Mike McMullen: Right. Thanks for that and Bob. And Rachel, I think the second question relative to – I think you’re referring to the small molecule replacement cycle. And as you know, coming probably at least for the last 12 to 18 months, we had been indicating that we were expecting to see a slowdown in the rate of replacement. And in fact, we’ve seen that occur this year. Actually, given the weakness in China even beyond our expectations with a minus 16% number overall in the quarter. That being said, we do stay with our view that these tend to be 18 to 24 months, 12 to 18-month cycles, and we’d expect that they’ll start to see movement back towards a higher growth rate. And that’s one of the reasons as we look into ’24, we’re saying some of these markets will start to turn as – the base cycle gets back to more of a growth phase in that cycle.
And as we’ve mentioned earlier, we see that particularly in liquid chromatography is probably about a five percentage kind of growth market long-term.
Rachel Vatnsdal: Great. Thank you for all that color. Maybe just following up on your small molecule comments there. So small molecule declined 16% this quarter. So can you talk to us about how much of your China exposure is really tied to those small molecule workflows? And then what else is really driving incremental weakness on the small molecule side? We’ve heard of IRA pressuring some pharma decisions and potentially leading to them reprioritizing the pipeline. So is there any risk that you won’t see a recovery? Or could the growth rate for small molecule really be reset in? What are your conversations with customers on that trend? Thank you.
Mike McMullen: Okay. So you got it. So relative to China, I would say it’s probably the same ratio as the global business, right? That’s probably what 60%, 65%?
Robert McMahon: Yes.
Mike McMullen: Is probably related to a small molecule. And relative to what’s happened in large pharma, what we’re seeing is in medium-sized pharma is, again, a continuation of this cautious about deferring capital. I’m sure they’re thinking through implications of iRNA also other expenses are running hotter in their P&Ls where they need to make some offsets with capital purchases. That being said, if you believe, and I know pharma believes the importance of having safe on-market drugs. You have to have the instrumentation QA/QC environment to support that. That requires you to have modern liquid chromatography fleets. So, I don’t think it’s a question that they can – that this market is going to go away and won’t be an area that the pharma will need to invest in. You can defer for a period of time, but then only last for so long.
Operator: Thank you. We’ll go next now to Patrick Donnelly at Citi.
Patrick Donnelly: Hi guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Mike, maybe just given that commentary around the instrument cycle, you’re not really seeing much improvement yet. Obviously, the China piece transitory, but certainly seems like it’s going to linger. You only a couple of months in ’24 for you guys here. How do you think about some of these impacts lingering in? I think you said there’s still plans for growth next year, but it certainly sounds like some of the headwinds at least will linger into the first half, given some of those costs. I just wanted to talk through that top line setup given some of these headwinds lingering into next year?
