 Thank you. So just to set the stage, we're going to have a couple talks from myself and Dan Masis, and then we're going to, Dan and Ian are going to moderate a discussion. And the topic that we were asked to focus on first was facilitating development of a shared evidence base for healthcare systems. So I wanted to start and sort of think about how we build this evidence base. And I would argue that right now, today, there is not yet a comprehensive resource to define the clinical relevance of all genes and variants, and that that will be necessary to support the effective integration of genomics into healthcare. As many of you know, ClinGen is certainly trying to tackle this project, it is a work in progress, but I would argue that ClinGen is not going to solve the problem for all genes and variants, and although a framework will be laid and lots of work is happening already and will continue, a lot of participation from many programs and many groups will be necessary to do this across the entire spectrum of genetic variation. I would also argue that, you know, as we put out standards, just putting out standards is not sufficient, and as Gail will talk about in the next session with our Cesar Baker project, even, I'm going to try to use this one, whoa, all right. So even with standards out there, I think we really still don't have sufficient approaches to ensure consistency in the use of those standards, and we really still need a lot of expert consensus and actual experience with different standards and implementing them, and I think Cesar can play a role in that, and I'll get, at the end, I'll talk a little bit more specifically about that. But in starting to build this evidence base, there's a lot of areas of work that we need to share data, to help build that evidence, certainly at the level of variant sharing, and ClinGen has made a lot of effort to share data from individual submitters as well as both approve expert panels that already exist and form its own expert panels, and a lot of work is underway, but a lot more has to be done. There are not, you know, only nine clinical areas out there. Cesar has now contributed a lot of variants to ClinVar, and that's a major step, also submit a lot of data to DbGaP, and as these projects come to the close of their first round, a lot more groups within the Cesar Consortium are starting to submit their variants from the various studies that they've done over time, so that's around variant level sharing that I think will help build some of the evidence base. We are realizing, certainly with ClinGen, that a slightly easier place to start the challenge is at the gene level, and just establishing what genes really have sufficient evidence for a role in disease is a critical step before you even get to the variants, and so a lot of effort, and this particular committee in ClinGen is led by Jonathan Berg, one of the Cesar investigators as well as Krista Martin, and really defining a framework to evaluate gene disease validity to help guide the implementation into clinical use, and we've been applying these rules in different disease areas, including in one of the end-site projects, the baby-seek project led by Robert Green, who's one of the Cesar investigators as well, and then two Cesar investigators, Jim Evans and Katrina Goddard, are leading the ClinGen Actionability Working Group developing evidence-based summaries for how the relevance of implementing different genes and their disease relationships into clinical testing. As I'll talk about later, I think there's more of these to be done. We need more involvement in the community, and actually implementing these recommendations into clinical use is, I think, a key place that Cesar can play a role. As we look at Cesar opportunities specifically in building this evidence base, as I mentioned, there are still a limited number of variants and gene disease pairs for which there's a clearly defined action that's recommended when ... Do you need me to switch? All right, back over here. So a limited number of recommendations for what to do when you have a pathogenic variant and given gene, and I think Cesar can play a critical role in defining these actions and evaluating recommendations that come about. So certainly specific steps in terms of collaborating with the ClinGen Actionability Group to document both current standards as well as give input to new standards that can be developed within this gene disease framework. Also, Cesar has an amazing opportunity in terms of the very close interactions with patients and physician experiences to actually test and study these recommended actions. Just because you look at the literature, gather what's out there today, and define some degree of actionability doesn't mean that that's really what can be implemented and make sense in a healthcare setting. I think Cesar can play a very specific role in terms of testing and studying these actions, defining their outcomes, and iterating on recommendations as well as filling them in where they're nonexistent. In addition, I think Cesar is in a great position to define and test approaches to enable the collection of healthcare data during routine clinical care. We have a lot of research projects that are funded to be able to collect data within those research settings with research dollars. What we need to transition to is not funding everything by research dollars because they are limited, but healthcare will continue on, patients will be sick, they will need care, and if we can more effectively figure out how to capture data, structure it in ways that it can be shared and built upon in the clinical care setting, we will reduce the need for research dollars to fund all of the data collection that we're doing. And then lastly, really working with standards bodies, and I've listed some here, there are many others, to really inform the development of standards and interoperability in the healthcare setting, and test standards and tools that are developed to be able to ensure that we can do this in a consistent and robust way. And just as one specific example, in terms of Cesar existing experience, a lot of the programs have published, and I'm just listing here many of the papers that have come out of the Cesar program in terms of identifying and returning secondary findings. And this group has developed extensive experience in identifying these, you know, pathogenic variants in patients, but the interesting thing is many of these subjects have been identified without overt phenotypes. And so we're left with the question of did we get it wrong in terms of the pathogenicity, or is there really subtle clinical findings that if we looked more carefully we would find, or is just a later onset phenotype, is penetrance not what we thought it was, and all of these questions are there. And so really the challenge is in how do we phenotype and manage these patients, and I think this is an area of focus sort of going forward for Cesar and even some of the supplementary funds to really get into the more deeper phenotyping of secondary findings. Also how do we approach family members? Do we genotype and phenotype them? How do we improve our knowledge of disease, penetrance, and accurately predict disease onset? These patients that we identify variants in certainly want to know are they really at risk for these diseases and will they develop them? And I think a critical part of the evidence base that will be necessary to inform these decisions and how we look at the integration of genomics into clinical care is the ability to share individual level data, so individual patient phenotypes and genotypes that are going to be critical to form the evidence base. And there's a lot of efforts going on to collect this data, certainly DBGAP and NIH has collected a lot of information. The equivalent in Europe, the European Genome Archive, ClinGen is developing an individual level database, particularly to help gather data from clinical laboratories. Our patient registry that was launched, some of the cancer projects, and I should add ASCO's ClinSeq or CancerLink project as well. We've just a week ago formally launched the Matchmaker Exchange, which is a platform for sharing rare disease, patient phenotype and genotype data. There's certainly data that's within EHRs, projects like the eMERGE that are trying to gather that data, laboratory databases, commercial software providers. There's a lot of patient registries out there. But all of these exist in silos and we've really got to come up with better ways to standardize the data that's being collected in these environments and allow it to be shared in effective ways. So we need consistent data structures for phenotype and genotype aggregation and there's efforts to help standardize these. I've listed a few here. There are others. And the need to study the use of federated models and this is something we were focused on extensively at the Global Alliance for Genomic and Health and the Matchmaker Exchange is an example of a federated network where the data stays in its originating location. This is critical for international data sharing in particular. So this is my last slide to sort of just sum up some of the themes that I've been alluding to and also try to think about how CSER fits into some of the other programs like eMERGE, the Evolving Precision Medicine Initiative, ClinGen, et cetera. And so if I look at eMERGE, I would argue that project is more focused on scaled phenotyping from existing data, enhancing the EHR for data storage and return in genomics. I would argue that PMI is really looking at scaled prospective recruitment and capturing data during clinical encounters, that ClinGen is focused on, as I mentioned, building an authority of genomic knowledge based on existing data mostly, but where CSER I think can contribute to all of these projects as well as benefit from the projects above is really leveraging its experience with robust patient interactions to study and enhance the use of genomics directly in clinical care to continue to evolve the most effective approaches to return results, to develop and test better phenotyping and family history collection approaches. These have already been developed during CSER, but I think continuing to develop better structured and consistent standards in that area and then integrate them into routine care, improve the methods for family engagement and incorporating the family unit into care models, as well as develop and test approaches to support clinical decision making with genomic data, and that relates to testing out actionability recommendations from ClinGen and other recommendations from professional organizations. And lastly, really develop seamless connection between research and clinical care, which I think will be critical in allowing us to reduce some of the costs in the research realm and be able to make use of what's happening in clinical care. And I'll stop there. I don't know if we're doing any questions now or moving on, is that our plan? Okay. I think we'll go on and get the next talk and then over the floor.