiasm returns to the sector. AAV still has the potential to deliver transformational efficacy. The safety issues seen today have been driven by extremely high doses in certain diseases. These are not diseases or doses that Syncona has addressed in any of its portfolio companies. Syncona's strategy from the start has been to minimize dose by injecting directly into organs or using next generation capsids that are more efficient, that allow a lower dosing. The field will likely increasingly move to a similar strategy which positions Syncona well to take advantage of it. In cell therapy, the manufacturing process is complex. Syncona's portfolio companies have now built substantial know-how on how to manufacture these products and deliver them to patients. Best evidenced by Autolus moving to a pivotal trial, no small undertaking, where it is processing its cell therapy out of Patchway facilities, Stevenage on a global clinical trial. There is increased regulatory focus on the sector, and this is only to be expected. The regulators want to make sure that these therapies reach patients. We want to make sure it's done in a considered and safe way. What we've seen with the engagement of the regulators is not a block on the development in this field, but really a help for the industry in guiding how best to bring these products forward and address patient need. We should remind ourselves why we got into this sector and why we're so excited by it. These therapies have the ability to really transform patient settings. This is not true of a lot of the therapies that went before the third generation. If you take CAR-Ts, for instance, and you say Kite Gilead product, they've seen a 44% survival rate. That's nearly half the patients on the trial surviving and now in market. That is in a setting where those patients would likely have died. That is absolutely incredible efficacy, the like of which had not been seen prior to that product, and that's why people got excited. If you take Novartis Zolgensma product for spinal muscular atrophy, this is a disease which is fatal for babies. What they saw was that two years, nearly 90% of the patients got to their second birthday and survived, and survived event free. Without that therapy, nearly 80% would be dead at that point. That is an incredible result and justifies the excitement in the sector. For Syncona, we need to navigate this translational phase as we develop these therapies. We need to do it with discipline, and we need to do it with patients in mind. But if we can do that, there remains a very, very big prize for those patients and ultimately for Syncona shareholders too. If you take antibodies, which was the prior biologics field, that was the big wave in this sector. In 2000, it represented $5 billion of sales. In 2020 or 2019, it was over 20 x that. We are at that same point in nascency in cell and gene therapy. In my opinion, a very, very similar trajectory. Syncona's expertise in the space, its portfolio exposure to the space places it in extremely good position to take advantage of this growing area. Now back to Martin to summarize. To close out, we do think the portfolio is nicely positioned. We think there's a very significant value creation opportunity ahead for Syncona. As we've discussed with you before, we very much think of our companies structured in generations. These are the generations which really reflect the periods in which these companies were built. Generation one, you're very familiar with. Two of those companies have been exited. With the announcement earlier this week of Autolus' financing, we think that company is now very nicely positioned with a strong capital base and most important, a potentially excellent product that can be a transformational treatment for patients with relapsed refractory form of adult leukemia. In the second generation company, there has been some volatility here, but the fundamentals of these businesses we believe are good and we look forward to resumption of clinical studies in Freeline. We look forward to seeing data from Gyroscope continue to emerge and the high-dose cohort from Achilles. In the generation three companies, often we don't talk to our shareholders a great deal about these companies, which really reflects the time required to build a company through the first three, sometimes four years, to get it into the clinic. These companies have continued to make excellent progress. Anaveon is dosing patients, as we speak. SwanBio and Quell will move their next calendar year. Quell at the beginning of that calendar year, we hope. In Resolution, we should be seeing some data from the academic program that really underpins the investment in that company. The generation four companies, again, making strong progress. Neogene, we're excited about. We'll be moving into the clinic next year. Purespring and Clade, exciting, relatively early-stage investments, but we think are competitively great spaces with strong teams and positioned to deliver value in the years to come. In summary, we think the Syncona business and portfolio are in good shape. We've been working hard in that portfolio. It's really been a phase of intensive management across the portfolio. I think we're beginning to see some of the fruits of that. We have five clinical stage companies running 12 clinical studies, and we have now a pipeline that is set to continually be adding clinical stage assets to that portfolio as it continues to mature. Our goals remain the same. We're looking to grow our portfolio. We currently have 12 portfolio companies. We're looking to grow that to be 15-20 companies. That's steady state for Syncona. What we're looking to do over a rolling ten-year period is to deliver three to five of those companies all the way through to become marketed products. That's the point at which we think our investors will begin to really see the returns available from taking this long-term approach to investing in the life sciences. We're continuing to build companies. I'm encouraged by the progress we've made despite the challenges of COVID, which look like we're emerging from that period now, moving from the pandemic to the endemic stage. I'm encouraged by what we're seeing at a pipeline level and the team's ability to continue to grow our business. Finally, I'd like to thank our shareholders for their continued support, and we look forward to meeting many of you on the road in the next couple of weeks, either on the screen or in person. We always look forward to taking any questions and speaking with you in the near period. Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session of the event. If you do have a question, please just key star then one on your telephone keypad now. If you wish to withdraw the question or the question has already been asked, you can simply key star two. Please just key star then one now to ask your question. Okay, we do have an initial question. That's from Simon Baker from Redburn. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for taking my questions. Three, if I may. Firstly, just a quick one on the Blackstone investment in Autolus. I wonder if you could give us the number of shares that Blackstone is acquiring. And then secondly, on Gyroscope. As you say, the Apellis data validated the C3 approach, but the result was mixed, with the OAKS study working, the DERBY study failing to meet its endpoint. I appreciate this is perhaps a bit early, given that the full data is only being presented on Friday afternoon. I just wondered if you could give us any thoughts on implications for your trial design and development program in light of that mixed performance from Apellis. Then finally, on Clade, I wonder if you could just give us a little bit more info on the exact approach that they're using. It looks like from Chad Cowan's patent filings that this is these stem cells are effectively HLA knockouts, and then knocking in various elements as required. Also it looks like although the initial focus appears to be on oncology, there's some potential for this use in diabetes. I wonder if there's any more information at this admittedly early stage that you can share with us. Thanks so much. Morning, Simon. Martin here. Thanks. Very good question. On the Blackstone question, we're not able to disclose the number. What we can tell you is that the deal was done at the close of market price last Friday, and they invested $100 million of equity. That's what we're able to disclose at this point. On the second question, I'm gonna pass to Chris actually on the Apellis. Yeah. Thanks for the question. The Apellis data, as you point out, I think does validate complement as a mechanism in geographic atrophy. Clearly prior to the Apellis data, there'd been a lot of genetic evidence that addressing complement would have a clinical impact, but there was no definitive clinical proof. Apellis did show that. That is a big, big positive, because it really opens up the field for that mechanism, and it's a big disease, as you know, and there's no therapies on the market. Also, you know, the result was mixed. You know, one of the trials hit, one didn't, and we're still not clear as to why there was a divergence in result between those two trials. That said, you know, we have always thought that the Apellis approach was inferior to the Gyroscope approach for a number of reasons. We don't think C3 is the best target. What CFI does, which is the Gyroscope target, which C3 doesn't, it processes the downstream inflammatory proteins. It actually clears complement rather than block it upstream. Secondly, it's an intravitreal injection once a month, which means you're not getting complete coverage of complement modulation, unlike a gene therapy approach, which is constant. Thirdly, they inject it into the vitreous, which is the jelly in the center of the eye. Whereas we inject our product into the retina, which is where the disease actually is. If you look at the preclinical data, there's a tenfold difference in exposure between those two routes of injection. We think we get much better coverage where the disease is. We would be optimistic that the Gyroscope product gives a much higher clinical effect than the Apellis product. The fact that the mechanism is proven has removed a big risk for Gyroscope. In terms of the Gyroscope trial design, clearly we're learning all the time, not just from Apellis, but also from Iveric Bio, which have a C5 inhibitor, something else we think is an inferior target. You know, there is increasing levels of understanding of progression rates for patients that have lesions in certain areas of the retina. We're looking at all of that data and really feeding it into our trial design to give ourselves the maximum chance of a positive result. I, unless there's any comment you want to make on that, I'll move on to Clade, and then we can have discussion on these points if we haven't answered what you needed. Clade method is, it's iPSC-based, and the logic for using iPSC is that you need to do a substantial number of edits in order to get true hypoimmunogenicity. If you look at the first and second generation allogeneic companies, which we have been negative on and believed would not have the persistence necessary for long-term clinical efficacy, they are pretty much unable to deliver the extent of edits required because they're doing it from donor batches rather than from an iPSC. Technically, that frankly, is just not possible. If you look at the clinical performance of those agents, whether that's CRISPR's beta-2 M knockout, whether it's the Precision data, which was basically just a TCR knockout. If you look at the Allogene data and you look at the clinical performance, but specifically the persistence of those cells, the cells bluntly are not persisting. They're being cleaned out by the recipient's immune system. That was a view we had. I think the data that we're seeing clinically is substantiating that view. We had always been of the view that you would need to substantially edit a cell in order to see hypoimmunogenicity. We can't give too much away, but if you think of how the immune system rejects a grafted cell, there are multiple systems that you're gonna need to have an answer for. One of those is the host T cells coming after it, where you've got to take out HLA, sort of everyone knows that. If you take out HLA, then the host's NK cells are coming for it, so you better have an answer for that. You've got all kinds of phagocytic risks with phagocytic cells, of which, as you know, is a variety of flavors. You better have an answer for that. Of course, you've got antibodies, which are gonna recognize the grafted cells and lay down things like complement, so you better have an answer for that. What we really liked in the Clade opportunity was the breadth of the thinking and the ability to engineer substantially to permit escape from multiple mechanisms of potential rejection, and you can only do that off of an iPSC base. You have to be an iPSC, you have to multiply edit, and you've got to be able to differentiate into the cell type you like. The initial focus is oncology, but we do think it's much broader than that. We've not disclosed what we're up to in that domain. But you know, for example, if you look at the recent Vertex VX-880 data on grafted iPSC-derived beta cells, there's a certain persistence envelope around those cells. Everything that you learn with a hypoimmunogenicity for an oncology application can, of course, ultimately be levered on to other applications. Right now, this is an early-stage company. It's growing very aggressively. It's very focused on technological proof of concept in the oncology setting, but there are certainly applications beyond that as well. Great. No, that's very clear. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question then is from Stefan Hamill from Numis. Please go ahead. Morning, folks. I guess a bit more high-level from me on sort of the overall financing strategy. So you've outlined those two routes very clearly. Just wondering what to expect on the sort of first sort of syndication route, because the Clade investment seemed a bit earlier than you'd outlined. Is that? Should I read that as it's a reflection of an outlier because it's a U.S. business? And then on the split, the sort of other route, thinking simplistically, should we think of that route for sort of more single asset companies rather than the platforms? Yeah. Thank you. Morning, Stefan. I think, you know, I think the first answer, the first point to say is there really is no single playbook for every company. What we're putting out there is kind of parameters and sort of broad guidelines for how we're thinking about it. Each company obviously is specific and has its own technical requirements, risk dimensions, capital to get to over a value inflection point, competition, et cetera, et cetera. There's a level of sort of company specificity that gets layered on to that. I think with specific reference to Clade, I think that is probably a bit earlier than we would normally be syndicating. I think, you know, our general model is to do these things ourselves, to found these businesses and to found them with a specific level of control ourselves. I think that is really the base model. In certain instances, we felt we wanted capital strength around the table, and we've got great co-investors in Clade, and we think it makes a ton of sense to do that there and do it early. By direction, I think it's probably a bit earlier than we would normally go. I think therefore, you know, the base model for us is to found these businesses ourselves, on average, be doing them ourselves to start with, and then take a decision downstream, maybe, you know, a couple of years downstream. Do we syndicate at that point just before clinical entry, maybe in the sort of two to three year window? Or do we hold something all the way to clinical data ourselves, which might be, you know, five to six years downstream? That's sort of the decision point. I think numerically, the earliest indications will be more common than the ones we take ourselves. The ones we take ourselves, clearly, we will have to be comfortable around the amount of capital to go all the way ourselves clinically and the risks inherent in that. I think there may and again, that will tend to enrich for things that will be more, you know, single programs that we'll be taking. In the sweet spot, it will be a single program with a platform opportunity behind it. That's sort of how we're thinking about it, Stefan. Gotcha. Then, you know, the other standout news on this front in H1 was the Blackstone financing in Autolus, and we also saw the first sort of corporate investment with Sanofi into Gyroscope. Should we just sort of think of that as a sort of inflection point, the start of a trend to further leverage, you know, a step up more capital into the portfolio? And could we see something along these lines for Freeline, possibly some sort of licensing deal? Yeah. Stefan, I think what you're saying is obviously the capital markets are becoming more constrained. What you're seeing is the flexibility in other strategies that we have to access capital across the portfolio, whether that be Blackstone, or whether that be a corporate deal, like a deal with Sanofi. You know, while cost of capital is going up, I think you should expect to see more of it. Looking across the portfolio, you know, I wouldn't want to comment on any one particular investment, but it's certainly strategies other companies are considering. Got you. Thank you, folks. Thanks, Stefan. Thank you. The next question then is from Miles Dixon from Peel Hunt. Please go ahead. Good morning. Yeah, thanks very much. Just to follow up on two earlier questions and then one new one. The Gyroscope, the deal with Sanofi, I mean, it's quite an unusual, I think, partner in Sanofi. Can you give us an idea as to what they're really looking at? How much of it is the ophthalmology? How much of it is gene target? How much of it is the platform delivery technology? Then on to Clade as well, the allogeneic approach. You mentioned you don't want to give too much away, but can you say if part of the special sauce that Clade have is ensuring that the differentiated cells, you know, truly replicate wild type and don't drift as you scale up in cell culture? Thirdly, I wondered if you could comment on OMass. I thought it was interesting their novel drug programs, and whether you could talk about their approach to monetizing or the downstream economics that they might expect. Thank you. Taking the Sanofi one first. Look, the interest is in the program primarily. Clearly, there's a lot of other technology in Gyroscope around gene therapy, around manufacturing, around surgical delivery. But it's primarily around the program, and the deal is structured around that program. I think what you see is, you know, a group like Sanofi, they have skirted around the edges of ophthalmology. They have done prior deals and been in and out of the sector. With Gyroscope, 'cause the market is so big, I think you will see companies get interested that aren't necessarily in ophthalmology because they can justify the build-out of a whole therapeutic area for a market of that size. I think on to the Clade question, I think there's really two differentiations. You know, I think Chad Cowan, as the CEO of this business, sort of speaks to both of them. You know, he's a remarkable individual with an exceptional track record, both as a basic scientist and as a translator in the biotechnology context. You know, he spent his life thinking about stem cell biology and differentiation downstream. On the differentiation side, Miles, you know, we now know you can generate pluripotent, totipotent iPSC cells, which you can keep perpetually in culture. The question is, can you drive them down a particular line of differentiation to a cell type you like, that you can do it stably, repeatably at acceptable yield and cost? I think that is technically very demanding, but we see some IP in that business and know-how, which makes us believe that they have a differentiated ability to do that, certainly within the T-cell setting. We're very comfortable with what we're seeing there. The second piece is on the editing component itself. You know, at one level, editing has become sort of part of the lexicon of the industry now, and people sort of talk about editing this, editing that. It is difficult to do. It's technically demanding. It's difficult to do it in a way that is controlled, reliable. It needs deep expertise. If you look at Chad and his team, you know, Chad was the scientific co-founder of CRISPR, which, you know, is now what? $7-$8 billion business, which has pioneered taking ex vivo gene-edited products into the clinic. You have technical and industrial capability here to generate complex edits, multiple complex edits inside an iPSC cell. That is not easy to do. I think there's very extreme differentiation and technical capability here on both those fronts. It really was both those fronts that drove us to want to make the investment and work with Chad and with Jim. On OMass. You know, we're excited about the progress in OMass. The business is extremely well led by Ros Deegan. She's done a great job, and she's worked hand in hand with Ali Jazayeri, who's the chief technical officer, who was there really from the beginning. You know, he's an incredible individual, very experienced small molecule drug discoverer. He was at Heptares. I've known Ali for, I don't know, 15, 16 years now. Originally, he was at Heptares, and then he left Heptares to join OMass. As you know, Heptares was sold to Sosei about 7 or 8 years ago now. What we're doing is we're leveraging the platform, which is based on Carol Robinson's, a group at the University of Oxford. She is really a true global pioneer in the use of mass spectrometry, and particularly for large protein complexes. We are just beginning. The question when we made the investment was, does this platform really allow us to identify drugs against targets that have proven very challenging for the industry to do with traditional methods? They've disclosed their pipeline now, for example, MC2R and Gasdermin D are right at the front of that queue. It's, you know, early days, but we're encouraged with progress. I think the opportunity here is each of those targets we think is standalone attractive, but the platform opportunity is that does the platform really allow you to get into chemical space that's pretty much unaddressable with existing approaches. I don't think we can call that yet. What I think we can call is we've got really good people working on very challenging targets, and the early seeds that we're seeing are encouraging. You know, we're optimistic, but it's still early days. You know, we think we've got very good people working on the problem there. Great. That's very helpful. Thanks very much, Martin. Thanks, Chris. Thank you. At this point, we have no further questions, but if there are any more questions, please simply key star then one on your telephone keypad now. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's question and answer session. I will now hand back to Martin Murphy for his concluding remarks. I want to thank you, everyone, for listening in today. As always, we very much welcome hearing from shareholders. If you have anything you'd like to discuss with myself, with Chris, or with Rolf, please don't hesitate to get in touch with us. I'm sure we'll be seeing many of you over the next couple of weeks anyway. Other than that, I look forward to speaking soon, and thanks for the continued support.