 Thank you, Eric. For those of you who don't know me, nice to meet you. My name is Carolyn Hutter, and I'm the division director for the Division of Genome Sciences at NHGRI. And I want to start before I go into this. We are here, and this is in the context of the NHGRI Strategic Plan, but just stressing again that this is a trans agency meeting, and we have people here also from NSF and USDA. And so while we're most interested to hear some of your thoughts on what's the forefront of genomics for NHGRI, I think they would also be interested if you also want to share ideas on what you see as the forefront of genomics in the perspective of their agencies as well. So we're going to, you know, feel free to switch back and forth between those and don't say, oh, Carolyn's up there, I can only talk about what I think is relevant for NHGRI. We do want to sort of hear broadly. But as Eric said, I'm going to drill down for a minute just to give you a perspective of where we are. Eric showed you that timeline of the strategic planning. You know, we've been at this for, it seems like quite a while now, and you know, we aren't just at this, we want to hear your feedback. We have started to sort of bring some of our thoughts together. And we organized internally for the purpose of our strategic planning into five focus group areas as listed here on this slide. And highlighted in yellow, I highlighted the basic genomics and genomic technologies because I think that's sort of the focus group area that sort of most overlaps with areas of interest to this group, although obviously the genomics of data science does as well. And we can touch on that one in a little more detail if people want during the discussion part. Within the basic genomics and genome, and that just goes to highlight any time you put things in categories, you have perfect categorizations and we recognize that, but you have to organize in some way to sort of move things forward. So within the basic genomics and genomic technologies, we sort of have identified these key themes. And again, I'm not going to read all of these themes to you. I will leave this slide up for a minute if you want to read them yourself, that we really see as areas that we should be thinking of as we think about where should the field be going at the forefront of genomics and the areas of basic genomics and genomic technologies. And again, I've highlighted in yellow what I think is most relevant to this particular meeting, which is how do we think about using evolutionary and comparative genomic data to markedly advance understanding of genome function as NIH in the relationship in basic, from a basic genomics perspective and also in relationship to human health and disease. And diving in one more deep dive in on that particular point, what do we mean by that? I just want to say that my colleague Elise Feingold prepared this slide for a meeting we had in July. This isn't a summary of things we heard at this meeting, although I was in reviewing this reflecting that a lot of the things that we've been thinking about really do align with what I've heard over the last day and a half, which is, you know, we see value in taking advantage of conservation and variation both within and between traditional and non-traditional animal models. And obviously some of this data has been generated both by NHGRI and others at NIH and by others, but this whole siloed data, this is certainly something that I've heard multiple times, is inhibiting effective comparisons. And by that, what do we mean by the siloed data? We mean the differences in standards and ontologies and databases, et cetera. And we also don't have the tools or the tools that we have are currently insufficient to do what we really want to be doing in terms of comparing and visualizing the data. So what do we see this as needing? Well, we need to have genomic and functional data from diverse organisms. We need to have coordination and interoperability of data types. And this is a place where we do see NHGRI having an opportunity to take some of the leadership role. And we also want to have robust ways to represent inter- and intra-organismal genomic data to fully take advantage of that as a resource and again from our perspective to help us in our advancing our understanding of the biology of genomes and how that relates to human health and disease. So this is what we've heard and how we're sort of synthesizing around this. One of the other needs that we have heard through our strategic planning, but it's not sort of captured here because it's sort of captured in some of the other parts, but reflected in discussion today, I've heard over the last two days is things around training. And so we do recognize that also as a place where we should be thinking about how to move forward in our views of training and how to have a 2020 vision towards what we should be thinking about in our training programs and in training more broadly. I also thought before I sort of just kick it out to you guys to sort of get your input and thoughts is, you know, we do recognize that NHGRI does activities that facilitate genomics research, all genomics research including comparative genomics research, so that's why it's in the parentheses there, that include our investment and our continued investment in technology development and in methods development. As we move towards faster, cheaper and more accurate technologies that can advance human health and disease, they also advance a lot of other areas. As we think about novel and approaches that might be used in our setting as examples have come up today, they also can be used in other settings and we also recognize the value when we have a PAR about this in particular for novel approaches in comparative genomics that could then be used to help us understand our human, understanding of human health and disease. We also continue to value the importance of genomic resources, what are resources that we can create, what are resources that we can foster, and what are the analysis tools and platforms that we need to have with those resources. And we also continue to see our leadership role both as a leadership alone and our leadership in partnership with others to move things forward. My cousin makes fun of me every time I say this, but one of the things about being at NIH is we have a convening power, it's evidenced here today, as we bring people together and the conversations that you can have when you bring experts into the room, particularly people who don't talk to each other, as regularly I think is incredibly value. We can also take leadership in the setting and maintaining of standards and in promoting key principles in areas that we have. So this is an idea of where we currently are and some of our thinking of what we see as our role in areas that I think would be most relevant to this group. This is just a small part of everything we're thinking from our strategic planning, but the part I think to give you a step in to bite off and provide feedback. And so when I say provide feedback, we want to hear what are opportunities you think NHGRI should be pursuing in our role at the forefront of genomics over the next five to 10 years. What of those opportunities would benefit most from collaborative efforts? And what are we missing? Are there things that you would have thought I would have said that we're thinking about that I didn't mention that you want to make sure that we are thinking about? So those are the types of questions. I'll leave the question slide up for a minute. I'll probably bounce around on the slides a little bit as we talk, because I know I sort of went through some stuff quickly and people can process different slides at different points. But I'm going to open it up to anyone who wants to answer any of these. Eric. So on the third point there, what is missing? What I keep hearing, I'm saying this myself, but I hear a lot of people keep saying to each other and NHGRI is we need investment in developing high quality telometer, telometer, complete genomes. And in none of the bullet points I saw today, I saw that message there. It's in the top one. So hold. I guess I think that it needs to be safe because hold genome sequencing, I mean, you can find that in hundreds of papers. And somebody will tell you it ain't the whole genome. Yes. So I think it needs to be more explicitly stated then. Yes. And I should point out that coming to the front, actually, great, coming to join us in chairs so they can also help with this arm. Along with Eric, I'll let you each introduce yourselves once you have a seat. Go ahead, Elaine. Gently seat two. I'm Elise Feingold, NHGRI co-chair of the Basic Genomics and Genomic Technology Focus Group. I'm Bill Pavin, intramural researcher. And co-chair of the Basic Genomics and Genomic Technologies Working Group. I'm Elaine O. Strander. I'm the chief of the Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch at NHGRI and in the intramural program. And I'm co-chair of... We just renamed her, Genomics of Human Health and Disease. What chiefs? I'm Jennifer Troyer, and if you don't know me by now. And in the context of this discussion, she's a member of the Basic Genomics and Genomic Technologies Focus Group. So anyways, so yes. But we have heard that, and I agree it is an important thing to make sure that we keep hearing. Of course. So the other thing, as I'm wondering, how come Comparative Genomics is at meeting number 40? And does that reflect, sort of, is it on the lower spectrum of interest, everything that's being done, or just asking a candid question? Yeah. So I would say that you might be 40th in line, but if you ranked these events in terms of what the investment of us in them, you would not be 40th, right? So, you know, in terms of which of the events that... You know, Eric said we've had 40 strategic planning events. And those include one-hour discussion in the context of a larger meeting. It's a wide variety of events. And so I would say that if you sort of looked at that, I wouldn't put the time... You know, we had to have time to plan a meeting, and we just did a big meeting in January, and we weren't going to do another meeting the next month because we have staffing reasons around that. It doesn't mean the conversation didn't come... The topic actually came up in quite a bit of others. I mean, otherwise, actually, I mean, the fact that it's reflected in this synthetic theme is because it obviously came up multiple times. Just there wasn't a focused workshop on that. Actually, you were first because I did the first one at Cold Spring Harbor a year and a half ago, and I did it by myself, and so trust me, you were first. The other thing I was going to say is don't worry about that in terms of priority and order, because they haven't had the genomic medicine one yet. Yeah. Other comments or questions? Scott. I think it's implicit in all of these goals, but I don't see the word computational in here, and I just think that that's going to be a huge... Well, on that specific slide, but I just think... So which... Okay, anyway. Yes. Good, you're on it. Well, no, but I came to the slide not in a, oh, we're on it, but what are specific things that you want to make sure that we're on, and what are specific things that you think we should be thinking about? Yeah, I mean, I think what I've heard a lot at this workshop is infrastructure for comparing different species, for comparing phenotypes and genomes. It's hard to look for synthesis across species. And ideally, especially with comparative genomics, having that sort of phylogenetic framework so that we can really leverage a lot of the existing tools for studying biology on phylogenies, but also there's a lot of the new tools that are going to be coming along. We have to envision a time when we have, we're almost there now, but hundreds of genomes aligned, phenotypes, and I think, and we've talked a lot in the workshop about how many species are not amenable or easily amenable to experimentation, but my honest hunch is that even with that, just the comparative non-experimental approach will be able to make some very, very impressive headway on linking genotype to phenotype. But we don't have the infrastructure for that now. Yeah. If you dig in deeper, I'm not sure it's on the slide that you had shared that dug in more deeply in number four, but we definitely have talked about informatics and like specifically data visualization and just ways that we can do comparisons of data. So it's definitely something that we've thought about, at least at that level. So I've seen, Caroline, can you bring me a piece of paper and a pen so I can keep track? So I had Sophie, then Matt, then Lucia, then my glasses are failing me. Yes, in the back, literally this is Hans. Yes, okay. So while I'm writing that down, I also wanna plug for a minute that we are 40, perhaps second in the row, having a series of webinars specifically around these genomic data science fields. So keep an eye on hashtag genomics 2020 and our website to get those because they'll be open to anyone who's interested and would be another opportunity to provide some more input and insight into this area. So you just touched on it, but data visualization was something that really came up now that we're talking about so many genomes and so many types of data that we wanna map to genomes. Yeah. Matt. I'm gonna venture a guess and say that you're on it, but to the 2.6 here, I think we need to think more broadly than just genomicists in our training efforts. We need to think about undergraduates and epidemiologists, medical doctors, other people. So it's not just the people in this room and our students and people we talk to, but it's a whole host of other people as well that are really important to bring into this system to speak our language. Yep, fully agree. Yes, I would like to bring up the silos effect again because that came up a lot of times, silos for data, for samples, high quality samples. So I have a small biorepository of one of the most endangered species in the apes in the planet, but I don't know how to share it. I will be happy to share it. I'm not connected to anybody. So is there a plan to have some collaborative, kind of funded, is there any plan to promote collaboration and make sure that people are connected? So what types of things do you think best promote collaboration? Communication and I don't know. I guess the easy one would be at a phase where people are kind of obliged to collaborate because everybody is provided a piece. I mean, the most productive collaborations are the one where everybody's needed is raised and overlapped, right? And so something like that, like, for example, all the samples that I collect is all not funded effort. It's been all opportunistic all time, 15 years of collection, but I'm still happy to share. It's just that it cannot go on forever and also it needs to be mutually beneficial. So I don't know, I'm just putting it out there. It would be nice to promote collaboration and help coordinating collaborations. Hans, and then back there. So I love the idea of all this strategic planning and I think it's great, but many of us in this room do not work on a human and mouse. So my question is, is how much influence will you have on other institutes where we think we have systems of value, but we're sort of given the impression that unless you work on a human and mouse, you know, it's not gonna happen. So I think this is actually a really important question. And I think one of the things, the ways that NHGRI has been successful in moving the community is having things that are successful. I mean, they prove themselves, right? And so if we're talking about making other, in several of the sessions we've talked about, what are the things that are needed to make these other emerging models tractable, accessible and usable, if those things are all in place and they suddenly become much more, they review well, because suddenly there's examples of ways in which this is working. So I think it's something as an entire community, we all have to work on both as reviewers being less skeptical of other systems, but also all of us making sure that those standards to ensure that these are going to be really productive and reproducible and again, we've talked about this a lot, right? And you're not being picked up on the mic. Oh, did anybody hear what I said? All right, but anyway, so it's this. Okay, so I think that, but I do think that it is incumbent on all of us to demonstrate the utility in ways that are then seen by the reviewers and then as reviewers to come in and be willing to open your mind to something that's not a mouse. Let me try to put a finer point on it. If I understood the question correctly, I think where we can be helpful is on anything genomic. So if you're gonna pitch a system to another institute in a particular disease area or a physiological area, the genomic elements of it, I think we can try to be helpful if asked. I doubt we can be very helpful to be able to say, oh, this is a good system for this, because we're not the experts about that disease area, that physiology area. So I think that's gonna have to be done by the scientific community, by you, by other colleagues and so forth. And maybe Elaine could speak to something as somebody who's been a leader in demonstrating that dogs are a good model for cancer. And I would imagine that your question is other types of diseases and other types of systems. But I don't think you're gonna see that argument be very strong out of any chart, which is not the expertise. But if they have questions about the genomic aspects of the system or what might be possible in the genomic, I think we can be helpful. That I know the Genetic Society of America has held some workshops where they brought in, they had meetings that were sort of across a number of model organisms. And then they also invited some NIH people from different institutes there. And so those kinds of things can be replicated further to really get the rest of the NIH excited about particular models, or in general the power of model organisms. I think there would be a lot of interest in that. So I would just comment that my lab, as I think most of you know, works on dogs and has for 25 years. And half of that was when I was in the extramural program in Seattle and half has been intramural here. And so the most successful strategies for getting funding for me and for people in my community from NIH have not just been to say, oh, okay, we have an animal or an organism or a subset of animals who get this disease that if we could find the genes would be informative in humans. That's only a small part of it. With it has to come a mechanism to get that data distributed to human geneticists. There has to be an embracing by human geneticists that they care about that approach, that it's gonna reveal things you can't find just by studying humans. And often that comes from the population structure that you know so much about and founders and so on that you have in your own organism system. And it really develops into sort of that next level, that next echelon, if you can incorporate new genomic technologies or approaches. So if you can look at what's been done in the human genome project and repurpose and elevate and say, look, one of the things about the human genome project is the trickle down effect that it's had across the tree of life. And I'm gonna give you an example of how applying this really helps us solve this problem that we care about everywhere from conservation to human health. So that's kind of a global approach is what my community certainly, but I was writing grants extra rarely found most successful and my understanding is what people continue to find most successful. And that's everything from finding genes to doing cell lines and therapies and pretty much the whole gamut in between. But you can't be using old technologies, right? You have to be embracing everything that you're hearing about at meetings like this and applying them to what it is you're studying. That's key. So I'm gonna come back to Eric and then I'll get the next set of hands. So my comment is on a similar line. It's a question and comment or a request, right? Really, my request is that for the vision of 2020 that NIH, GRI partner with other institutes like NSF and USDA here to actually not depend upon the investigators to pick out one or two species here or there to support, but make that initiative to do high quality, complete error-free telomere or telomer genomes representing species diversity, whether it's all vertebrates or beyond, to make that part of the mission because I don't think that's gonna come about by investigator initiative approaches. And so you only have to do it once, at least for one individual animal. And second to, I think there's a good justification for it for human health and the planet's health, which also affects human health. Otherwise, why are we holding a comparative genomics meeting funded, supported by NIH if you're gonna compare genomes, you might as well support the genomes you're gonna compare to help inform human disease and planet health. Great. I'm gonna expand a little bit on what Eric said and turn it around a little bit. What I said yesterday was comparative genomics is enabled by genomes to compare and the tools to compare them. And I think NHGRI's done a wonderful job on creating technologies to compare genomes and providing tools to compare the genomes. And where we're at now and we're all sitting here as saying there's a million and a half eukaryotic species out there. You know that now and it's actually possible. We have the technology to do it all if we wanted to. From NHGRI's perspective, I think the missing part is the genomes to compare and the strategies, having a national strategy or an NHGRI strategy beyond the things that kill you make you sick. Okay, as Eric said, there's lots of things in the environment that we're interested in and lots of other humans that you wanna sequence. So if NHGRI could be helpful in providing guidance to the community on what genomes, what areas of the eukaryotic tree, things that regenerate, I mean there are whole parts of the eukaryotic tree that are either unexplored or where we know there's fantastic biology where the organisms haven't been sequenced. We have 37 phyla out of 71 that have a representative organism, but that's only 52% at the phylum level. There's so much there that we don't know. And I think NHGRI can have a role, a major role in the strategy strategizing about where to go in the tree to help, which has direct impact on being able to understand the human genome. And this is the time with all the technical developments that have been made and the tools that you've funded which are applicable across all of life. And let's take that opportunity to think very broadly and have NHGRI engage in that strategic component of where do we go with comparative genomics in terms of the selection of organisms for the next steps. But Harris, don't you think that, and I haven't ever had discussions with anyone here about this, but it seems to me that one thing that would make that whole process easier would be to self-organize amongst ourselves and to say, okay, here are all the different ways. We see what all of us in the room do having potential impact, whether it is regeneration or disease or all the different ways that could impact human health and organize ourselves around that into some kind of working groups and then come out with what we would think are the top one or two for a variety of different reasons that should really be a focus. And I have no idea if any of these people agree with it, but I wouldn't put it on them to figure it out. Truthfully, it's not the world they live in. I think it'll be hard because it means if you say these are the one or two that should be the focus for regeneration studies, whether it's axolotl or whatever it else, but that means these 22 are not gonna be put forth to NHRI, that's gonna be hard. But are people willing to do that? I would, that would be the question I would be asking. Or not help us, but how do we help you? Right, and I'd be, yes, and I'd be thinking broader than single organisms. I would be thinking of whole branches of a tree or groups of organisms, especially within a genus or a family where you might have one member that regenerates and another member that doesn't of this very closely related tax on the community. If you leave it to the community, you have a whole lot of interest. This is a top-down and a bottom-up strategy that I'm suggesting because everybody has their favorite organisms and will lobby for their favorite group. There has to be a broader strategic. Well, NHGIA has the power of convening. That was what was said at the beginning. And so let's convene that discussion and begin to think about it because the potential is there to do everything, but you can't do everything, you can't do everything. And so what should we do next as a big strategy? Claudio, did you have your hand up or did I? I know Ted's next, but I just wanted to check. Okay, Ted? I'm Ted Morgan from the National Science Foundation and at the National Science Foundation I wear a couple of hats. I'm the chair of the Enabling Discovery through Genomic Tools working group which is focused on developing genetic manipulation in traditional non-model organisms that have communities that have been formed. In that capacity, so we have 35, 34, 35 awardees, a handful of which that are at this meeting who have come in with genomes and the need for functional genomic tools that when I've been participating in meetings like this and interagency committees, I've been happy to see a lot of our investments appear in talks from individuals who are at NIGMS and other places. And I would also highlight to the point earlier that I understand the issue in terms of coming into NIH and if you don't work on a mouse or a human and how you justify that, but NIGMS, I have the agenda right in front of me here, on September 12th is holding a workshop on the research organism landscape choosing the best organism for your scientific question which will be video cast just like this one and in the individuals who are participating. So I'm participating as the chair of the Edge Working Group but there's a number of individuals who work on non-model systems that will be participating in that. And so it's processed, but I definitely have heard from my colleagues in the federal government that there is a lot of interesting biology that NIH is aware of that has happened in outside of a mouse and a human. Yeah. Thank you, Ted. I'll put my questions back up to the group. Make my follow-up perhaps a little bit with that because we actually do participate, have a participating project in the Edge and one thought perhaps is if, for example, if NSF puts some invests or puts some efforts into identify some key species because of interesting phenotypes and so forth, several which may be of relevance to human health, those might become really important targets for genome completion and high quality. So it's as if the two communities, both in terms of the community of researchers and also the funding agencies were to talk more and learn more about what are the organisms that have been funded, resources that have been created and what are the counterpart that could really push this thing forward. That might be a play a role in terms of which organisms to identify. And the truth is, this broad community here, there's a limited number of organisms for which any research has been done and maybe it might be reasonable targets to have high quality genomes for all those organisms for which there has been research, which is a small fraction of the whole biodiversity. So that's just one way perhaps to think about targeting organisms for genomic resources. Donald and then, I got a blocked, Eleanor, is that? Okay, Donald and then Eleanor, huh? And then Emma, sorry, Emma. Donald Manahan National Science Foundation, I wonder if we could beyond the organisms one would work on, could we just come back to the comments you made about a strategy for training. We spent, of course at the NSF, we spent a great deal of time talking about education and training. I was wondering if we could open that up for a general comment. We certainly have spent two days here where there was all debates about silos and need for cross-training and bringing in engineers and computational biologists, et cetera, et cetera. But if we sort of, whether that training should be focused on established investigators, of course, all the way down to new post-doc grad students, just don't mind spending some time on that because obviously if 20 years, I've been in science 30 years, if 20 years from now we're still saying we have the wrong training programs in place, you know where we will stand and all the limitations. Yeah, and so I am gonna take, I'm gonna follow up on Donald to, I think to say that what we wanna do is reach out, is ask this question to you guys. From a perspective, we do always hear the more training, how do we get more by all the data science connection and then you'll say you'll have something like our, someone we'll see and sure the next generation of genomics are trained in data science and then people are like, but you also need to make sure the data science people are trained in genomics, et cetera. And we have been starting to do some experiments and Eric's been supportive of this, of considering different aspects of our training from the, you know, the pre-doc level through training opportunities for more experienced researchers. So what are, you know, what are the things that people think are really missing in the current training landscape or the current ways that particularly, you know, training programs that we might be funding have? What are changes that you think could really impact and move the needle on this having a 2020 genomics trained group in the back? So I have a lesson I've learned from my high school students, which is that they're very good at interacting with data and using resources that are out there already and putting things together and kind of hacking things together so they're not computer scientists and they are not biologists even yet, but yet for some reason they can put these things together and I think that's really a theme that we need to promote is reusable tools that can be interconnected that don't require, you know, whoever designed them and developed them can put them into a package or a way that they can be used and interoperable. I think that's really the next generation is learning how to hack things together. I'd say a major limitation is the number of slots on training grants. We get 450 applicants to our program per year. We take maybe 12 students and we've got 4,000 faculty so there's a dearth of students and a lot of opportunity there if we could just take more of them. But they've been squeezed over the last like five years. Eleanor, and this doesn't count towards your question if you're responding specifically towards training. I was not letting you respond specifically towards training, but I will say that anything that can influence, it can move the people from the computational world into the research world is going to be really valuable because those are often the students that end up being the most effective is when they have some, they have a computer science background but then have an opportunity to actually identify the ones that are, have a kind of creative process planner in thinking. Yeah, great. So I want to take one or two more comments specific to training and then I'll come back to you for a year. I would sort of, I go Eleanor's comment except for I would say in my own career having a T32 at Stanford for vets who want to do PhDs, bringing us out of our silos so having people that not only have a cross disciplinary competition background but have a very cross disciplinary clinical background can see connections with other people can't and so encouraging more getting people out of their silos whatever that silo might be and encouraging those trainees to jump into a different silo like in whatever combination that is is very, very powerful. So more of that. Great. Eric and then is that Sue? Yeah. Yeah, my observation of something about training is that a lot of folks who generated some nice good assembly algorithms or the lot of some of the ones that we use what I find is that they've been very well trained as computer scientists but they're not so much aware of the biology as I would like. And I think that has led to some of the problems we see in assembly algorithms like separating haplotypes and so forth. And so I think having computer scientists train more heavily in the biology of genomics is really what's gonna help move this field forward. Sue and then I'll move us on. Yeah, my comment is really very similar to the last two and in our discussion group what came up is what seems to be missing is the integrative person who has the computer science experience but also the biological knowledge to be able to make these inferences in a way that's relevant. Scott and Sophie, and then I really will move on. Again, addressing just the issue of scale. I mean, I think funding individual trainees is very important but it's not gonna be as impactful as if tools can be disseminated and much broader to many other people. And so one format which I haven't seen much of personally is sort of the workshop format where graduate students, postdocs, tenure track faculty, whatever, researchers are coming together to learn a set of tools. I mean, there's a lot of steps in the pipeline to genomic information that literally can only be done by two or three centers in the world. Whole genome alignments and multi-species alignments laying over different kinds of data but those are also kinds of tools that could be disseminated quite widely in more of a workshop type format. And so I think it's something that should be explored. Yeah. I just wanna address one problem with bringing computational people into biology is frankly the salaries. Beth was complaining about Joel Armstrong is leaving and who's gonna run cactus alignments. Joel wants to Google and he's making five times what he would make if he stayed in bioinformatics. Yeah. And so it's a huge problem. And then also it's this problem, we are at an institution where we have both bioanus and bioinformatics people working side by side and there's this huge disparity. Yeah. Okay, so we're gonna do Eleanor and Emma and then I am gonna have to call us to an end but we will be around afterwards as well if people have other thoughts. Go ahead Eleanor. Yeah, so there was one thing I was kind of interested in the context of the goals for Genomics 2020 is the... So in a lot of the work that we're doing now we have a comparative project we wanna do in something like behavior where we actually wanna set up a collaboration with all the people that are doing this very large genomic studies in humans and intersect it with behavioral studies in other species. And that kind of ends up putting us in a little bit of a weird between place because if we go to the place that's funding the human brain stuff one of the people we wanna collaborate with they don't understand the idea of a natural model organism. They get really freaked out by the idea that psychiatric disease in humans might be anything like behavior in another species but at NHGRI is kind of this kind of this sense that you don't wanna be specific to a particular disease because then you should be going to the other institution. And so you kind of end up with no real place to go to get that work funded. When you're actually adding a lot of value now to a genomic study that has already had a lot of money put into it and you're just kind of taking advantage of it and getting it to adding that extra kind of level of information. Yeah, thank you. And Emma? So I was thinking you're talking about NHGRI being at the forefront and then that being disseminated to all the other institutes where it can be applied to various medical applications. And I was wondering, we haven't talked here so we've talked a lot about implementing CRISPR and doing functional genomics but I wondered about synthesizing the human chromosome, synthesizing synthetic chromosomes and maybe that's 10 years plus plan but I wasn't sure. I mean GP rights, they have a plan for this. They're looking for funding. I'm wondering what NHGRI thinks its role in doing that is because that's a transforming technology potentially that would allow oligosynthesis at a longer level which is really important for the medical community testing GWAS hits but also for the comparative genomics field asking how's the ancient piece of DNA work another organism. And I was surprised that we haven't discussed it at this meeting and I know we discussed it briefly at another meeting but I'd like to hear what people think about that. Yeah, so Elise do you wanna take it? I'll go back to the slides of the five points. So six points, so number five. It's actually out of the forward. I saw synthetic nucleotides. It's actually one of the only technologies that we actually pulled out as a separate grand theme that we've heard and that we really do see synthetic genomics as very transformative that would really enable wide number of studies and be very broadly applicable. So Bill, do you want anything to that? Well, I'm just gonna say that that's something that NHGRI is good at is getting the cost down of technology. So it would fit in that same line of advances that we've done for sequencing. So we've gone over on our time but it was a great discussion so I took a little moderators prerogative to do so. But I just did, I kept wanting to come back to this slide because I know that this is just part of the discussion and we do really wanna do this. I've been really loving the great hashtag you know the great genomics 2020 like the genomics 2020 discussion that I've been following on Twitter. And so you can do that in the context of a meeting like this but you can also at some point, we monitor that and we also monitor this email. So if you have some thoughts that you wanna bring forward and have us think about as we think about our strategic planning, please do use these as ways to get in touch with us. You can also email me or any of us at a time if you just Google Carolyn Hutter it's the first thing that comes up and we're always really happy to hear people's input and thoughts. This has been incredibly helpful but we hope to also be continuing the discussion. So thank you everybody.