 So, of course, Eric mentioned a number of things that I was going to talk about, and a lot of that is in a timeline slide that I actually took out over the weekend because as I was practicing my talk it was running too long, but I'll put it up at the very end so you can see the detailed timeline. Most of the purpose of this presentation is just to give you a little bit better feeling of how we chose the scope of the agenda today and how we've been thinking about it up to now, who's been involved and sort of sneaking in a little bit more programmatic context so you so you know what else we're doing that might impinge on this. Then I'd like to just walk through the agenda just very briefly. There are a lot of people to thank. I have a personal note and then we'll get into logistics and then move right into the first talks. So, as Eric mentioned, why now? Well, the science is changing. The technology has always been changing. There's a lot more, at least compared to four years ago, a lot more infrastructure, including data resources and analysis tools that support some of the democratization that's happened in the spread. The community is very different. Certainly four years ago we were hearing very little about clinical applications and it's practically all we hear about now, including on radio and TV ads almost every day around here. It is a different era. Federal budgets are flat or a little bit worse. Actually, that hasn't changed since four years ago. But there is more talk around NIH about merits of centrally planned efforts versus investigator-initiated efforts and whether NIH has that balance correct. Very reasonable discussion. So, how do we come up with what's on the agenda? Well, we knew that from the beginning that we wanted to involve the community. So, thank you all for coming. We hope a lot of the community are listening in or watching the webcast and will send us comments. We got a bunch of advice from our council over the period of two council rounds. Very interesting discussions. And we took away the next three points from those council discussions that we ought to acknowledge our history but not be bound by it. And Eric mentioned some of that. The agenda should not be about the existing program per se but I'm going to sneak in some background about the existing program in the next few slides. But we shouldn't be about it. The agenda should include topics that are proximate to sequencing and could raise new scientific opportunities for exploring genomic problems at scale, as Eric mentioned. So, these are the four components of our current program, just shown as rough bubbles. The numbers in the middle are the approximate amount of millions of dollars they were funded in this fiscal year. Some of these funds for CSER and CMG are co-funding from NCI and from NHLBI, respectively. And it's just pasted up against the axis of our current strategic plan. I think Eric went through what all these programs do. And as he mentioned, the large scale sequencing and analysis centers bring in lots and lots of different projects. There are other projects, other programs that are going on in NHGRI that are closely related, closely or more distantly related but in the spirit of being proximate, I do want to show them. So, there's a large sequencing informatics program that has a lot of sequencing informatics in it. There's ClinGen, a relatively new data resource for interpretation of variants in the clinical context. Everybody knows about the technology development program. That's certainly related over here on the left. There are at least three functional genomics programs that probably are going to come up, at least in spirit, in the discussion today. Everyone's familiar with ENCODE, who recently introduced genomics of gene regulation and in an effort to understand better how to analyze potentially functional variants. Over here on the right are a number of programs in the science of medicine that have some proximate relationship to sequencing. Some of them actually have sequencing as part of those programs. They're about half of this size now. They could potentially double in the next year. We decided, as Eric mentioned, not to include a number of things in the agenda, both because there's an awful lot to discuss over the next two days and because they're on different timelines. All the informatics has its own center of gravity now, including reconciling with BD2K. Technology development is not being evaluated in this workshop, but we know that both of these topics will come up. Again, as Eric mentioned, a lot of the clinical stuff, a lot of clinical topics are on a longer timeline, but we do expect and we have included them explicitly in the agenda because they're so intimately associated. I told you that I didn't want to talk about the programs and we don't want this workshop to be about the programs. Here, I've just unmapped them from the programs per se and displayed them as idealized blobs with topics. These really are the topics of this workshop. I think we have these preconceptions of what these should be. I should say a little bit more. There's another thing that's on the agenda explicitly and Eric mentioned it in his seven characteristics. I have a slightly different take on it. As Eric mentioned, this workshop is about what can or should be done at scale. There really have been two scaled efforts at NHGRI. I've had two kinds of deliverables. I do want to reiterate this. They're the answers to the scientific questions that required scale to address. For example, for a common disease study, the specific variants underlying are associated with that common disease. There are also these durable goods. Some people call them foundational deliverables. These are the resource parts. High quality comprehensive resources, developed technologies, approaches, project designs, analysis methods, policies, even file formats that become widely used, all of those things that make something a community resource project. Those are the kinds of things that should be discussed in relation to every one of these scientific topics as they come up during the workshop. To briefly walk through the agenda, this morning will be talks mostly covering the current state of the science, what the current important questions are. We hope that the breakouts start to push into what is important to do in the next four to five years. This evening, we're going to keep you late for some very exciting challenge talks, which ideally will be examples of large scale projects that have not been addressed or in danger of not being addressed in the current way that NHGRI is thinking, either because it hasn't come up scientifically or because there's something about the way we organize our programs that's inhibitory towards it, but it really makes sense to be a kind of thing we should do. Then tomorrow we'll have breakout reports. By this time, we're counting on some scientific ideas crystallizing and we hope in the next quarter of the meeting, the final quarter of the meeting, to bring you into the program director's world and start asking you about pros and cons of different ways of implementing possible programs. I'll get up again and say a bit more about this before that part starts, but at that point we have to try to remap the ideas onto programs. So I have a lot of people to acknowledge, a lot of people to thank, the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research, the scientific advisors to the genome sequencing program who meet quarterly to evaluate progress and have been doing that as talking with Bill before the session started 1999 or 1998, something like that, maybe even earlier. NHGRI leadership, and I particularly want to flag Mark and Jane who couldn't be here. This is the first of these workshops they couldn't be at having had the good timing to retire a couple of months ago. I really want to thank all the members of the sequencing team who were listed here, especially want to single out Shannon who has done the lion's share of the organizational work. I want to thank her and also mention Elise Feingold and Mike Payson who were recruited into this because of the functional side. I just want to make a personal note about advice and what I'm personally hoping for. So this is one of my favorite fortunes ever and not because I won the lotto. But I actually got this fortune I think two or three meetings ago, five or ten years ago, a dinner after the meeting and it was an interesting meeting with a lot of outspoken people. So we do want you to jar our ears. We don't expect that we've anticipated everything. Don't be shy. The only thing that we ask is that when you state a strong preference, you be very careful to give us the reason why. Because at the end of the day when we try to synthesize all the advice and everything we've been asked to do, frequently the rationale is what survives and what gives us the best guidance about what to do at the time we're making the decisions. So I did say I would show the timeline. This is the timeline for the four different components of the genome sequencing program. And here we are at the little blue bar program evaluation workshop. You can see that the different programs have slightly different different endings and the gray box is when roughly we would have to issue any solicitations related to this workshop coming out of this workshop. And there is a council meeting in September when any concepts will be discussed in open session. So before I move on to any of the logistics issues, do you have any questions? Comments? All right, if not, running through them quickly. The registration desk will be manned by capital consulting throughout if you have any questions, talk to them. Please talk to them if you need to taxis tomorrow, or any other transportation needs. If you got a reimbursement voucher, please return it within 30 days of the workshop. If you need another one, please see the registration desk. Presentations need to be loaded ahead of time. Please talk to Shannon or me or the people in the back about loading them. Name badges. Your name badges for many of you have your breakout assignment on them already. If you don't have a breakout assignment, it's because most likely you are an NIH or other federal government employee. We didn't we didn't assign you. You may attend the breakouts, but I asked that you be aware that breakout one and breakout three are very full. And please leave the seats for those who have been assigned. Food. There is a list of restaurants in your folder. There is a restaurant in the front. There is coffee up front. If you bought, if you purchased any of the meals for the meeting, they are over there in the next room. Please bring your meal tickets when you go. Hotel checkout tomorrow is at noon. You have all seen that there is free Wi-Fi. And please don't leave personal items or electronic devices in the meeting room if you are going to leave for any extended period of time. Any questions about logistics? All right. So that's it. So we're not going to have individualized introductions for the first four speakers, but I will quickly introduce them here. Mike Banky is up first from the University of Michigan, followed by Rod McInnis from Lady Davis Institute, then Dan Roden from Vanderbilt, and then Joe Ecker from the SOC.