 Wood, which would coordinate activities both for the proposed common disease variant discovery and some for the Centers for Mendelian Genomics. So there are really two aspects to this. There's the more mundane aspects, which are mundane but absolutely critical, together with NHGRI staff, progress and cost tracking through multiple projects, tracking and scheduling calls, meetings, posting minutes, et cetera, community workshops and consultations for choosing new projects, for coordination with an ongoing project for outreach. NHGRI program staff Y, NHGRI program staff currently does this for the existing programs but with the growth of the changes to the program, we expect we will need more. The more interesting purpose for a coordinating center is analysis. And we can foresee some analysis tasks, although not all. We are keeping in mind that there are analyses that can be done both for individual programs and across CMG and CDVD. So some are straightforward, some quality assessment, reconciliation or helping to reconcile variant calls done by multiple groups. Outreach including coordinating analyses between the program and potential collaborators is a possible role. With the common disease variant discovery program assessing when a project is complete or comprehensive, especially when such projects are going to be spread out amongst multiple production groups. I think that's going to be interesting and take some time and effort. To start to examine, another task is to start to examine what it will take to leverage program data into common controls. This is kind of on a spectrum. I think that the first thing is to take the data and will be to take the data and figure out whether it's feasible to use it this way. I think it's a slightly different conversation if that works out to think about developing it into a resource. But at least we can get through feasibility. That could be a role for coordinating center. And given the connection of these programs with others, the coordinating center might also have a role coordinating activities that might arise across programs even outside of the genome sequencing program. Generally we would expect whoever the coordinating center is or whatever that is to be an equal participant in the research network intellectually. It is pointedly not a data coordinating center. That's another kind of coordinating center, but that's not a function envisaged here. There are a number of challenges. It's highly dependent on getting the right people because of the need for interaction and flexibility, broad expertise. It's always tricky to write a solicitation because it has to, in this case, it's going to have to anticipate initial projects and organization of projects. And there it's flexibility here to award this later than the other concepts which could help with that flexibility. For funding and mechanism, we propose one and a half million dollars a year for four years. Again, cooperative agreement, one award. And we would propose that production center grantee institutions, so the concept one and concept two, successful awardees, let's go through, would not be eligible for funding under this to keep it separate. And I'm going to stop there for discussion, open it up for discussion. So I'm concerned about this particular concept clearance because I think that you've merged two very distinct kinds of activities here. And even in the analysis part, there's kind of emerging of some things that are a little more administrative and things that are more analytic. And I would point out there really aren't at this stage of the game and probably moving a little bit forward as new sequencing platforms appear over the next three to four years. Analysis of this kind of data is not exactly straightforward. And so I would like to urge that because of these things, and also because there is this thought that the solicitation for these coordinating centers might go out after the one for the actual centers. I would like to encourage the thought of really thinking more seriously about this coordinating center and think about maybe having centers, one that's a more administrative function, one that might be a more data focused function to think about what that would mean in terms of what it would take to really support the analysis piece of it in a reasonable way. And then to bring that concept back to council for reconsideration. I personally don't feel comfortable with the number of activities that are sort of moshed together in this particular concept. I think that's basically it. Thank you. My question is somewhat related. Given that you are proposing one award that would cover a wide, what seems to be a wide span of activities, is there one institution that you have in mind that you think would be competitive? You don't have to say which one it is, but I'm just wondering, in your sense of the lay of the land of who's doing, who would be, he has a look at me like giving me the stare. I can quickly answer that because I asked the same question and we just did internal staff brainstorming. We know the community. We know our grantees. And to be honest with you, we came up with a good half dozen names of people we could envision who we think would be quite competitive for this. No. Eric. So, Adam, I'm all in favor, obviously, of coordination and collaboration. I think it's even more important going forward than historically. But I am concerned partly for the reasons that Jill mentioned, but partly for other reasons. I feel like administratively, I'm sympathetic that the staff and the program, by the way, need additional administrative help in helping coordinate the complexities of all of the investigators. And I'm semi-sympathetic for fulfilling that need. I'm very worried about the design and analysis component of this. And I feel like we're building, and we've approved now a concept clearance for a flagship, and now we're separately competing for the rudder. And I think that's not the good what, you know, how boat. He's looking at me like, I thought this close to Maryland, you know, the Chesapeake, we'd be okay with that analogy. But anyway, we're competing separately for the steering mechanism. And I think that's a dangerous concept. I think having the coordinating center separately competed independent of the dealing program and the common disease program, in my opinion, is not going to achieve the objectives you have in mind. I think actually it may achieve just the opposite. I want to, Howard, your hand popped up fast enough that I thought you were going to address what Eric said. But if not, I can, I do want to talk about it. So you'll notice one of the things that probably didn't come across in concept one together with concept three, at least with concept one together with concept three, is that, in fact, the, and two, or concepts one and two are supposed to do these analyses. And, and, and concept three, the coordinate, now as part of the coordinating center, is supposed to have enough to have a hand in without, without, so, so they're, they're actually going to have to actually coordinate. So in deciding, in this, right, so, so that's they may not be able to do all the analyses themselves. They'll be able to do some analyses. But more importantly, they're going to have to coordinate that activity amongst everybody in the research network, and that, that's the idea. And there should be funds, there should be enough funds to do the work in a distributed way. I would feel much better if the document then was limited to administrative coordination, because I think there's a, a danger of misinterpretation and sort of mission creep into the coordinating center, particularly in the topic of design, which has enormous, long-standing implications downstream. So I have Howard, and Dan, and Bob, and Jim. So I'd like to echo what Erica said. I, I, I also, I'm sympathetic to the need. I, I think there, there is a solution that has to be found around this. But I'm also worried about trying to structure this in advance of knowing what you actually need, until you know which centers are in and what the, what the sources are going to be and what, what samples and everything. There could be a wide range of, of different questions around that. So I also think there's a big difference between the administrative role and a global analysis piece. And so I also agree that they should be separate from each other, and viewed as potentially different, completely different activities and different funding sources. So I'm, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that, that Howard and Eric have made that you can't sort of coordinate until you know what you're coordinating. But I don't think we've, I don't think concept one was a flagship. I think concept one was three flagships and a bunch of destroyers and PT boats around them, those are the phenotypers. And so that, it's, it's a very different effort than the one that I think is in place right now. And I speak from now four hours worth of experience as a member of this body. So, so it seems to me that going forward, there's going to be this focus on disease and collecting samples and where the samples came from. And, and that is gonna, that's, that's a mission that has to be common across the, the sequencing sites. It can't be that each site has its own criteria for that or each site has its own way of managing that. If the data sets are going to be, this sort of creeps into the data coordinating center, but if there's going to be some way to drive big projects like that forward, I'm not sure any of the individual ships or destroyers or whatever has the capability bandwidth or interest. And so that's a mission that has to be separate. And, and this, this business of making sure that everybody's pointed in the same direction, collecting the data the same way. That, it seems to me, is a, is a function that has, if, that has to fall to someone and it's not going to fall to the centers that we just approved in concept one. Well, we have Bob and then Jim and then Eric. I just wanted to share a little bit about the experience that I've had so far with the newborn sequencing project, where we don't have a data coordinating center. And, many of the projects are non-overlapping, they're not that complimentary. But what really is complimentary is the LC component. And many of the same issues and problems are arising in all four of the projects. And the, the model we've adopted is we, we benefit from having an administrative coordinator that's based in child health and in genome. And that's Tina Irv and Anastasia Wise. We're very, very lucky to have those two people. And I know, I'm saying this, fully understanding that your program staff are ridiculously overstretched in terms of serving that role. But for the other sorts of coordination, the approach we've taken there is to have the, the PIs of those individual components of the four groups get together as a special group that has identified a program manager whose job it is, is just to help those four groups, LC components work together and form a coordinating center across the four. So it is embedded, they are embedded in the four projects. They understand the four projects very well, but they're charged with working together and coming up with common elements and common issues. And they have to, they have, they are charged with that and they are responsible to the PIs of the four groups and also responsible to the program officers. And that might be an alternative approach to this. Jim? Yeah, I, I, I share the concerns about trying to load too much on this. And I, I do think that the administrative functions could be served really well by a coordinating center. But I, I tend to agree that the analytic and design issues are probably too much and maybe premature. And also, I, I worry a little about the amount of funding which, which is probably sufficient for an administrative kind of thing. But I really am concerned that if you add on those analytic and design mandates that, that it's probably too much. It's, it's probably maybe not the right way to do it. And it's underfunded, I would guess. I, I rarely disagree with Dan Rodin, but I will today. I think what he described would be going back to your slide, Adam, would be premature consensus. I, I think this field, you know, is so new of looking at whole genome sequence with common diseases. I think having a multitude of approaches is going to be advantageous. I, I think the field is too young to have all of the ships sailing in the same direction. I think there's, there's a room for a variety of approaches here. And I think if the job of the coordinating center is to have everybody going in the same direction, I think that we don't know yet what the proper study design is, is what the proper analytics would be. Can I get clarity? Because I'm actually confused now. And I want to get clarity. I, I, I was not under the impression that a co, the coordinating center would make the design and decide how everybody's going to line up their ships. I thought once that was established that their job was to try to make sure everybody was following that and helping any way to coordinate to make sure that the design is executed as opposed to designing the design. I would consider that an administrative coordinating center than not. OK, but now the study, OK, but now, OK, all right. But now, OK, so that could be my, but now the study is going and so I'm going to go, I'll just get this point in now because I heard at the July workshop maybe a little bit of a criticism or maybe a more optimistic or the positive way to phrase it. I heard that there was a great opportunity to make sure that you had some group outside of these projects, common disease projects, rare disease projects, to do, to both to bring a fresh look and fresh analytical thinking, but also to make sure that they did cross project thinking since it is gray. The distinction between rare disease and common disease were learning more and more. There's some common analyses that could be done between them. So the coordinating center wouldn't design, but couldn't the coordinating center administratively make sure things are going well, and at the same time, catalyze cross project analyses? And that's what I thought I heard. Do we do the council members think that as a desirable element, or do you reject that as a desirable element? And did we just miss it on the concept? So I just want to hear the distinction because I saw anybody going to specifically answer that? I'm going to respond to that. I mean, look, I think this is the problem of merging the notion of project management and administration with analysis. And I keep talking about the TCGA project. So in TCGA, there were numerous of these genome data analysis centers who were doing different things, and people had different approaches, and so on and so forth. But the centers that were involved, and the GDAC analysis groups that were involved, got together, and they made decisions about the different levels of data. Remember, there's level one, level two, level three, level four. They also did cross comparisons across the centers of the somatic variance that they found, and each center validated the other centers. So there are projects of that sort that could be coordinated and managed. I think what's making us a little uneasy, and I don't want to take the words out of other people's mouths, is the notion that there would be reviews of the analyses done by analytic people in this coordinating center. And that is what is described in the concept clearance. And that is the thing that I think we are uncomfortable about. I do think that, look, all of these centers are going to have project managers. And if there's a project management coordinating center that's doing this cross center coordination, they should, as Bob describes, work very closely with the project managers at each of the centers. But I think analysis is a completely different thing and probably is not adequately covered by what is described and proposed. Otherwise, I'm not sure I still heard an answer. Maybe I want to hear the answer. Do council members think having some group, whether it's this one combined or a separate one, some activities outside of the Mendelian centers and the Common Disease Centers doing cross project analysis, is that a desirable thing that we should be doing or not? Doing cross, you know, being involved in the analysis but also taking advantage of, since they have a lot of responsibilities on multiple programs, they'll be in a unique circumstance to do analyses that might go across our different program. So I think I answered, I just told you my personal opinion. I can't speak for all. But I think those kinds of things can happen within and across the centers, not necessarily requiring a completely separate center. I think if it's a decision that such a separate analysis center, which is different than the coordinating center, such an analysis center is required, then it needs a different kind of concept clearance. No, so I understand that. I understand that. What I'm asking is beyond this concept. I mean, I want to understand coming out of this. I think it can be done very collegially and collaboratively across the centers the way it was done. Okay, what I thought I heard at the workshop. But I wasn't at the workshop, so I've heard you about what you heard there. Because you have your large scale sequence analysis centers, you have your Mendelian centers and they don't seem to talk. And that in the future, we need far more interaction between those activities because they're not. But that could be a requirement of the program and also this project management administrative center could ensure that those conversations happened. It's a question of whether it participates in the analysis, which is I think what you were just describing and which I think is what's making us a little bit less. We heard it was a missed opportunity. That's one of the reasons we asked. So I think we have Lucila and then Howard and Erica. Well, I think the idea is good. The execution is very hard. And I think also when these projects go to review, you can't review a coordinating center separate from what the centers there are being funded because and also in the FOA needs to be very explicit. Whoever is competing for a center needs to know that there will be this entity or there won't be this entity and they have to do the work themselves. And whoever is competing for the coordinating center needs to know what the exact activities are. Otherwise you might end up with grantees that are completely out of sync in what they thought they proposed and what they are now being asked to do. So to answer your question, I think there was consensus or at least some agreement that there were missed opportunities. I don't think this concept as it's structured is addressing that concern. So I think from the administrative side, that's different. I can imagine a whole nother program where people could come in and have multiple groups that are analyzing data. I think some of our great data analyzing groups would not be very good at running a coordinating center, but they would be fantastic if they could come in and do analysis across the board. So to me, they're completely different opportunities. But I would like to see something around the lines that allow some of these really talented groups to come in and maybe have a couple of these that are coming in with ideas and analyzing data. So let me make sure I understand Howard what you would potentially propose as a modification is have a coordinating center that does purely administrative coordination and then have a separate program to be defined that would be possibly more than one group doing analyses of various flavors, including cross-program analysis, okay? So I have Eric, no, not you. Okay, Didi. What you just said sounds pretty good. But I, because I feel like being on the advisory for the centers now, I mean, there's a ton of work that goes on that the UNHGRI staff do, and taking that and doing that across all these centers and then expanding that and actually administratively identifying opportunities to leverage what all the different centers are doing. I can see that as being really valuable. And I think, well, it's been stated pretty clearly, I think what we're uncomfortable with in these things about being part of the design and all that, it seems like that was going a little bit too far for what this activity should do. But I do see a lot of value in it if it's framed properly. And I think how you just stated that may help that. Dan. I agree with the idea that at the scope proposed, the idea of biting off a big analysis chunk is probably is really unrealistic. So it was three bachelors and two PhD level people. And that's just not enough to sort of think about how to analyze a set of 100,000 whole genomes collected across God knows how many sites across the country and the world and analyzed at least three separate sites. That said, I mean, data sets that are that big need somebody who's going to be in charge of them. And that's sort of what I had envisioned this coordinating centers primary function to make sure that everybody's aligned in the sense of how those data are being collected and where they're being collected and monthly posts of what the progress is in terms of getting the project done. That's an important coordination function that if it's not done, that the projects will really sort of suffer both in terms of how fast they get done and how well they get done. So I think I'm agreeing with Aaron. So I think that the way you structured it a few minutes ago, I'll just concur with other people. I'd say that was nice. Restructured or Howard. I think maybe there were missed opportunities, but I think one difference going forward is that at least the large centers are have a much more tightly focused mission now. And if you just think about the projects that are being done, you have these a handful of huge projects on one side and the other side, you've got hundreds of very small projects and it's harder to see, I guess what the synergies will be going forward in that sense, I guess. Concepts is absolutely done. Whenever I'm lost, I look to Rudy. I think it's time to vote. Was that anticipating the vote? So actually before we do this, I don't know, maybe Jeff, if you have something you want to add, walk to a microphone. Let me understand this correctly. I mean, we're through two concept clearances that we've now been approved. Those were the time sensitive ones from the point of view of sort of existing programs that at least in some form are gonna move into the next phase. But this is brand new, of which there's much less time sensitivity in terms of meeting deadlines to get RFAs out and applications into council. So having this, as opposed to spending a lot of council time now trying to re-engineer something to get something passed so we can move on, it's not a huge deal, Adam and or Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, it's not a huge deal if we take this advice, go back and bring some fresh new concept or concepts to February council. Is that a correct statement? I think that's a, I think that's not a correct statement. And I'm particularly thinking of Lucila's point that the applicants to concept one and two need to understand what they're gonna be doing versus what some other coordinating centers are gonna be doing, whether they're going to be doing only administrative or whether they're also going to be doing analysis tasks. So I don't understand how we can launch those other two RFAs without understanding how we're going. Adam may have a different perspective. So I don't, well. But Adam just said about five to 10 minutes ago that maybe this, the FOA or these, this coordinating center would go out much later anyway then. I understand, but I hadn't thought about Lucila's point. But Jeff, I don't think the issue here is, I think the issue here is simply splitting this one concept into two. We know what the list of activities are going to be and that can all be described in the FOAs for the concepts one and two. So now it's just a matter of where these activities are gonna reside. And the applicants can be informed in the FOA of what they will be asked to do and what some other entity will be doing. Am I wrong? But Rudy, isn't it also about the number of them as I think it was Howard, I forget who suggested it was either Bob or Howard. But when I'm- The possibility of more than one small effort to do these cross-center analysis. Yeah, but wait a second. I'm just trying to understand something here. And this is now almost, this is sort of almost in an internal discussion, external discussion at the same time. Seems to me we are going to have a Mendelian program and we're gonna have a common disease program. And we're gonna attract outstanding investigators who are gonna do it and they are absolutely gonna be involved in the analysis. I mean, they're not ceding all the analysis to some other group, no matter what we do. They're gonna be heartened, they're gonna be just right in the middle of it, bringing some of the best minds to it, probably even bringing collaborators to it. All we now know is likely gonna happen is, I think I hear a sense of support for an administrative coordinating center, which will bring the deep, but so we can at least tell them there will be an administrative, which a lot of the stuff is pretty obvious what that's gonna be. We've been doing a lot of it up until now or there's even been a CMG or Centers for Mendelian Genomics Coordinating Center already. So I think we can pretty much say that there'll be one. And then I think we can say, in addition to the analysis you will be doing, there may be other groups we fund to do the analysis and in considering our genomic data sharing attitude, that should be going on anyway, whether we fund it or not. So I don't know why it would in any way inhibit the applicants for either of these two programs to propose what they wanna do analysis wise, knowing they're gonna be joined by other people along the way. And the details to be spelled out in a future funding announcement, Adam. So I can even think of some advantages, especially if there's a multiple group model for analysis of having that delayed until it's a little bit more information and the actual data available coming out of the first two. So I would, I have a lot of thoughts not settling on any one particular thing, but I do think that there might be some advantages if there's gonna be a separation two. Beauty? Could emphasize more the cross-center analysis. So which doesn't need to go into the center applications. Correct. And I think what Adam just said is maybe an advantage to delay that a little bit as we see how things flush out. So Jeff, does that make you feel better? It makes me feel better if we are zeroing in on there will be likely two different FOAs coming out in the future, one for administrative, one for analysis. Scope of the analysis is not yet determined. One of the questions is to what extent, and this might be a detail that you can deal with in cooperative agreement language, to what extent will the centers, the large, the production centers also be involved in cross-project analyses, which was one of the discussions, one of the models discussed. So you may be able to finesse that, but it sounds to me as if there was still some range of analysis tasks that the large centers may or may not have to do. I certainly don't think we wanna hold back these two programs from doing their own analysis. I think we should be adding on top of it. Lucilla, with that explanation, does that make you feel more comfortable? Yeah, I think what I was thinking is the worst thing that can happen, you write something, you get it awarded, and then someone changes, you know, pulls the rug underneath you, and say now someone else will do your analysis and will set up all your collaborations and so on. So as long as it's specified up front, I think that's important. So I am comfortable with saying that there will be such entity that will administratively coordinate, and there will be perhaps one or more data analysis activities that the centers will have to cooperate with. Right, Howard. I do think it would be a lost opportunity at best and disaster at worst to have this thing start in year two of the other events. Though I think the Coordinating Center ideally starts when there's this changing of the guard or inflection point or whatever analogy you wanna use. Because if all the centers get going with their next phase and a year into it, suddenly these new kids arrive and trying to pull things together. Let's get clarity on that. If the concept for an administratively oriented Coordinating Center comes to February Council, how far behind will they be when that group gets funded from the renewed Centers for Medial and Genomics and the new Common Disease? Yeah, essentially a council round. So there'll be four months, I mean, what'll happen is there'll be four months behind. Do you think that's a serious problem or maybe that's not so serious? I don't know. I think part of it, I think in some ways it's serious. It depends on how much this is a really change from the current business. If it's the same old centers and nothing really changes except the nameplate, then maybe it's not as big. But I still think... But they're gonna be doing different things and for those three centers or four centers or two centers to get together, sort of to create a mindset of what it's gonna be like in the next five years and then have a Coordinating Center suddenly sort of afflicted on them four months later when they've already decided how everything's working. It's undoing. It's setting up the Coordinating Center to fail. So if there is that concern that even a four month delay, Rudy, I mean, can we try to verbally modify the current concept? I think we're hearing very strongly enthusiasm for administrative functions take out of this concept any of the analytics and therefore have counseled, if I get in the sense correct, approve the concept for an administratively oriented Coordinating Center, which would keep it on the same timetable as the earlier two concepts that have been approved or is that too much modification of the document in real time? Seems like pretty severe modification for the document. We might be able to do that and distribute to the council. Have an email vote? I think... Sorry, I think there's been enough open discussion here that will satisfy the requirement that what you're voting on and approving has been debated by a public meeting. I think there's enough of that that's occurred here. I'm just uncomfortable that you're voting on something that you don't really have before you. Okay, so council, would you be, we'll talk about the analytical stuff in a second. Would you be comfortable with a quick turnaround revision to the concept clearance that would make it look all administrative and not delve into the areas you're uncomfortable with? You would be sent by email in some short number of weeks and would hopefully we would have some, if we had to get in a conference call, we could do it, we maybe could do it by email, approve, and if that's then true, we can get the RFA synchronized with the other two concepts. Am I, I mean, I don't want to vote on that, but if I see enough nodding heads, so I don't want, we don't have to move, but yes, I'm seeing generally that would be okay. So administrative or both? No, only administrative. Okay. Only administrative, and then it sounded like, okay, so if we're there, then that's great. We have a plan for the administrative component for the analysis component. Now I'll ask the same questions before, is that okay if that lags behind four or more months of the other? And I've heard one argument already that maybe it's even better if it lags behind because you'll know more about it. I think Jill wants a five-year lag. Yeah, yeah, well, that's a different thing, but. Billy Howard, that's not fair, and it's not true. Four and a half. I won't say anything because this is open session. No, but seriously, there won't be data for that analysis group or for that analysis center or centers. And I would urge you to think about the suggestion that was made in the other corner of the table about centers because that part of the TCGI, I think, worked extraordinarily well. And then those centers actually got together and wrote papers together. They had cross analysis center working groups that also included the sequencing centers for the TCGI. I think that would be a great thing. Okay, Dan? One small point, or maybe not such a small point, I wonder if you want to lift the requirement that the major centers cannot then be part of a coordinated, the major centers should be allowed to compete for the analytical centers. And I'm not sure you actually want analytical centers. I think back on the Emerge Network as all these separate working groups that are transcenter and work together on problems of genomics, phenomics, analysis, what have you, and so that's a separate model and not something we have to actually decide. Yeah, I mean, I think eligibility would be looked at again with very different glasses because you've now put us in a position, we'll look at all this with very different glasses. So we'll bring you back, in February, we will bring back either a concept or we'll bring you back an update of our thinking if we're having trouble fleshing it out, we'll come back for feedback and since we'll decide whether get another four month delay would be a big deal or not, so we can go a little slower on that. So I'm just trying to make eye contact with Adam and Jeff Schloss, make sure that staff's on board with this new plan will make this work. Jay, did you want to? Well, I think one really nice thing about having analysis centers that are separate from production groups is that it just allows for engagement of a bigger fraction of our community and there are great people in a lot of places more than just two or three years. Well, we agree with that. I mean, again, when I was asked the question before, did you envision the people that might do this and admittedly we went to some great analytical minds and figured they would figure out how to do the administrative side. So we know who some of those people might be and we're very enthusiastic about that. And maybe you use the word center. Having more than one would be good too, right? And maybe centers is the wrong word. I mean, maybe these are small little groups or I mean, maybe centers sounds much bigger than what this might look like, especially if we go to more than one, maybe we'll have a small grouping of them. So you've given us things to think about but I think very productively and I think we have a plan going forward. So with that in mind, do we still need to take a vote since we put a concept out, okay? But I think we know how you're gonna vote. I'm not quite sure whether I should ask for a motion to approve or disapprove but let's go ahead and have some fun. Can I get a motion to approve the concept that was put before you? You're gonna get a chance to vote it down. So somebody say yes. A second. All in favor. All opposed. Keep your hands. One, two, three, four, five. Thank you. Any abstaining? Thank you very much. Thank you, Adam. Larry, are you ready? All right, remember we've all along we've had a fourth concept to entertain and Larry is going to present a concept on the Center for Inherited Disease Research. This is a contract solicitation. Go ahead, Larry. And after that you'll hear from my brother, genomics in society.