But obviously, like what Sarah mentioned, you know, there's a lot that is that you have to kind of put aside to make this move.

Yeah, I mean, ultimately, I was incredibly proud.

The team that I work with, I absolutely adore.

Ironically, the thing that I've been saying is I actually feel like I'm in a position to better support that team from here right now, but it's a really weird feeling.

It's really mixed feelings around what it means to, I mean, I'm an international scholar and so I can, you know, I made the choice to come home.

For American scholars who have lived and worked in the U.S., they are still working in that environment.

And I, you know, Harvard has not had an easy run of it.

And I'm curious, how does Canada stop people from leaving? As all three of you had left at some point in your careers, how do we stop this? How do you get those research grad students to not only work with you, but stay with you?

It will be a way of building trust and building diplomacy in a

sense.

And I think that, so it's a great sort of perspective on the scientist's role in science diplomacy.

I think one of the things as Ralph touched on, I mean, ultimately the Arctic Council is a product of an attempt at science diplomacy.

And what's interesting about the Arctic generally is if you look up At a lot of the government to government relationships, a lot of it is based on science, environment, sustainable development.

I mean, like a lot of the agreements are actually in that sort of sphere.

So it has been an ecosystem of institutions that are really based on a value in science.

What continuing vulnerabilities do you see in the Arctic Council? What needs to be addressed to make it more resilient as we go forward now?