 Betty Jean Graham, and I am the outgoing director of the Division of Extramural Operations at NHGRI. Who were your mentors at NEI, the National Eye Institute, and how long did you serve there? So, Israel, we call him Izzy Goldberg, was my supervisor and mentor at the Eye Institute. He was also the mentor of my position as a grants associate, which was an NIH-wide position that provided opportunities for Ben Scientist to move into science administration. So, he mentored me for a year there, and then he hired me at the Eye Institute. And that was from 1979 to, I think, 1981. Could you talk a bit about your work at the NEI? Well, NEI is separate from the Division of Research Grants. There is some connection with me and the Division of Research Grants. At the Eye Institute, I was a regular program director, first-time program director. But during my time there, I came across an issue that I thought was not quite equitable to those who were applying for research grants. And that is, those who knew how to request their summary statements did that. They could write and say, please send me my summary statements. And they tended to be those who were well-funded. So, as I always like to say, the little people, and I know that's not correct. But for the people who didn't really think they had a voice, they didn't know that they could write and request their summary statement. And the whole issue there was, you cannot submit an amended application if you don't know what the issues are. So, you have to see what were the concerns in your application before you could address them in a way that would deal with the deficiencies that were identified. So, I did ask him if we could automatically send out those summary statements. And Izzy said, no, you can't do that. But you could write to them and let them know that they could request it. So, as a result of that, at that time we had secretaries. So, my secretary and I, for about three council rounds, would probably write about 200 or so snail mails to let people know that they could request their applications. And at some point, I realized that, you know, this is very inefficient. And what about applicants and other institutes? What did they do? They didn't know about this. So, that's where the Division of Research Grant comes in, which is now the Center for Scientific Review. So, I composed a memo that was approved by both Izzy and the equivalent of the EPMC Extramural Program Management Administration, so that requesting that the summary statements be automatically released. So, that would take me and the secretary out of it and everybody who had an application would get a summary statement. And they agreed. So, that worked out very well, except that once people started getting their summary statements, they then noticed that I don't see anybody on the roster that has the expertise to review my summary statement. So, the problem there was in those days, ad hocs, which most study sections will have these days to cover expertise that isn't currently available in the standing study section, they were not included on the roster. So, yes, an applicant could get a summary statement and see that there wasn't anybody there for the record who could review their application. So, I wrote another memo that was approved by both Izzy and Ron Gallow, who was in the equivalent EPMC rep. And that was sent to the director of the Division of Research Grants. And they agreed that that was something that could be fixed. So, I think as a result of that, once you get your summary statement and see what the deficiencies are, it's so much easier to address them. And not only that, but you could get funding, you know, more likely than if you were just like throwing darts in the dark. So, I think that was, in my estimation, sort of a game changer for applicants because it made NIH's business more transparent. In your experience, what made Izzy, Israel Goldberg, such a good mentor? Well, I think the good part about Izzy was that he was not wedded to any dogma. He was very flexible. He was one to think outside the box. And as an example of that, he was my mentor in the grants associate program. Traditionally, most of the people who were in the program would do like two or three-week shadow groups, and they would shadow somebody, and then they would move on to the next. And he recommended that, you know, maybe you should take fewer assignments, but with more in-depth attention to what's going on. And that turned out to be quite useful for me because I would spend maybe a couple of months or so really drilling down on an issue that was of interest to whatever institute I was working in and provided something that was beneficial and also provided me with some insights into some of the issues and how they could be addressed. Based on your experience, why is it that the most obvious solution to a problem is often overlooked? So I think a lot of times it's in the implementation. You know, there were no written rules about applicants couldn't get their summary statements. I think it's how a policy or guideline is implemented. And I've noticed throughout NIH that always happens. And I think some of it could be that the people who are getting involved in the implementation are not so much the ones who are boots on the ground. So you get to see all the bumps in what's going on. And unless you have somebody who is looking at those or kind of feel that, well, why is it done that way? Can we do it a little better? That's what is needed. But we have to work together because I couldn't have done this by myself. DRG at that time, they had to be willing to consider that. So it's okay to not do things right all the time, but it's also good to be open to changes. And I think that was the beauty of what happened with the summary statements. What was your role in the development of the diversity action plan at the NHGRI? So when the genome project first started, I could probably say there were not any people of color who had the expertise to do genomics. And so what happened was that we convened a group, and I did not do this on my own, but that was, you know, Elka Jordan was involved with this. Francis was involved. We convened individuals who had had successful programs for people of color. We brought them here to the NIH, and there was a meeting talking about the various elements. And one of the recommendations that came out of it was that we had like the sequence in centers and the database groups. They recommended that since these are sort of real incubators for genomics that these centers would be ideal for training individuals in genomics. So we started out with requiring individuals who had sequencing programs and database programs to have a minority action plan, which was part of the application process. And they wouldn't get funded unless the minority action plan had a very good rating. But we came to realize that the rating of the minority action plan within the context of a really serious sequencing program, a database program, didn't really get a rigorous review. So at some point we pulled that out and made it another activity code, said it was a separate application, but attached to the sequence in centers and databases. We changed the name to the diversity action plan because the winds of change with diversity in minority is always changing, so we changed it to be in sync with that. And basically it's the same concept. What are some of the issues that still persist in the implementation of the diversity action plan? I think the one thing that I have been very concerned about is that we did put a lot of effort into this and we're still not where we want to be. And this is a really huge problem. It's one that we can't fix. We depend on the people that we support to fix it. But it gets all jumbled up in kids being admitted to universities, having to retain them, and giving them the kind of mentorship that they really need. Because most of the people who are maybe trained in non-research intensive institutions, they don't have the research skills and the critical thinking skills for research. I mean they do have courses that they take, but research acumen is a very different skill and you have to do it. So there's still a void in that and we're trying to change it, but it's a hard problem. Going forward, how can the NHGRI work to address these issues? I think it's a multitude of problems. It's academic preparation. A lot of it just depends on how you're treated by your academic mentors, even the peers you work with. It's kind of like not obvious, but there's clear that there's something underneath the surface that would make people feel like they are not part of the group. And I have to say in my own education and research experience, I've never had that. Maybe I have, but I just didn't pay any attention to it. But I've always felt that wherever I've landed that somehow the people I have been involved with have respected me. And I mean, I worked hard. Nobody gave me anything, but it's still a work in progress on so many levels. And it depends on the attitude of both individuals. You know, like if you're out there looking for this person is discriminating against me, I've always felt that you find what you're looking for. But what you find could be very small compared to a much larger area that's there that's positive. And if you continue to focus on that little bit that you're looking for, that you're going to miss out on what's there for you to have. I'm not saying everybody does that, but I think I've seen a lot of that. How can large institutions and individuals work together more effectively to forge changes for the greater good? That's a very hard question because I think one person can't do that by themselves. It's always people interacting with each other and how those interactions go. And it's different for each two pairs. So there's no common formula other than seeing the potential of that individual, respecting them, and trying to see where they are and how you can raise them up to the level that you think based on your knowledge of the field they should be. And so as a result of that, anybody working in that environment will have different needs and different amounts of time required of the mentor. And when the mentor is busy writing applications, writing amended applications, dealing with administrative things, it's hard. It's not easy. And you really have to be dedicated to see that there's something of value in this person that I as a mentor want to bring out and make them the best that they can be and whatever it is they want to be. I just think these are things that can't be cookbooked. Unfortunately, it's really individuals interacting with each other. I just don't think it's...of course the institution can set standards, but you can't make people do things. People have to want to do things, and that's how you get the most out of them, that they want to do things, that they see this individual as potential and they want to help that person blossom. You can't legislate that. You can't regulate that. It has to come from the two individuals that are working together. It takes a lot of time. I mean, you have to be committed. You can't go halfway and say, I'm done. You haven't come up to where I want to be, so I'm done. It's consistency. And I think when people think you care about them, they are much more open to whatever you suggest. During your tenure, how has the NHGRI approached bringing people of different backgrounds into the field of genomics? Well, let's just start out with genomics when it first started. I mean, the people who became genomic scientists were really biologists, biochemists. They were not genomicists. It was the addition of informatics, statistics, technology that made genomics, taking it from being a geneticist to genomicists. And so the typical path was, you know, you finished your PhD, then you took a postdoc, and then you went to another lab and you did the same thing that you did. You didn't try completely new things. So genomics required a melding of biology and informatics, technology development, engineering, and all of that. So the mathematicians and the engineers and the informaticians were always outside of biology. They were usually included on applications because, you know, you needed somebody to sort of tell you statistically how many mice you would need. But they weren't an integral part of the program. So one of the things that we did was to try and encourage those groups who normally hadn't been part of genomics into genomics. So we started out with naively thinking that we could use the regular postdoc program. Well, you know, these people could, with the master's degree, leave and go with industry for three or four times what a postdoc was paying. So there was no way we could attract them into genomics. So one of the things that we did was to then develop a career development program in which traditionally for K awards, you have to show that you've been, you know, really working in the field and you're ready to take off in your area. With genomics, if you want to get mathematicians, they were not working in biology. So they didn't have the big CVs that most people in biology would have. So that was one thing. The review criteria didn't require them to show that they had multiple peer-reviewed applications in this area. The other thing that we did was that we sort of moved up the salary requirements to the level, the executive level of whatever, which is the highest that you could get in government. But it had to be consistent with what that person at that level would be paid at their institution. So now you had the salary was attractive and then the requirements not watered down, but reviewers were looking more at the potential of the individuals to contribute to genomics. And so that's how we brought into the field a lot of these other people. And I know this past year, one of our first K awardees, he's now, he has gotten, he's at the National Academy. And he attributed to his, what, how NHGRI or NHGRI was able to afford him this opportunity. And we have a lot of other examples like that. In your estimation, is there a problem in genomics training in which mathematics is emphasized over biology or vice versa? I think the real game changer here is that we've started now with what we call team science. So everybody's intellectual knowledge comes together to make the whole. And so now, instead of being ancillary to the project, you are now an integral part of the project. And it's really amazing how individuals in math, bioengineering, informatics, they really get up to speed with, you know, the biology part of genomics very quickly. So, you know, and I think part of it is students in college are not aware of this being another opportunity for them. Most of them are looking at maybe finance or actuarial people or things like that. So it's just a matter of bringing and attracting them to the field and having them work with really bright and exciting people and on fabulous projects. Yeah, but that's the other thing, too. A lot of these companies are drawing off because what they offer still academia can't reach that, nor can they be paid off of grants at those levels. So it is still a challenge, but there are people who want to do it. What was the motivation for opening up the NIH T32 Institutional Training Grant Program to Juris Doctorates or JDs? Again, you know, NIH has a feeling that, you know, we only train PhDs and MD PhDs or MDs postdocs. So Jean McEwen Kean was in the ethics program, and many times she was approached by JDs who wanted to do a postdoc in genomics. And so she and I made the proposal to the training advisory committee and got a little pushback, but they finally allowed us to allow JDs to apply for postdocs and K awards. And I'm on a committee in Unite that's revamping the T32, and so now JDs will be one of those degrees that will be considered for postdoc work. So that kind of legitimizes it, and hopefully other institutes will take advantage of that to bring in ethics people into their programs. Because it's kind of ridiculous. Ethics is important to NIH, and you're not going to support the training of people with JD degrees. It makes no sense. What have been some of the effects of that change in NIH policy? Well, I just think NIH will get better advice on these issues. And you know, bioethics is something like informatics. It can springboard into different disciplines, scientific disciplines. So I think it just enriches it because there are always going to be ethical challenges with whatever you do. And you need that expertise. How did you address the inequities in the NIH loan repayment program? So that was an interesting thing, and again it goes back to how things are implemented. So the loan repayment program is government-wide, and each agency decides how it wants to implement it. Well, NIH, their implementation was just for, and this is to retain people in research. So they get tuition, a certain amount of their tuition paid for participating in the program so that they don't bail out and then go and try to make money to just pay off their loans. So we had an NHGRI had a panel from our council to look at what are the training needs. And one of the things that they identified was we needed more genetic counselors as researchers. So we had the background that the NIH loan repayment program was only for MDs, PhDs. And again, if you make the rules, you can change or break the rules. So we went to the loan repayment office and we tried to make the case that NIH could do this if they wanted to, and we didn't get any traction there. I then took the case to the extramural program, NIH-wide group, to see if they would endorse it, didn't get any traction there. But for some reason, NIH-OD agreed that that was a good opportunity to open up the program to people who were not necessarily with PhD or MD, PhD degrees, but who had expertise critical to the research enterprise. And so we decided to focus for now on the genetic counselors, and we've had a lot of good applications, which means that the community finds that this is a need. So it was good. And again, I think it's just seeing where there are pressure points and whether you can just sort of make a difference in whatever you do. And it doesn't have to be huge. Sometimes small differences are just as important. What advice do you have for staying motivated and inspired over the course of a long career? I think we have to understand that people work for different reasons. Some people work because they need the money, and that's all that's important to them. So they come to work 8.30 to 5. They do their job, and they go home. Then you have others who have a real commitment to what they're doing. And so they may, although not required, they may just go a little bit more to do what they think is necessary. So I don't categorize people or think everybody should be the same. I mean, just like you have some people, as soon as they hit retirement age, they're out of here. And then you have a lot of scientists in the intramural program who are 92, 93, 97 years old because they love their job. And I think that's what it's all about. I don't think I could get up in the morning for 51 years with just thinking, oh, this is another day. No, that is not what drives me. What drives me is the fact that perhaps today I can make a difference. And I try to think about that all the time. Is there anything else you would like to add? Well, I guess the only thing I would like to add is that I have had a wonderful career at NIH and CHDR and NHGRI. And I hope that everybody would have that same experience. It's nothing like enjoying what you're doing. And I think part of it is because the people you work with respect you and your ideas. They don't believe in you. And so it just works well. But on the other hand, I have an obligation to do the best I can.