 Great. Thank you, Katrina. And thank you, everybody, for your feedback. Let me pull up my presentation here. I will be giving a short overview, the last, in this series of morning talks here, from the NHGRI perspective, particular to CSER. So we've now heard high-level NHGRI priorities, as well as priorities from NHGRI's Division of Genomic Medicine and the sequencing program from Eric, Terry, and Caroline. You've also heard about CSER from the perspective of the investigators from Katrina's talk. So my talk today will focus on CSER from the program office perspective, the history of the program, and how we'd like input from all of you today about thinking about future opportunities in this area. So to understand CSER's future, I think we first need to look at its past. First some history then. CSER arose from two RFAs, an initial one in 2010, and a reissue in 2012. You refer to these, as Katrina mentioned, as the U awards. From the outset, the RFAs were framed in the context of clinical care, so recruiting patients as they entered the clinical workflow. We anticipated a number of challenges and opportunities to become evident in generating genomic sequence data in the clinical workflow, interpreting the data for the physician and patient, and whether and how to communicate results to patients, and in some cases their family members. And overarching to this entire RFA was a focus on the ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications. So built in the RFA was this required three project structure, project one, focusing on the recruitment and in return of results in the context of a clinical genomic study. Project two, the sequencing analysis and interpretation of sequencing data. And then project three, the LC component that I mentioned to you before. So each site was required to address these. And what we did was we wanted to build in a comprehensiveness of the clinical workflow and of the pipeline, and emphasize within the RFA the opportunities to generate, analyze, and cross-pollinate data and ideas both within and across sites. So you'll note that along with the spectrum that there are opportunities to involve multiple perspectives, first of all the patients, second of all the physicians, and then third, a focus on lab and clinics. And so you'll see that within these individual aspects there are a number of scientific questions to be addressed. But just to take a step back, there are opportunities for research and implementation along these interfaces. For example, the physician-patient interaction, the lab-physician interaction just to name a few. And to take a step further back because all of the ULWARDS are doing this, I forgot my animation, all ULWARDS are doing this, we can identify best practices and lessons learned among the consortium that we hope will be beneficial to the entire field. Because this broad focus mirrored that of the ClinSeq program in our intramural division, we integrated and are fortunate to have the collaboration of our colleagues in the ClinSeq program. So as you've heard, CSER also includes an ROWAR component. In 2011, NHGRI funded a set of grants addressing LC issues related to the return of results. Although the RFA focused on returning research results, over time the investigators have had a much broader impact in the discussion of LC issues related to clinical sequencing. They've done this by generating empirical evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, analyzing normative considerations, analyzing legal and regulatory issues, all with the aim of ensuring that any recommendations made regarding clinical sequencing are evidence-based as well as legally and ethically sound. And I want to note that the ROWARDS began, ROWARDS grantees began meeting with the Project 3 UOWARDS grantees from the very beginning, the rationale being that we would have more opportunities for collaboration in working group papers. In 2013, the existing ROWARDS were formally merged with the CSER consortium, but because they were initiated prior to this as of today, at least the ROWARDS funding has ended. So with the basic RFA structure in mind, let's take a look at where we are in the program timeline. So the first set of UOWARDS was made in December 2011. In 2013, we funded a CSER coordinating center to help facilitate the cross-consortium work. The fully integrated CSER was actually established in June 2013, when the second set of UOWARDS were funded. The nine existing ROWARDS were integrated, and the NHGRI ClinSeq study was integrated. In 2014, we convened the CSER advisory panel. Of course, we're all here today in September because of this strategic planning and program review meeting. Looking ahead, in December, we're expecting to extend the Phase 1 U grants to further CSER's impact in key areas and sync the two U grant phases in a time-limited way until a decision about a renewal has been made. If NHGRI decides to renew the CSER program, we would take a concept clearance to NHGRI Council in spring or summer 2016 and schedule the review and award components to occur in sync with the ending of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 U awards in June 2017. As I mentioned, the ROWARDS have already ended, but of course we will have further discussion about the best way to ensure that adequate LC expertise is represented in any future CSER program or clinical sequencing program. Let me turn from the past to looking forward to thinking about CSER's future and share with you a number of high-level issues that we've been thinking about. From the very beginning, CSER was organized around a consortium model with integrated highly coordinated efforts represented by this beautiful, carefully plotted out garden here. Within CSER, we adopted this model in the UOWARDS by requiring this three-project structure emphasizing participation in CSER-wide working groups and developing and collecting standardized metrics, which Katrina and the other CSER PIs have really focused a lot on in the past 12 to 18 months or so. However, it's also true that when CSER was initially envisioned, the many flowers bloom approach was also fundamental. So within the basic project structure, investigators had the flexibility to refine their sites' focus on clinical settings, the choice of research approaches, and site-specific expertise that could drive innovation in key areas. So we're not talking about hypothesis-free research necessarily, only that the hypotheses were specified by the individual sites and not necessarily across the whole consortium. So we'll continue to need a balance of both perspectives. So one critical piece of feedback for today is what is the value added of a consortium? And NHGRI's experience with these coordinated organized networks, there has been value in being able to suggest best practices for the field, which can be challenging for the individual investigators. However, there may be a point at which it is appropriate and desirable to move forward without such influence. So I think one open question for today is looking forward, where do we see the balance falling between these two approaches? I also want to take a look at the deliberate use of the word exploratory, which is the E in Caesar. So in 2010, NHGRI, as Eric mentioned, was just beginning to establish a foothold in genomic medicine. And for this RFA, we were pleasantly surprised to find a robust response with the field being very ripe for research in this area. So as we embarked on this exploratory phase, so if you'll excuse me, the parallel with the Lewis and Clark expedition here, we equipped ourselves with a well-rounded set of resources. So Katrina mentioned many of these resources from the investigator perspective, but I also want to highlight the breadth of Caesar interactions across NHGRI to build on what Terry and Eric have mentioned. So this is the NHGRI organizational chart with the extramural research program on the right and the other divisions on the left. The Caesar program actually touches on the division of genomics genome sciences, the division of genomic medicine, the division of genomics in society, as well as our partners in the division of intramural research. So it impacts quite a broad swath of NHGRI. As Eric mentioned, Caesar is part of the genome sequencing program, all of which the other programs have other trajectories. As Terry mentioned, Caesar has sister programs in the division of genomic medicine. And then our colleagues in the division of genomics in society have been early partners integrating the RO word sites that were existing at the time to really provide a rigorous LC partnership that goes beyond just having the LC investigators as consultants for human subjects. So across the NIH, we're also very thankful for our partnership with NCI and co-funding three awards and contributing scientific expertise. Okay, so having committed to going on this expedition, we knew there would be challenges in bottlenecks. We didn't know exactly where they were. You'll hear today that the past almost four years of Caesar have brought some mature projects to bear, as well as established a firm foothold from which to address unanswered questions. As we look back on our explorations, I think one of the questions we want to answer today is what have we learned from our explorations? I think this has come up already. Where should we go next? So open questions include what is the value of continuing to pursue a sort of exploratory emphasis versus a focus on defined hypotheses. If the exploratory focus is still a value to us, what is in scope and what bounds should be placed on the exploration? And then finally, what is the emphasis on building the infrastructure and the process versus focusing on some defined end goal in the future? How will we know what we've accomplished, what we set out to do? Okay, so back to our task for today then. The goal is to come up with recommendations for NHGRI to consider and assessing future opportunities in clinical sequencing in the next five to ten years. So I want to emphasize that we encourage you to actually give us recommendations, not just interest in a particular area, and to filter a bit based on what you've heard for what NHGRI's unique priorities would be. We will write up a workshop report, by the way, and include your feedback that we've heard today. Everyone has a role to play. We've invited a broad range of people, both within Caesar and external to Caesar. We've invited staff from NIH and across other federal agencies. So please participate actively in the discussion. We encourage moderators in particular to give everyone a chance to speak up. One comment about, I think, how we should spend our time today. For this meeting, it would be very helpful for this group to focus on generating ideas and prioritizing recommendation about what NHGRI's role should be in this space, going forward. I think, as Eric mentioned, any program would likely go forth in sort of a resource constrained setting. We obviously are dealing with budget scenarios at this very day. But for today, I think a stance of curiosity and enthusiasm for this area should outweigh any sort of resource or budget worries. So I would encourage you to be generous with your ideas and not be too constrained about the budget. Looking ahead to the agenda and trap up my talk, I want to point you ahead to the agenda. We've organized the meeting into six topic areas. Each topic is comprised of two talks, one from CSER and one from an external investigator, followed by a discussion, co-moderated by two individuals, one from CSER, one from an NHGRI advisor. The concluding recommendations that we've heard during that session will be given by the NHGRI advisor. And then finally, at the end of the day, Carolyn and I will summarize the recommendations we've heard. And then Bob Nussbaum and Lucila Odo Machado will conclude with one final moderated discussion. So we're really, really looking forward to getting your input. So before I turn it over to the first session topic, I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of many people today. The planning committee, Shanita, Debra, Mary and Dan, Alex and other folks from NHGRI and Sondra Bromberg at Capital Consulting for Logistics. Our various NHGRI advisors from five different advisory groups have given us good wisdom and advice over the years. The CSER staff team from NHGRI and NCI have helped with the planning for this meeting and represent the program office along with myself. I'd like to thank NHGRI senior leadership and team sequence past and present for deciding that we needed to dedicate resources in this area. And of course, thank the CSER investigators for their continued work in this area. In particular, we did a lot of asking to get people to give us information for the talks, background materials and background paper actually. So we hope that those will be of use to you for today. Okay, so now I'd like to ask the first session participants to come up. I believe that's Heidi, Dan Roden, Dan Mises and Ian Krantz for the first topic session on building an evidence base for healthcare systems. Of course, sure. Great, Kathy Wicklund, I just and from purposes of today, one of the gaps that I see is a population, the prenatal setting in sequencing and there's certain tests that are coming on the pike for exome sequencing in a prenatal setting. Is that something that should be part of our discussion or something that CSER would be, it would be appropriate for this group to look at? Or is that something we should stay away from? So I'm going to give you a somewhat indirect answer, which is that the end site program that Terry mentioned very briefly is focused on sequencing at least in the prenatal and newborn setting. Is it prenatal and more newborn? Well, I think I would say it's focused on prenatal and isn't it early? I thought it's pretty much newborn. It's newborn. It's not prenatal. Yeah, okay. So I think that's a good question to flag. I might suggest we raise it and maybe the clinical utility session will have a chance to look at different dimensions. Anastasia, do you have a really quick comment? Sorry. Yeah, I can just say that insights focused on the newborn period and so it's NICU healthy and sick infants. So it's both of those settings, but it's all newborns, not prenatal. Okay, sorry. Thanks for clarifying. And I'm ready to turn it over to Heidi now.