 So next we're going to move to four concept presentations. The first one is going to be given to us by Chris Wellington I'm just going to remind the council that before NHGRI or any instituted NIH can publish a request for applications or funding opportunity announcement. It first must undergo concept clearance. We always bring these concepts to the council so you're aware of all the new programs that are being launched. So Chris is a program director in the genomic sciences and he'll start us off with a concept to renew the genomics community resource PAR. Thank you Rudy. So as Rudy said, I'll be bringing a renewal of this long-standing PAR. The current iteration, PAR 20-100 has been on the street since 2020 with the final receipt date in January of 2023. It can be challenging to define resources, so I want to start with a couple examples. First, the genome informatics resources, things like biomedical ontologies and analysis tool sets. Next would be things resources providing comprehensive identification and collection of genomic features like functional genomic elements, genetic assay results. Also, resources to support genomic community building efforts like GA4GH and ClinGen. And finally, sample repositories such as that provided by Corel. Now we all know the importance of good data management, data sharing. All research grants really need to focus on effectively disseminating their results, their materials, and their findings, their data. But doing this well doesn't make a project a genomic community resource. These really are projects where the dissemination itself becomes the primary focus, the primary end of the project. So to go a little bit more into the concept itself, again, this is a renewal of an existing program announcement, a special review criteria, or PAR. We're asking to reissue it for a further three years with the standard three receipt dates per year, continuing to use the U24 activity code. To ensure that projects supported under this PAR meet the criteria discussed earlier, any applications responding to it need to address detailed plans for to develop and maintain the resource in ways that balance innovation with stability, a thorough needs assessment and plan for community outreach, a strong focus on user service and training to ensure that these resources are as useful as possible, and an emphasis on making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable or fair. So with that, I would invite any questions and feedback. Questions or comments about the concept? Mark. So looking at the list of awards that have been made in the past, I think clearly it's funded a lot of really high valuable resources. So it seems to me that it's there's a great case for going forward with it. But I had two questions. The first is that I've seen on study sections before. And this is not NHGRI specific study sections, but others. But seeing them struggle with trying to evaluate grants for resources. And it seems it's often the case that you can point to something that has some value as a resource. But then it's hard to decide, does it really, what standard does it have to meet to really be a high impact award? And so I guess my first question is, have you seen that in your study sections that they struggle with this? Or has it been pretty clear for them to be able to identify and score these resource grants? And then the second question relates to the trans NIH, PARs, and the concept clearance here said that you're trying to route things that would fit under those PARs into that rubric. And I guess I'm wondering, both from the perspective of the Institute and the investigator, does it matter whether a grant gets fed to one of those trans NIH ones or comes under this PAR? Thank you. So there is some tie between those questions, actually, which is interesting. But I think our reviewers do wrestle absolutely with evaluating the impact of resources. There is a sort of an apples and oranges issue sometimes, the community size, different communities are different sizes. So it is a challenge. I think it is being done fairly well. But that is certainly something that we look to, and we and the reviewers both wrestle with that, that challenge. So as far as the trans NIH FOAs that are out, there can be some differences to applicants coming in. They are not huge. One of those differences is that they're reviewed at a different study section. That's that comment. Ours being a little more genomics focused, but those being a little more focused, they have more experience now at the trans NIH level with the data resources and the knowledge resources, which is a good thing. But other than that, they are very similar as you suspect. Following up on the first question then. So if the study sections do wrestle with this sometimes, is there some kind of guidance that you can add to the RFA that would make it easier for study sections to really assess whether a resource seems to meet the needs of an institute? I would love any ideas on how to do that better. Absolutely. Steve. Chris, I think just the list of resources that you've given us indicates the importance of the program and how there's been some probably heterogeneity and how successful different ones have become. I think it's great to see the needs assessment outreach and service and training as part of the renewal plan and how it's addressable in the application. Given that we've undergone some couple years of different approaches to interacting and training and service and interaction between individuals, it might be worthwhile thinking about how innovative we've become in actually doing this type of training and service given our Zoom, WebEx teams approaches now. In the old days, you'd have workshops and people coming traveling around and meeting together. It seems like now you have other opportunities. So maybe really focusing on innovation at the service training outreach process would be great. Thank you. I think that's an excellent place on these resources where we can focus on some innovation. Tim. Yeah, I agree. The list of impacts that this project has had is really, really impressive. My question is actually, as this program continues to have impacts at that level, you're going to have a really long list of things that you need to maintain and the portfolio becomes 100% maintenance and not a lot of novelty. How do you think about balancing that over time or maybe even other ways that you've seen these projects move into sustainability models that don't involve government funding anymore or something like that? Yes. That is absolutely a challenge that we have. This has been some of these resources have been supported for over 20 years, which is a mark of success. But as you say, also a challenge, I will say on that list, if you look at them, not all are continuing. So there are projects that either reach a natural conclusion or for some other reason, just to go into a different way of being supported. And those are absolutely things that we encourage applicants to look at. We seek co-funding from other institutes where that's appropriate, especially as resources may rise, genomics kind of starts to play into more and more fields. That is something we pursue. But I won't tell you that we have an easy answer or have this solved because we don't. Other questions or concerns? If not, can I have a motion to approve the concept? I see multiple hands. I'll take that as a second. All in favor. I'm also looking at the board. Thank you. Anyone opposed? Anyone wishing to abstain? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chris. Thank you for your time.