 Okay, I actually think now that we're ahead of time and by way of introducing Terry Minolio who I think needs no introduction and emerge if anybody needs no introduction, I'm reminded that we're actually the Decadal anniversary, was it not about 2007? So this is 2017 and the apocryphal story of the funding opportunity announcement that launched what became eMERGE was Terry's observation that NIH wanted to prove once and for all that clinical data was no good for research. And I hope everyone in the room agrees that we have successfully rejected the null hypothesis. So well, what I've been asked to do is to put these to sort of give you an overview of our genomic medicine portfolio so you have an idea of where eMERGE fits in all of this. So I thought it would probably be wise just to let you know or remind everyone of what the mission of our group is and before that we should sort of define what we consider genomic medicine to be. So a few years ago and each year I decided to, you know, it would be wise for people to put some bounds around this and so we took a fairly narrow view of an emerging medical discipline involving using genomic information in a patient's clinical care and the health outcomes and policy implications of that clinical use. We recognize that there's a lot of foundational work and association discovery work and other things that go into this but we really kind of focused on that actual clinical use. And so our division then plans, directs, facilitates multidisciplinary research to identify genetic contributions to human health and advance approaches for use of genomic data and to improve diagnosis treatment and prevention of disease. So with that in mind, just a very quick overview of the portfolio. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network is actually a common fund program but it actually originated at NHGRI as the Undiagnosed Diseases Network is a common fund program. Undiagnosed Diseases Program is what Bill Gaul started at the clinical center with the Office of Rare Disease Research and it's focused on diagnosing rare and new diseases. The NSITE program, newborn sequencing and genomics and public health practice is a joint program with the Institute of Child Health and Human Development on the use of newborn sequencing in the newborn period, sorry, the use of sequencing in the newborn period. The clinical sequencing now evidence-generating research program began four years previously as the clinical sequencing exploratory research program and it's designed to explore infrastructure methods and issues for using genome sequencing, clinical care, emerge. Now it's in its 10th year as Dan pointed out, now in its 11th year actually because we began just before the end of October, at the end of September in 2007 to use biorepositories with electronic medical records for genomics. We actually weren't out to prove the clinical data were no good but there were those who did not believe the hypothesis that they were good and we managed to prove the contrary. And then Ignite developing and disseminating methods for incorporating genomic findings into clinical care. The ClinGen resource, clinical genomics resources is developing and disseminating consensus information on genes and variants for clinical care and then we have a growing investigator initiated portfolio that's small but we hope will continue to expand. We have a couple of program announcements out in clinical sequencing research that was only, that was a one-time solicitation but we also have an HIV AIDS drug response and comorbidities PIR and one on severe adverse drug reactions. So and this is about the amounts, the total amounts of money that are dedicated to that. Actually this is wrong, it should be about 12 and then the fiscal years for them. So that's the overall portfolio. Obviously we're looking at this one but to give you a little more context I tend to consider these in terms of kind of the depth of patient characterization and you know spread across the breadth of implementation. So if you look at it that way the UDN is the most in-depth view. Many of the patients are admitted for an entire week and studied intensively. The Insight program is a little bit less intense but still a fairly deep dive into a newborn and the health issues surrounding that person. So those have a much more of an individual patient focus and look at multiple models for delivering this kind of care. The CESAR program is a little bit broader. It looks at impact on clinicians in labs as well as integration into the health care system. While Emerge and Ignite are probably the broadest, not only evidence generation obviously in CESAR but also looking at system-wide impact. And then ClinGen kind of over arches all of them because it's a resource for using this information in clinical care. Just to give you an idea of timelines, as Stan mentioned, Emerge started way back here and so I didn't show that one but what's shown here in sort of solid lines are the current phases and then these are kind of projected phases. So we don't know that this one is going to happen and we may decide today or at other times that it won't but that's why there's a question mark. The CESAR program began in fiscal, at the beginning of fiscal 12, ran for five years and now is going on for another four years, just awarded. The Ignite program began, a number of these as you can see began in 2013 and is currently in solicitation for a second phase. The ClinGen resource was just recently renewed. The UDN is also in solicitation for a second phase. The NSIDE program ran for, is running for its initial five years and it's not clear what we're going to do with that in the future. We have a meeting coming up with the NICHD joint meeting with them to try to determine what its future should be. Oh and I should just point out, we are here at the very beginning of fiscal 18. The three programs that really look the most alike and that sometimes we're questioned, well why do you have three of them, why don't you just have one. The reason we think we have three is that they have different emphases and require different expertise but a question that we could ask you might be do we really need three or should we consider making one big one or some combination of those. So the CESAR program, which was recently renewed as I mentioned, the Emerge program and then the Ignite program shared here. And then sort of looking at CESAR and Emerge together, CESAR has about 5,000 patients. It's looking at community clinical scenarios so hopefully in routine practice focuses on the clinical encounter. It has a strong emphasis on increased ethnic and socioeconomic diversity, evidence generation for clinical utility of sequencing and real-world barriers to integrating genomic data into clinical care. Emerge has 25,000 patients, nine sites. Electronic phenotyping has been an emphasis from the very beginning and it has more of a system-wide focus. This particular phase is looking at health outcomes of rare variants or penetrances. I like to think of it of rare variants in about 100 clinically relevant genes. So what can we find of rare variant? Is it rare variant carrier scale? Now I'm afraid to say anything. Rare variant harbors. Carrier is for recessives and some of us get really irritated by carrier of not recessives. So thank you. At least one of us gets really irritated. System-wide impact of reporting actionable variants and improved electronic phenotyping, which has always been a focus, novel variant discovery and electronic clinical decision support. And then what they tend to have in common are integration in the electronic medical record, clinical impact of return of results and concerns about data sharing. And then Emerge and Ignite, so I've already described Emerge. Ignite has for its next phase and actually currently has about 15,000 patients. We're anticipating four to six sites in diverse real-world clinical settings. It also has a very strong emphasis on enhanced diversity. It focuses on pragmatic trials and clinical utility of established genomic medicine interventions, as I said, increased ethnic and socioeconomic diversity and hoping to generate generalizable knowledge on the use of trials in genomic medicine interventions. So NHGRI can't do pragmatic trials of every genomic medicine intervention and we wouldn't try to. What we would like to do is to sort of set a paradigm for how this work can be done. And then they also share EMR integration cost effectiveness in patient clinician education. So I'll stop there. Many thanks to my colleagues at NHGRI and our Genomic Medicine Working Group, as well as all of the investigators in these programs and the participants and then the programs themselves. So I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for Jared.