 Yes. The second concept that we are proposing today is the short-term mental research career enhancement award for established investigators to promote diversity. Next, with this concept, we seek to increase the faculty from diverse backgrounds who obtain independent funding in genomics. The applicants must be actively involved in research and must have a doctoral or terminal degree to be able to apply for this mechanism. Regular applicants will be from diverse backgrounds, as described in the NIH's interesting diversity, as before they will include faculty from underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, faculty from disadvantaged backgrounds, and women. Next, we will encourage applicants from low-resourced institutions to apply. And we are looking for applicants that basically fall into two categories. Genomics investigators who seek to enrich their current genomics research, so somebody that is doing, for example, genomic data science and would like to obtain some background knowledge on LC and combine the two as an example. Or investigators from other fields that would like to come into the genomics field and obtain research to also make applications to us. The applications will be funded depending once again on the number of applications that we receive and the quality of the applications. Next, the applicants can request salary and support for their projects through the mechanism. The project period can be from three to 24 months, which applicants can use in a variety of ways. For example, an applicant might decide that they want a summer experience and dedicate their summer to the research project at 100%, or they might want to develop a long-term experience where they spend 24 months at a 50% effort in the project. Once again, I would like to thank the members of the training team for developing this concept, and I'll welcome your questions. There are discussion meetings for this concept like Dr. Chong, Dr. Plon. Dr. Chong would like to start the discussion. Thanks, Louise. I think this is a great opportunity. I'm very strongly supportive of this to increase diversity. I do think it's an important opportunity for senior investigators who I think can be influencers in the community and help increase the diversity of the research questions that we ask, as well as the participants in this. So I'm strongly in favor of having opportunities for these senior researchers. As was said for the prior concept, I am concerned that we make enough spots available. You know, the amount that we're talking about potentially, I believe it's total of 150,000 per year could quickly add up if you get a lot of response to this. So I hope that if you do get a robust response to the RFA that you'll have sufficient funds to be able to support this. I also think that these longer term, I can see many investigators that would like this longer term relationship as they develop their independence and continuing to have that mentorship as they develop their preliminary data will also be helpful. So, although I think some people could do a short summer sort of immersion I also anticipate there's going to be significant demand for these longer term relationships and would support that, but overall I'm very supportive. I'm also very supportive I actually really like that it is targeted towards mid career individuals I actually hope NHGRI does more of that. Certainly in my own career and grant application from a foundation for mid career individuals is actually what led me to go from genetics to more genomics research. So I do think we should think about that in other grant mechanisms as well. As we talked about via email it's disappointing that the K award mechanism is not eligible. People are not eligible without a doctoral degree so unfortunately will not be genetic counselors will not be eligible for this, although we do have the other open RFA. I do think with regard to actually getting applications, perhaps systematically trying to reach out to HBC use and in Texas some of the land grant institutions and other institutions so they're really aware of this opportunity. Because there are many situations where there could be obvious partner institutions for them to work with. I did have a question about the active in research question. Certainly, thinking of even some of my former trainees who now work at undergraduate universities their research is with undergraduates. So they don't have a typical research portfolio like we might think of someone in our own institutions. So I hope we don't wind up eliminating appropriate people by that description of being active in research being too narrowly defined. So, if we target low resource institutions, which we plan to do one of the successes that we see out of this is having individuals obtaining our fifties, for example, or score grants from this and hopefully from there they can jump into some bigger funding. I agree, but they won't have those when they apply so I just think the RFA when it when it gets written should think carefully about how the description that the person needs to be active currently active in research is described, so that you don't eliminate people that might be great candidates for this award. And we're starting to to plan the outreach for both awards. This Wednesday will be sending to a meeting of a tribal colleges and we also have a session in October at the you know it's meeting what we're going to be talking about that funding opportunities for diverse populations. Among other activities that we're planning to do outreach. Other questions or comments for Luis. Okay, hearing none. I'll ask for a motion to approve the concept. Don't move. The second please. Thank you very much all in favor. Hi. Hi. Anyone opposed. Anyone abstaining. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Luis.