 Well, thanks, Terry. Good morning, everybody. Seems a bit loud. OK, do we have my slides up? I can just click them through. OK, there we go. So I was asked to provide an overview of CSER and give you a sense of the participants and the projects that are involved really to set the stage for what I know is an effort to try to enhance collaboration between our two groups. So in a nutshell, CSER or CSER2, this is the second iteration, is intended to look at the effectiveness of the integration of genome sequencing into clinical care, and particularly emphasizing diverse and medically underserved populations or individuals. CSER1, which I was not directly involved in, generated evidence on the efficacy of clinical sequencing in some tools, computational tools and educational tools. The focus in this second iteration is on really bringing this to a diverse population. Won't go into detail on this slide about the participating sites, but we're not exactly evenly spread over the country. I guess I noticed that just looking at the map here. But a concentration on the coasts and down into Texas, as you can see. I'm sorry, what? Yeah, you're a coast, OK. I'll resist the temptation to say what's in my mind right now. OK, here is a quick overview of the structure of CSER. There is an advisory panel who are present here today and have been meeting with us and also independently to provide oversight and advice. The Coordinating Center is at University of Washington, run by Gail Jarvik and her colleagues there. I'll introduce the sites in detail in just a moment. You may not be able to read them well here. There's certainly been active involvement from NIH. And then, I don't know how well it's readable, but there are a set of working groups that meet actively and have been responding various projects that are specific to their group. I can read them, which I'm not totally sure I can from here. There's clinical utility, health economics and policy, education and return of results, LC and diversity, patient community and clinical stakeholder engagement, survey measures and outcomes and sequence analysis and diagnostic yield. So here are the participating sites, and I'll say just a word or two about the areas of focus. And I think this is in roughly alphabetical order. So Baylor College of Medicine, I guess everybody is working to find the best acronyms for their projects. This one is Kids Can Seek and it focuses on children with cancer. Hudson Alpha, which is a collaboration with UAB, which is where I got involved, is South Seek and our focus is on newborns with suspected genetic conditions. Mount Sinai is New York City Kids Seek and the focus there is on children with suspected cardiac neurologic and immunologic genetic conditions. Kaiser Permanente is Charm and there the focus is adults who are at risk of hereditary cancer. The NIH, NHGRI intramural program is represented in the form of ClinSeek A2 where the focus is adults not selected for any particular phenotype. I think there's a very heavy emphasis on enrollment of African Americans and that enrollment is completed as you'll see in just a moment. UNC and Chapel Hill is NC Genes II. The focus is children with suspected genetic conditions and UCSF is PEGs and they're looking at infants and children with severe developmental disorders. So it's early days in enrollment and you'll see in a moment a little bit of a breakdown of that. This is projected enrollment that would peak at about 7,000 over the course of the study. The line at the very bottom that appears flat is the ClinSeek as I mentioned, their enrollment is completed. Here's a breakdown in terms of ethnicity and gives you a sense of about where we are in terms of enrollment to date. I think we have work to do to achieve our goals of diversity which really is a central goal as I mentioned but all of the sites are very heavily engaged in community outreach and engagement with the hope that that will be a way of bringing this project to diverse communities. I think one of the main areas of focus in the course of the past months has been on data harmonization. The various sites are collecting a diverse set of data aside from the genomic data. Baseline measures include things like demographics. There are various surveys of individuals, post-return of results, there are surveys of declineers and one of the challenges was that each of the sites had to customize their approach to data collection obviously according to the goals of their study but it had the potential of generating the kind of tower of babble of various approaches to these measurements so a lot of effort has gone into harmonization of these data sets over the course of this past year or so and I think we've come a long way and one of the active discussions now is how to actually merge these data sets so as to make them available to researchers to look across the various studies. At the previous face-to-face meeting which was in September, we had I think most would agree a really inspiring stakeholder engagement meeting that occurred in parallel with presentations and participation by various stakeholders and at least my sense and I think it was widely shared was that it really was sort of motivational and inspirational and it's I hope something that we'll be able to continue into the future. There's been a fair amount of activity in terms of publicity in the form of papers. This is a paper that came out in this genetic journal. I make the point that whenever I'm involved in things like this there's a mechanism of recusal by the way so there's no conflict there but in any case there has been one paper. There's another that is currently in process. There was a lot of activity at the American Society of Human Genetics meeting and there are a set of surveys. This is a survey on genetics and ethnicity and ancestry that is currently being circulated. So I'll conclude with just a set of both challenges that we have faced and some lessons learned or being learned. This group has a lot of moving parts although we are dealing in the same human genome that still leaves a lot of room for different approaches and just getting everything organized and harmonized and logistically arranged is a non-trivial process but I think the Coordinating Center has done an outstanding job in helping to make that happen. Our biggest goal is obviously engaging communities who might historically not have been included in research of this kind and this remains an area of significant challenge but also significant opportunity and I think it will be one of the great products of CSER that we will I hope have learned things about how to engage diverse populations. Obviously the sequencing and variant interpretation which I would expect is a common challenge that we all face continues to be an area of significant focus in terms of agreeing on what we are willing to return, what the criteria for pathogenicity are and in spite of pretty tight criteria there's still plenty of room for different points of view on that and finally one of the areas that we're very focused on right now and was a big discussion at this meeting concerns data sharing and I don't mean so much the genomic data sharing that's challenging enough but it is something for which there are tools available. It's actually more the other kinds of data sets that we're generating which are not necessarily only genomic and where each site has developed its own approaches to collecting those data. We have as I mentioned done a lot to try to harmonize the data sets but we haven't yet faced the larger challenge of actually merging them into a kind of a sandbox where people will have access and be able to use that for research and so that's a continued area of active discussion and I think I will now turn it over to Rex and let Rex talk about a merge.