 Okay, welcome back. Let's continue this discussion, Adam. Right, the next concept is the genome sequencing program coordinating center, which grows out of two realities. The first is that the current incarnation of the genome sequencing program is already large and complex, and it's simpler than what we envisage for the next incarnation. There will be more elements, more data, multiple large projects, and the collaborators that they bring. In addition, there are some cross-program deliverables, which we talked about, and we need scientific help spurring, leading, and tracking those. So two roles. One is this leadership coordination role for cross-program objectives, especially the ones we can identify now. So when it's a project comprehensive or complete, as we discussed, we're very interested in specification for common controls. The CMG program needs independent allele frequency analysis, and there are others that may arise, other program-driven needs across the program that may arise. The purpose, the mode of operation of the coordinating center is intended not to direct things that are going on in the rest of the components, but to bring leadership in a sense of mission to some specific cross-program analyses so that they don't get lost. I know that there will be individuals within the other program components that are very interested in working on these things, but they won't be specifically tasked with it. And again, if they're not tasked with it, I worry that this gets lost. And this does require some scientific expertise. The second function of the coordinating center is simpler to describe its administrative, logistic, and outreach functions. So tracking progress, and that includes project status, and we track sequencing costs very carefully. We will need more help with that. Logistical coordination, so calls, meetings, hosting of documents. Policy coordination dissemination, if you want more explanation about what that is, I'm happy to do it, but it just gets very complicated because there are very particular policies that sometimes go along with each individual sample set and each individual collaboration. We need a clearinghouse for that. The program overall, we need a minimum level of outreach, at least a minimum level of outreach to the public, and that includes having a list of what projects are underway, where they are, who the collaborators are, project highlights, program highlights, and information about how the community can get the data, but not hosting the data, just information about how they can get the data. We also, within the CCDG program, we envisage, the approved concept, and in the RFA, we envisage in the out years, in the years two, and beyond, NHGRI is going to identify additional projects, depending on the progress, ending on progress, and the current state of knowledge, and GSP Coordinating Center might be able to help with coordination, coordination part of that, because that may well involve community meetings. And again, in both leadership and the administrative roles, we expect that they will work collaboratively, and will be administrative, co-equal with the other components. There is no relationship to other ongoing activities at NHGRI. For a coordinating center, we absolutely need cooperative agreements. My understanding is the U-24 is the right mechanism. And again, as with the analysis, with the analysis centers, that just presented, CCDG and CMG investigators will not be eligible for funding under this, because we really do need the independence. We're proposing that this will require a million dollars a year for four years. We anticipate only one award. And we would like to time this so that it's funded as close to the initiation of the CMG and CCDG as possible. So that's, I'll stop there, and that's the entire sort of core genome sequencing program. I don't want to stop there for discussion. Hey, Joe. So I think the administrative function is absolutely necessary from, you know, the complexity of the data has gone beyond, I think, was mentioned earlier what staff can handle. But I wonder what the balance is between the sort of leadership and administrative role is in terms of the amount of effort. It's only a million dollars, I mean, it's a million dollars per year. And just, you know, I can see that happening even in just two, might be 75% of the effort. One in the leadership, maybe 25% effort. What's your thinking about that? Yeah, I think that's about right, 75, 25, or even 80, 20, something like that. The leadership role requires some expertise and the leadership skills to really push something within a complex consortium. I wouldn't, I think that there's room here for some analysis capability, but it really would be limited. And just to follow, what about the timing? So this thing, especially related to some of the ideas under the leadership plan where you'd have to be right in there in an early stage. Yeah, we would ideally like this to begin at the same time as the CMGs and the CCDGs, which would be sort of the beginning of next fiscal year. Yeah, I think in some consortia in which sometimes the coordinating center might not understand the difficulties that the centers are having, because they don't have the same tasks and so on. So many other consortia have one of the LRDs to be elected or to emerge as the leader. Has that been considered or not? Of course, the evaluation part would have to be done apart from that, but the administration and the setting of the timelines might be more realistic if done by a peer. Yeah, so that was tried in some ways in the context of the last, I mean, or should say current CMG, CMG program decided to do it differently this time. And we hadn't considered that mechanism within the CCDGs. Now, I deliberately didn't want to make them eligible because of the independence requirement for independence. Ilana? Maybe more of a comment than a question. So we just agreed that the analysis satellites or centers or appendages or whatever they're going to be called in the end are very important and everyone seemed to be supportive of that. It seems to me that their ability to succeed and add value depends critically on this function to provide them with the data and the cohesion. And that, to me, extends a lot beyond administration and just coordinating meetings and getting people in the right place at the right time and actually somehow reaching in and integrating with the sequencing centers to get them the data. Can you give us any confidence that we can do that and get that coordinating center in? Because if it's purely administrative, I don't see how they'll break in. I certainly didn't mean for it to be purely administrative. On the other hand, I didn't mean it for it to be a data coordinating center either because, again, I think between the collaborations from outside that we'll have and their own data coordinating centers, it's going to be difficult. And as I mentioned before, I do think that the consideration of how to get the analysis groups, the data, is a critical consideration and as there are more analysis groups, it becomes more and more critical. And but I do think that the basic structure that's there, along with the new data deposition policies will facilitate that. I am sure there will be, we will encounter problems, but I think it's also, in some ways, we will have to take advantage of those challenges as the analysis groups try to pick up the data. We'll see where the weak points are and we'll have to adjust for it. And I understand that it's a problem, but it's very, it's hard for me to scope it out completely without having a complete standalone data coordinating center and that brings its own host of issues. But without, I will say that without analysis capabilities and some scientific sophistication, I don't think that the coordinating center will be able to lead those cross-program tasks. They won't be, they won't understand the nature of the data. They won't be working with, they won't be coming to grips with the data, working hard with the data. So I do think that they need that just to be able to define the question, even if they then go and pick on this analysis group and that subgroup from the CCDGs and that group from CMGs and say this is, this is who is interested in doing the analysis that's going to spec out all of the, all of the, you know, the common controls and then they can drive that. Yeah, I think, I think I agree with that. I guess it's a matter of making sure that that comes across. Okay. Don't we have other examples of this? I thought when we were fleshing this out, there were some other examples within our extramural portfolio. Yes. And what are the, what are the prototypes and can we, are we confident based on that experience that we will generalize it to this? Hi, so on some of the pre-council calls I gave examples from two of our programs, Page and CSER. So these are, these are different sorts of activities than what Adam is envisioning. So I don't think either one of them will port over exactly. But for example, for Page, we have a bit of a hybrid administrative slash data coordinate center. Page is a genotyping effort and what we're going to do is we're going to genotype a set of 50,000 individuals and we're going to analyze those individuals along with existing data. So the, the coordinating central will create harmonized data sets as well as sort of impute data from the new individuals and the existing individuals. And so it sort of facilitates the cross-study analysis and they also do the working group calls and organize the meetings. The CSER coordinating center is a scientific coordinating center. It organizes meetings, it facilitates group activities. It is not a data coordinating center, but for example, they facilitated the EVS6500 paper which you heard about in the director's report earlier. So they sort of convened the, the different groups and helped facilitate the sort of interpretations across the various sites. So they've been quite successful in terms of participating as both scientists and sort of facilitators of the scientific working groups. So in both cases they are oriented towards consortium working groups and consortium kind of wide priority. So it is clear that they're doing that work on behalf of the whole consortium and in some cases they're able to take on work that individual sites, you know, would not be likely to do like impute data across all sites. That helps. I mean, there are other kinds of tasks that I can think of that will go across multiple centers. For example, it's very likely that we'll have different groups that we want to fund that are working on very similar phenotypes and how to combine those data if that's possible. That's another kind of question for a coordinating center. Emerge as he mentioned previously, excuse me. Nope. Has a coordinating center that actually does functions of both and they receive data from the pharmacogenetics chip and they basically put that into a database, they designed the database and then they had to have scientific understanding of that process to be able to do that. The Ignite Coordinating Center does not take data yet but they're looking at ways that they can harmonize the data to be able to do that. The UDN Coordinating Center does receive data. I mean, there's example after example, this has been a very successful model. And I think we as an institute have gotten better at understanding how to make this work and I think we'll draw off that experience in creating this. And this, obviously our sequencing program has never had anything quite like this but I'm more confident to let this go out this way knowing that we have other examples to learn from. I have to say, what has been nice about the page coordinating center in particular, I should say I'm a subcontract on the page coordinating center is that they almost act as a bit of a neutral party in the consortia and so they not only organize all the calls and do the things that most people don't wanna do but then they help like, well, how should we do allocation? And they're like, okay, have you guys thought about that? I mean, they really can be very good mediators and for these large scale sequencing programs we're gonna have lots of cohorts and participants and so on. If you get a good coordinating center they can actually go well beyond just doing the coordination that actually really help the science move along faster and in a much more productive way. That's gonna say, I was one of the reviewers for this concept, I was asked to be one of the people and I talked to Adam about it before and I think it's essential to have it and so I'm pretty much in favor of it. I certainly do think it's gonna help our sanity. I mean, even what we've done up until now can be very stressful. I see it with the stress level going up with staff and this will be something that will be very beneficial. For what it's worth, I was a reviewer as well and I raised this question before. I just wanted to provoke the discussion because I think this is the key link for all the pieces that you're talking about here. Any comment from people on the phone? No. David, I'm told you need to refresh your screen. We are broadcasting, okay? Someone raised a hand back there, was that Lou? Do you have a comment, Lou? I just wanted to add something. In terms of coordination, I wanted to emphasize that what we have expected to happen is not a coordination only pushed by the coordinating center. In fact, when we published the RFS for the Common Disease Program and the CMG, we emphasized that grantees of each component is expected. They're in fact required to work with the rest of the components all together and the other thing that we briefly talked about before and that I think could be discussed again is that there may be a good reason for a steering committee of the entire GSP to be formed so that the coordinating center will be able to interact with a group of critical PIs of the entire program. So the point I'm trying to make again is that it's a coordination that is only going to be successful if all the components are working together. All right, if there are no other comments for Adam, then I'll ask for a motion to approve the concept. Second, all in favor? Any opposed? Thank you, Val, any abstentions? All right. Thank you, David. Thank you all. Ready to move on now? Yeah.