 Next up is council initiated discussion. You've been NHGRI has been the driver on this agenda so far and at this point we sort of open the floor for comments from the council members so this is an opportunity for you to request reports or updates about some of our research programs. We also regard you as representatives of the research community. So, if you are aware of problems or troubles that are brewing in the field you can bring those to our attention as well. What's your pleasure, what would you like to hear from us. Yeah, a couple of things. One is that at another event I attended, I can't even remember what it was now. I don't remember the content, I just don't remember where or anything. We had a presentation from Alice Pope Joy, who's co-chair of the Clinton ancestry and diversity working group, and maybe Sharon knows more about this than others. But it was really quite interesting it was part of an NHGRI funded consortium and talked about implementing the polygenic risk score program that NHGRI was supporting as well as for general consideration of diversity in genomics and other omics studies and talking about those types of information given that this is an interesting area. I think it might be worth hearing from her or someone in that group. In terms of what's happening in this specific area, including potentially returning results from a genetic risk score. The other thing that I wondered about. This is more recent is in my conversations with some Institute directors and so forth. You know, I understand there's a trans NIH thing going on now about COVID-19 and particularly not involving the diagnosis or the characterization of the different types of bugs. But what's happening after a person has COVID, and particularly with respect to ideas of, you know, what is it about the, in terms of memory loss or heart or lung or other types of features that occur after COVID infection. And since there's a big international effort trying to identify, you know, genomic input or genomic effects in terms of who may actually be more susceptible to COVID infection or severe complications. Maybe that's something that also genome is involved with and it'd be worth understanding more about that. Maybe Eric knows can provide more information on this trans NIH thing that's happening now. So there are apps. Yeah, I mean, I can tell you there's definitely major efforts. I'm not sure it's trans NIH, but it has multi institutes that and some of which have gotten funding for this. So I think there are some major initiatives being stood up in that area. We could find out exactly where they stand and whether it might be something worth bringing to the next council meeting for updating. I see Terry just popped on maybe she knows a little bit more. Yeah, there is a notice of intent to publish a funding opportunity for this year. So it's moving very, very fast on post acute sequelae of COVID. And you may have seen or heard of that Steve, it's in the NIH guide. It's it's basically a heads up to the community that there's going to be a very fast turnaround solicitation. So that's led by NHLBI but it is, you know, almost all of the institutes are involved including ours. Right. You said it much more eloquently than I did. Oh, I'm sure not. Okay, I've got Sharon. I've got Jonathan, then Sharon, then Howard. Okay, just a quick thing it over the last year or two, we've had a number of programs that are wrapping up and being essentially being sunsetted. There's one and the common disease centers are another. So it might be good once they wrapped up to get a sort of a final report from those folks as to, you know, what the what the programs did and you know all those presumptively and I'm sure they are all the successes that they had and all those kinds of things but it seems to me it would be good to get a final sort of a final report on some of those some of those things even if I'm not here to hear them. We'll just schedule them an open session and then you'll hear them. Then I'll hear them. Yeah, I'm sure I don't know exactly what the timeline is for any of those programs but that would certainly be a reasonable thing for us to do Sharon. I'm in the same position as Jonathan so this is a recommendation, although it's my last council. We at the genotype to phenotype conference it first came up sort of the enthusiasm for data visualization funding and there was actually an interesting discussion about it on Twitter last week which reminded me about that those grants are actually hard to get funded. And as I mentioned the comp website I mean more and more Nomad just updated their, their website as the Clinton I mean how we visualize the data that we're generating I think is increasingly important. So maybe having some type of discussion about data visualization research I don't know across NIH or what NHGRI I know it's mentioned a couple times in the Nature article. But any specific plans about really work on improving data visualization of the work we do I think think would be a useful topic to just follow up on the comment about Alice Pope Joyce so she's the co-chair of the Ancestry and Diversity Working Group. The PRS work is actually coming out of ClinGen complex disease working group and there's a paper coming out quite prominently quite soon on the ClinGen polygenic risk score assessment, essentially a new standard for assessing them. So that might and Jen watch it who's now at Hopkins is the chair of that committee so that might be an interesting topic. Okay Olga. I want to agree with Sharon's suggestion on data visualization I think it's actually something that might be very challenging to do right because of course there's the two extremes of very technical data visualization that's done in the computer science community that sometimes can go away from how are the users and the NHGRI in the genomic sphere are going to do it versus you know basically doing something that really doesn't have any technical carefulness so I think it is really worth thinking about how to do it right for our community and we're getting to the point where we have the value added by not just visualization but visualization search exploration right. Visualization interactive with analysis could be very important. And I think the related to that potentially thinking about what are key priorities in terms of features that software and frameworks need to have for NHGRI and perhaps this is too general. As a general question but I do think there is something in addition to what topics they're needed for or what goals they're needed for but also what do they need to have right. When you put the next RFA out for a center, do they need to provide the data with metadata in some way that's convenient do they need to have certain level of visualization etc. I've got Howard and then just go ahead Howard. I think that's a question about the IGVF program which I know just starting so this program looking at a variance on genome function. Are you getting a strong response in terms of applications are they from the usual suspects just want to get a sense of your and your thoughts on the community response after that new framework. So, these applications are under review and we don't typically release information about the number of responses that we've gotten. I can tell you our review branch is busy. Yeah, this might be a stretch but it would be. I'd love to hear. Perhaps later this year if we could get Eric Lander in or a longer Nelson to hear about how the new advisory structure how the cabinet level office is going to work and sort of what their, what do they see as their priorities and portfolio. I could pull on some old relationships there to see if we could get special treatment. First shop. Anyone else. Rudy, can I ask a question of council then in this one of the things we are way behind on and in part because of we've shortened council meetings because of the pandemic. So we've not been able to have as many presentations and open session is we typically have new Institute directors come and give a presentation giving council a chance to meet and talk to them and look for areas of potential synergy. And I just was counting and you know we've had a recent surge of new mostly external directors hired by Francis to lead various institutes. And we were already behind before the surge but I'm counting there's there's seven new Institute directors that have never come talk to our council. And I would say at least half if not two thirds maybe even all of them but you know have significant genomics relevance and programs that we'd be interested in talking about all that so I don't quite know how to dig us out of that hole. I don't I'm not necessarily I'm not necessarily asking you in an open session to say oh I want to hear from this one but not that one because I mean there might be some preferences amongst them. But but maybe you just think about it and if you have ideas of how to try to catch up. You know I'd like I'd like to hear that. But I really do feel there'd be some productive conversations with some of these directors and they probably be very eager and interested based on conversations with me to get to know our council a little bit as well. So I just put that out there. Thank you very much for your response. Eric I think we'd like to hear your views and views from other people at the Institute regarding opportunities or common challenges that you face with other institutes where it might be especially informative to have that type of session. Okay. Other ideas. Yes, it's certainly a long enough list. It'll keep us engaged may councils only three months away so we'll scramble.