 Christine, you want to come up, please? So our third concept for today will be presented by Christine Chang, Scientific Program Coordinator in the Division of Genomic Medicine, and she'll present the concept title, Advancing Genomic Medicine Research. Good afternoon. My name is Christine Chang. I am presenting this concept that was developed by the Division of Genomic Medicine, along with other NHGRI staff, Advancing Genomic Medicine Research Concept Clearance. So as background, we've had support from previous Council rounds to grow our targeted research projects outside of large consortia, especially in genomic medicine. There's also been recommendations from the recent strategic planning workshop on genomics in medicine and health, and with these top five in mind, along with previous Council feedback, we're putting forth this concept. And so the proposal here is to simulate innovation and advance understanding of when, where, and how best to implement the use of genomic information and technologies in clinical care in all persons, irrespective of ancestral origins or socio-demographic status. This funding opportunity builds upon the current issued investigator-initiated genomic medicine research PARs, and like those PARs, this FOA will ask for projects that are broadly applicable to genomic medicine. What's different here is that it will use an RFA mechanism, and that will allow for more coordination with NHGRI staff, mainly through our yearly grantee meeting to help enhance communication and disseminate findings to accelerate genomic medicine research progress. We're really hoping that the interactions that meeting attendees have will help really push the field of genomic medicine forward. And we'd also invite grantees from the parent genomic, parent R1s, as well as other grantees from relevant FOAs to participate in these meetings. And those new to the field of genomic medicine will be encouraged to apply, including those from a variety of disciplines that could be genetic epidemiology, health, equity, and disparities, just to name a couple. We'd also encourage studies that encompass diversity, and diversity here would mean racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, populations who experience poorer medical outcomes and studies that take place outside major academic research settings. So in your concept document in the ECB, you have a list of examples that are categorized into three broad areas of genomic medicine. They are implementing genomic medicine, facilitating analysis of clinical genomic data, and improving clinical access to genomic data. Those examples are not exhaustive, but are just meant to give an idea of sort of the type of applications we could receive. If approved by council, we'll be releasing RFAs for the R1 and R21 mechanisms with alternating receipt dates starting this May. And given sufficient number of applications and the fundable scores, we anticipate spending about $4.9 million in new applications each year up to four R1s and four R21s. And we would also invite other ICs to sign on for a possible co-funding of relevant applications. And with that, I'm happy to take questions and feedback. I think we can start with Dr. Plon. Well, I'm certainly enthusiastic about some dedicated funding. I would say a May deadline is going to be pretty soon, particularly because the RFA does encourage new investigators who may need a little bit more time. So if I could suggest you at least aim towards the end of that month, you might get more new investigator applications. I'm just trying to be realistic of the work involved. I think my main question, and this came up last week at our clinical sequencing meeting for the existing CSER consortium, is really trying to encourage investigators to think about sustainability and sustainability outside of the funding period. So for example, in education, there have been a number of interesting educational programs that have been funded over the years in cancer genetics. But once the grant's over, there's not a method for then really using it. So having the investigators think about how is what you're going to build lead to new knowledge or better implementation, and particularly how can that implementation occur in what we call real medicine, everyday medicine, somewhat similar to some of the pragmatic work that Terry has championed in other sites, I think would be an important theme for this. So the issues of the type of testing and the cost of testing, certainly whether the costs of testing would be incorporated into the budget, will be important for investigators to think about. Because if the testing is considered clinical, that may decrease the costs of the grant, but it may then diminish some of the diversity you're looking for. So thinking about the budget and the budget cap and things like that would be important when thinking about what kinds of projects will people be able to afford to do in a diverse environment. And there's really pros and cons to that, because when the testing is incorporated into the grant, it's not as quote unquote real life. But real life right now has its own health disparities associated with it. And then I would just echo my earlier statement about encouraging new investigators. Obviously there are a number of investigators that have been funded up through different phases of a merge or CSER or the baby, the newborn sequencing projects and site. And so just clarifying that you're encouraging new investigators, but what is the status for existing educators will just help kind of weed out a lot of questions you might get. But I think that clearly really trying to understand how to do genomic medicine well, we're still really only whatever it is eight years in or something. So we're nowhere near all the work that's gone on in the cardiovascular space just with regard to how to control cholesterol. And so I think there's so many important questions to answer. Other comments? And I guess one other just quick question about the annual meeting. Again, you can have an annual meeting and everyone can come and talk about what they're doing. But if you think of some way to structure it, so there's some clear goal coming out of the annual meeting, like some way in which sites are going to test each other's measures or provide a site to enhance reproducibility. I think that might make the meeting more productive. If there are no other comments, can I get a motion to approve the concept? Second, all in favor? Any opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you very much. Thank you, Christine. I think we will take a short while break for 10 minutes or so. Let's try to be back in the room. Well, let's do 305. Give you a chance to network. My clock. We're in this time zone up here. I don't know about the back of the room.