 Well, thanks very much. It's nice to be with you, and it's nice to follow Mira. We get to work together at the ACGME, and it's one of the pleasures of my job to work with leaders in all of the fields. As we go through this, and listening to this last discussion, I'd ask you to keep the long-term goal in mind. Are we trying to create a whole new cast of subspecialists in genetics cross-organ systems, or 20 years from now, where we have been successful, will every clinician use this pathophysiology today? And I obviously have a bias there. I think the latter is the case, and that is pretty sensitive here. I have no conflicts of interest to report. And I think we're talking about this issue. I heard this ruminating through here, but I guess the issue here is, when this test is $500, is it going to be less of a pressure on health systems? And are we going to have deregulation? And do we have physicians who are out there ready to use this information effectively to leverage it to improve the health of the public? I wanted to show you this slide just to ask you, because I think there are many other issues facing education of physicians at the graduate level. You all recognize this curve? Only about a third of you are saying yes. That makes an nephrologist feel good, because this is the relationship between hydrogen ion and pH, right? And you were all taught in basic sciences, what? That on the linear portion of the curve, we have nice linear formulas that can solve clinical problems. But on the exponential portion of the curve, those do not hold. And you have to resort to the Henderson-Hasselback equation and use log calculators. Remember those days when we had the calculators on our pockets? And it causes tremendous consternation. This is why nephrologists exist by and large, because nobody wants to deal with this. And in genetics, there is an analogy. There will be the complicated patient that most physicians will not be able to deal with, and they will consult the geneticists. But most people deal with acid-base problems on a day-to-day basis. This was revolutionary back in the 30s and 40s in its everyday medicine today. It's actually a graphic, though, from, I think, one of the luminaries of our generation. That's Stephen Hawking in his book, The University in a Nutshell. And in here, does anybody know what this graphic is? Four people. This is the number of scientific articles published by year. And when I finished my residency and fellowship in the late 70s, we were on the linear portion of the curve. It appeared to us that you could, if you just learned a little more tomorrow, you could learn all you needed to learn to care for patients. While our residents and fellows and our medical students and all of our clinical practitioners are on this portion of the curve, the fire hydrant is the appropriate analogy, and that's the way most clinicians feel. And so we really need to do this, right? We need to get ready for Watson. We need to get ready for digested information at the point of service. And I think that this group needs to be thinking about what is that digested information at the point of service for clinicians in your various specialties, if you're specialty-based, and from a research standpoint, from researchers. And we heard in our first talk Dr. Green that that was indeed the case and the NIH is actually embarking on this process. Now, the challenge for us, I think, at the graduate medical education is this. Do we change the standards so that we can force everybody to educate? The educators don't know the information. That's really the challenge. It's a chicken or egg phenomenon. Can you teach specialty-based genomics if it's not practiced in the teaching session? Because Mira is exactly correct. Physicians learn patterns of care in the learning environment by caring for patients. And if care is not rendered using genetics principles by the practicing physicians in that environment, the residents will not learn to apply those principles effectively in practice. So the question then is how do we leverage these? Well, we're trying to leverage these together at the same time in multiple areas. The quality and safety imperative has not been met. You all, those of you come from Washington here this every day, patient safety continues to be an issue in our institutions. Constant improvements in quality are necessary. And we have faculty who continue to say they don't understand how to do this. You hear it constantly. I have five minutes left. OK, I'll be there. The informatics challenge is huge as is genomics. But then we have a whole new concept to patient-centered care. Many of our students that we work in, this is an anathema to the way we practice. We actually practice faculty-centered care. We have to refine our systems of delivery. And then we have this education imperative. So I think we need a multi-pronged approach. And I would advise you to think about it this way. And in your deliberations, you'll decide what you think is best. But I think that the colleges and the specialty societies need to have a multi-pronged educational effort at the level of the practicing physician. And we need to leverage that, in addition, with the program director societies who are usually linked closely to the academy or the college in that particular discipline. The ACCME needs to encourage genomics education. And Murray's going to talk about that next. And then we at the ACGME need to have specialty-based standards that heighten the interest in faculty development. In other words, we motivate the teaching institutions to bring their faculty up to speed. And we do that through standards. Now, how does that get accomplished? Well, the ACGME itself doesn't write the standards. Each review committee, the experts on that review committee, write the standards. So what we need are the right people on the review committees who have this expertise and who can translate that knowledge into standards that will drive this change. And really, that's our nominating organizations. The next step we have to understand is, in this phase of the continuum medical education and the development of expert proficiency, expert status, and mastery, what are the logical steps so that we can evaluate residents along the way to be sure that they're making progress? Again, this process is going on right now. It's called the Milestone Program. It's already done in seven specialties and will be done in the other 21 specialties by the end of next year. But there will be iterations of this. And we need to build these principles and actually how they manifest themselves in behaviors in Miller's permit in the does at the bedside in the clinicians that we're training. And then finally, we have to bring the boards into this. Now, again, the colleges and the academy are the leaders who nominate to the boards. But we need to incorporate genomic principles into both the initial certification process and the maintenance of certification process and the maintenance of licensure process through the FSMB. I think that's how we will accelerate the practicing physicians' knowledge base and operationalization of genetic principles, is to drive it through this. Because this is the phase that they pay attention to. I just remind you of Tukwa, Yogi I think had it best. The future ain't what it used to be. None of us could have imagined 20 years ago that this is the precipice that we would be on in transforming the way clinical practices is accomplished, using genetic principles, rather than just pathophysiology as the base for what we do. And I think that we have the ability to do this. It's not impossible work. It just requires recognition of the systems that we have in place to actually accomplish this. There are systems within the profession that allow for this input to motivate change. What we need to do is it more efficiently and effectively and quickly. And I'll stop right there. Thank you very much. That was a wonderful presentation and I took away something I'm gonna be incorporating into my presentations with attribution, which is faculty-centered care. I love that. I think it's a great illustration of what we do. We have time for a couple of questions. This is what the ACG me does to people. Yes, exactly, well done, well played. So I think what we'll do then is we'll move on to our next presentation on the, from proficiency to mastery, I think. And this is Dr. Coppolo speaking on behalf of the Council for Continuing Medical Education. And after this talk, we will entertain questions for either Dr. Naska or Dr. Coppolo.