I think that individuals are the agents that come in to an institution and form the deliberative mechanism. Right? They form whatever agent is going to be there, but an institution itself is actually a functional grouping of structures. So structures, as I said earlier, are kind of laws, policies, rules, regulations, the Constitution, but it also includes tradition, norms, religion, and any functional grouping of such structures creates an institution so in public health, that includes the terms of reference, the mandate that it's been given by the government, the educational pathways to get to it, the methodologies it uses, like epidemiology, biostatistics, etc. So those are the structures that form the institution of public health, and then you get a bunch of agents, human sized agents, that come in to this institution, learn its ways and come to enact what it's doing. You know, create decisions under specific procedures and enact those decisions. So the individual people, people are important, but the institution is also something much bigger than the people, because typically they're longer lasting. They sort of, they exist before and after certain people come and go, and their procedures change, but only when there's a specific kind of policy change process that they go through. The kind of like change into terms of reference, would be a big one for public health in particular. So the... Yeah, the institution is definitely going to be changed by the makeup of the particular people that are inside it, because there's interpretation, right, in any kind of rule or policy you have to interpret how to apply it, and things like that. But my argument is that the structures themselves are more influential. That when you have people who come in with sort of all their individual quirks and flaws, but also all of their skills and their virtues and things like that, you end up with this, like really interesting collection of people who are inside an institution, but the structures of that institution are going to choose, a very significant degree, govern what that institution does, and what it takes itself to be aiming at, and what others out in the world think is appropriate for it to do. So, part of the discussion that we have in public health ethics is like, what is it legitimate for public health to even get involved in with people's lives? And that's a question about the structures in the institution itself, and not about, you know, the people that are in it. So, bit of a long winded answer. But I think basically, if the structures of an institution are properly set up, the fact that you'll have a bunch of people inside of it who do have self interest, who have, like, their own career ambitions, in their mind, and things like that, will be present, but not highly influential on what the institution itself is doing. And it's not perfect, because institutions can become corrupt, but when corruption happens, it's because they've departed from what those structures are intending for them to be, I think.