It requires, genetics in particular, an interest in sort of the mathematical side of science, because it is a very mathematical part of biology. The way the DNA works, it’s just a simple four-letter alphabet, it’s like a digital code. And some degree of feeling comfortable with that is a good thing, although one need not be an expert in calculus. I don’t think I’ve used calculus since I became a geneticist, but it’s good to have some good familiarity and friendliness with the concepts of probability, for instance. It requires increasingly an interest in keeping your mind broad. I think a narrow geneticist doesn’t have much of an opportunity to make the kind of observations that ought to be possible. Genetics is a tool, but it has to be applied to an interesting biological problem. So the geneticists I know who are the most successful in new insights are the ones who also are willing to read voraciously about cell biology, about physiology, about biochemistry. Not that they need to be experts on that, but they need not to be scared of those fields. And to be able to take an observation that’s occurred in one of those fields and apply it to what they know. That’s often the way the revelations come through. Outside of that, I don’t think one needs special attributes. You don’t have to be an Einstein, I think, to be a very successful genetic scientist. In a way, it’s almost so easy now. I mean, the…what’s happened is the technology of doing genetics has come along so fast that there’s this very long list of interesting problems that nobody’s had time to get to yet. And if you’re interested in that problem, the tools are there for you to do it, you have a very high likelihood of discovering something really exciting.