 Okay, we're going to try for originality here in three ways. First, we're not going to talk about, hold on about what we did in the past. We're going to be projecting to the future. Secondly, we're going to be very parsimonious with quantitative data, but very rich in ideas. Third, we're going to pick up the pace and you're not going to be able to read the slides. You're going to have to talk to us at the break and after the meeting to find out what that was all about. That's not it. This doesn't count against my time. Okay, so I'm going to say a little bit about things we've done. I use we in an expansive sense, not RKS, but we at UCSF. And this is really going to be sort of a shout out and thanks to people we've worked with. So we've done RKS consultations and Mark Fletcher told you a little bit of that. And I want to thank Warnley and Barrow for really doing those. We've worked with contracts and grants, Eric, Liam and his group to do, to help with the speed up in contracts and grants that Clay talked about. We've tried to work with, we've worked with John Heldins and his group on the IRB electronic submissions process, which has really made things more efficient. And what we've tried to do is be, however you want to say it, the support, the facilitator, the catalyst, the cheerleader and really help other people do things that will make for real changes and how research is done here. So things we're still doing, multi-site IRB review, trying to make that more efficient so there's less downtime for sponsors and investigators. Alan Vanouk, John Heldins, Lisa Denny and Peter St. Wecker have been really working on that and things have happened and things will happen more. We're trying to really implement plans on having an independent IRB, be the sole IRB to review multi-site trials that UCSF participates in. Oh, it really did work. So we're going to really look in the future and we're going to ask you to think big. Okay, thanks Peter, it did work. What things would we like to do in the impossible dream? First is to try and revamp or improve regulatory training. And one thing we're definitely doing is the responsible conduct of research course, which I direct, which all NIH funded grantees, trainees have to take as an additional funding. Rather than just giving it once a year, we are going to do it online, just like we've done any time. And the question is can we do more? Can we do some CHR training online? And we're going to work with John Heldins' group about that. What's this? This is your data. This is something called process mapping. You're going to have to ask Deb Grady about it. She's wildly enthusiastic about it. That's a way to make the research process more efficient. But I'm going to skip her slide because it's too much of my time. Okay, so what is this? It's YAS, and you can talk about what does that have to do with the impossible dream? We'll talk about that at the break. What would we like to do? One thing I think we'd really like to do is to try and help with the federal government's proposal to totally revamp the regulations for human subjects protections. Your good friend, the common rule, is going to undergo a real facelift and revision, major surgery. And there's an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. They're trying to solicit comments. I know that UCLP, among others, is taking a lead on that. I know John Heldins and Elizabeth Boyd are going to be coordinating that. But I want to think really beyond that. I'm going to skip over what the actual questions, issues they're dealing with are. Everything is on the table. What can CTSI do to help get ideas to the federal government to try and make this regulatory system better, which means less burdensome, more efficient, and also not give up protections for human subjects? So right now, most people think the system is too burdensome. It over-regulates low risk research. Maybe it doesn't do a great job with the really cutting edge controversial research. How to make it better? Clay, maybe the CTSI national program can be an independent voice to try and get to HHS. Many of the faculty here play major roles in professional societies. I would suggest that those groups ought to play a strong role in responding to this independently of what UCSF, UCLP do. And finally, our community outreach program, our community partners, that's a voice that really needs to get heard in this discussion. So what can we at CTSI do to help do more than just what's going to happen anyway through UCLP? I'm done. I've got 30 seconds. Thanks, Bernie. Sam? So Bernie, best presentation of the night so far, but your song choice was so yesterday. My daughter said the same thing. If you were consulted by HHS, which you probably will be, what is the one big idea that you would give them for redoing the rule that you think would make the biggest impact? My kids are big fans of Homer Simpson. I think it's a mistake to try and write regulations today that will still be sensible five years or certainly 20 years in the future. I think they need to back off from the idea of making prescriptive regulations. They need to put a lot more emphasis on guidance, which can be changed without going through the rulemaking process. I think they have to allow their controversial issues in research ethics. And I think you have to set up a process by which people can discuss those and best practices in mind, rather than try and do it all upfront. As you know, Sam, when we were trying to write regulations for the California stem cell initiative through CIRM, we purposely didn't try and write everything in advance because we knew, although we had the brightest people in California helping to write those, we weren't smart enough to figure out what we needed to be able to do to oversee five years in the future. Hey, Bernie, maybe this is a good place to draw attention to your chorus and just thank the folks in the chancellor's office that have made all this progress that we've seen so far in the related issues. I can do it with you if you want. Right, so there's a big emphasis from the chancellor's office and the school of medicine to try and do more to take advantage of the internet for teaching. And I think one thing that all of us hate writing in the shuttles, and to go to one place at one time is really hard to do. And so I think the idea is to try and have, for example, discussion sections that are online, asynchronous, and not necessarily all in the same place, and to make it active and to actually replace some of the lectures we tend to give in these courses with small group interactions that are case-based to really get the students engaged. I think the idea is that it's not a matter of our transmitting information to the students, it's a matter of getting them excited, thinking about it, discussing them themselves. And the chancellor and the school of medicine have both contributed resources to make that happen across the campus, and CTSI has actually added to that and targeted it. Yeah, and I just also want to draw attention to the fact that it really was true that three years ago, the major issue that was raised at this retreat was the difficulty in getting contracts done. When that was mentioned here, there were all sorts of cheer. We gotta fix this. And under the leadership that we have, so under Jeff and Suzanne, Elizabeth Boyd, Eric Liam, Jim Carriacus, John Heldins, not only have we seen that dramatically improve in a short period of time, but also that our handling of IRBs improve and also the attitude change about the importance of these time points to investigators across the campus. So that's, I think, tremendous progress. If our retreat helped to spark that, great. If we can help to get faculty support behind these things, great, but it was really the hard work done by you all that made that happen. So thank you very much for all that effort. Great, and thank you, Bernie. Great presentation.