And we’re going to contribute about $425 million in total, which is very, very significant for a small share of the economics and you can then just do the math there and realize that it’s a very significant risk mitigation exercise on their part for a small portion of the economics. And then, the other benefit they get is that, by us investing close to high 30s percentage of the capital required in this asset, in the development of this asset, it essentially frees up capital that they can redeploy and invest in other assets they’re very excited about. And it sort of gives them a greater P&L bandwidth, and they’re able to have more shots on goal. Now, one key thing here is that when we go and talk to these companies, the very important thing we say to them is we really want to be collaborating on your top projects, top 3, top 5, top 10, not the bottom of the list.
And what we often say to them, for us to be working with you 5 or 10 years from now, we have to sort of win here, win with you as your partner. So, we need to be working on your top programs and then partner with you on those, and not the ones that sort of didn’t make the cut. And we go through great lengths of understanding a lot of different things that really lead us to conclude that this is one of the top programs of this company. And that’s what we often do with others. But, Chris, maybe you want to talk about therapeutic areas or other aspects of the question.
Christopher Hite: Just to add on to what Pablo said, Andrew, just on the question of allocation, do we have a say, which was I think your second question, we’re obviously going to see the Phase 2b data and have access to their plans around Phase 3 and their decision to proceed with Phase 3 before we have to opt in. And I think that gives us a lot of comfort in understanding what their program is. But once we opt in, we don’t have a final say on how they’re going to allocate the dollars for schizophrenia or other potential indications. So that’s your answer to your second question. Just to add on the first part of your question that you asked, as we talked about it our Analyst Day, profitable pharma is going to spend over $1.6 trillion in R&D over the next 10 years.
And as you’ve seen, there’s a lot of large pharma that partner to launch drugs. And so, they want to risk share. And we are happy to risk share on their most important programs. And we can do it in a way that we think is very competitive risk sharing with other large pharmas. We have a lower cost of capital than most global pharmaceutical companies out there. We’re also passive importantly. So, we’re not going to demand 50/50 commercialization rights in the United States or seats on their JDC, as I explained in the second part of your question. So, we think there’s a lot of advantages to large pharma thinking about us as a potential partner to the most important programs rather than partnering up with another pharma, where they have to sit on JDC committees or JSE committees and share commercialization rights in the most important markets in the world.
Operator: Next question comes from Umer Raffat with Evercore ISI.
