 CTC is a very large program, but we have two simple aims. One is to provide superb education. So these are our didactic courses. And the second is to provide superb training. So our theory is that we have a whole bunch of courses. All kinds of trainees can take these courses and they can mix and match to fit their needs. But then we develop training programs focused on various levels because students are different from junior faculty. So we have level specific training including PUP, which is the Pre-Health Undergraduate Program, undergraduates mostly from Berkeley. We have PAKTOR, which is the Pathways to Careers in Clinical and Translational Research, which is all of our professional students, nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, and medicine, run by Joel Polewski. The Resident Research Program, across, again, all schools, run by Doug Bauer. The Fellows Program, run by Alka Kanea. And then our K program, which is led by Steve Holly with assistance from Kirsten Bibbins, Domingo, and Ralph Gonzalez. We also have a couple of programs that are specific to areas of focus. So the Graduate Education and Medical Sciences, run by Lou Reichert, is focused on graduate students and postdocs. And the Masters in Translational Medicine, which is really a bioengineering translational medicine program run by Tejal Desai and Terry Johnson from Berkeley. And our didactic program is run by Jeff Martin, who I think just came in. By the way, the other leaders of the CTST are by sort of a bad confluence of planning are at their all-day retreat today. So I think Jeff is the only one of these leaders of the programs who's here. And the reason that I'm doing this presentation. So as I said, our goal is to spread over the entire gamut of necessary training at UCSF. We have our PhD programs, BMS, PIBs, and others, the PhD in Biomedical Engineering. And then we have our T1 programs here, GEMS, MTM, our Ticker, which spans all the way from T1. We have courses on drug development, device development, all the way to health policy, and a new PhD in epidemiology. So I wanna focus on some numbers. This is our past five years of success. These are really numbers in terms of courses. So what you can kinda see here is we started out in 2006 with about 26 courses and have grown to about 33 now by adding courses specific to some of these areas of focus and plan to grow just a little bit more there. The clinical research workshop, which is our summer workshop, had started out with about 90 people in 2006 and CTSI began, has now expanded about 120. But in terms of the people taking our main flagship course, Designing Clinical Research, we've added a specific course for students and residents and fit that into a month because otherwise it doesn't fit their schedule very well. That has gone from zero to 120 students this year and probably will expand quite a bit more over the next few years. Our one year certificate program started out with 22 people now around 30 and our master started out with about 34 now around 40. I would point out that these are large training programs, large didactic programs and we're probably not gonna grow a whole lot more because we think we've probably reached sort of a steady state in these. But there are new offerings in the training program, in the educational program. One is the Implementation and Dissemination Sciences run by Ralph Gonzalez. They've added an overview in five courses and also a training program called the Program in Implementation and Dissemination Sciences and this also includes training in health policy. We're trying to develop a similar focus on early translational sciences with a program called the Master's or PhD plus two to four more additional courses taken from Ticker. So most of these folks get another graduate degree in addition to taking clinical research courses and the training programs that go along with that I've already described are the MTM and Graduate Education and Medical Sciences. So this is the growth in the training programs. Again, success in numbers. PUP is the program that we, in which we train biology scholars from Berkeley, mostly minority students went from zero. We now have about 15 a year. They're paired with our PAKTOR professional students to develop a protocol over the summer. PAKTOR, our professional students has grown to about 30 per year. Our resident research program, and again, I think this is pretty unique across the country, started out with no residence and now has around about 60 residents per year in this growing probably up to about 80. Our fellows course, again, we had no, all of our courses are taken by fellows. Most of the people in our Ticker courses are clinical fellows, but we didn't have a specific program for them. We started that this year, there were eight of them in it this year and we think that's probably gonna be one of the programs that'll grow fairly dramatically over the next five years. Our K program, again, we started out with 20 K programs when CTSI, 20 K scholars when CTSI began. We still only fund about 22, but by including individual K scholars, we've grown to 63 this year and probably will grow just a bit more. The Masters in Translational Medicine now has 16 folks in it. They plan to grow probably to around 25 per year. GEMS has 10 or 12 folks in it now. Again, will probably grow a bit and the program in implementation and dissemination sciences. So again, these are large numbers. Some of these programs are fairly mature and won't grow much and others of them will probably grow a bit. I think it's more likely that we will add focused programs rather than growing these programs a whole lot. Now, oh, Clay, could you give me the papers at my... So I have now slides and as Bernie said, I'm not gonna talk to these slides. You're gonna have to come and talk to me or talk to the leader of the program subsequently. But what I wanna do is I just go through these slides fairly quickly is to give you a few stories. So the first one of our training programs is PUP and I just wanna tell you about one of the PUPs whose name was Ryan Chen. He was a PUP last year. He worked with one of our PAKTR scholars, Vishnath Arasu, and his Vishnu's mentors here at UCSF to publish a manuscript called Can Signal Enhancement Ratio Reduce the Number of Recommended Biopsies Without Affecting Cancer Yield in a Colt MRI Detected Breastalations, published in Academic Radiology and Ryan was just accepted to medical school this spring. We also have PAKTR, which is our professional student training program. I want to just tell you about a couple of PAKTR, former PAKTR students. One is Adithya Katamanchi, who is now assistant professor in the Pulmonary Division at San Francisco General. And in 2010, last year, he himself was a mentor for other PAKTR fellows. He actually published three papers just in his one year as a PAKTR fellow, including being a co-author on a manuscript that was published in the Lancet. There's another PAKTR scholar, Allison Weibel, who was a TL1 scholar in 2007 from the School of Nursing, who published two papers with Bill Holtzmer during this time, and is now a KL2 scholar. So the other thing we're very happy to see is that these folks are going through the different levels of training and staying in our programs. The Residency Research Program, I want to tell you about Human Kamal. He took DCR for residence as a third year neuro resident. His project was to collect halter monitor data among stroke patients to detect occult atrial fibrillation, received a small grant from the Residency Research Program to collect data and use the CTCI Consultation Service, went on to publish a paper called Detection of Atrial Fibrillation After Stroke and the Risk of a Current Stroke, and is now an assistant professor of neurology in New York. The fellows program, I'm not gonna tell you about any individual. She's gonna do it, all right. I'm not gonna tell you about any individual, but they were of the eight fellows this year, five submitted career development, K awards, three were funded and two of them scored well and will probably be funded. The K program, go. One example is Brad Orizoat, another school of medicine, a faculty person. Nursing, right? I'm sorry, school of nursing, yes. So Brad was one of the early CTCI K scholars. He subsequently received two R01s. Two R01s and an R01 equivalent, and we'll stop there. So thank you, Deborah, that was great. David. Well, I think you partially answered the question that was in my mind, which is, how many pups grow up to be dogs? There have been, there are, well, the POP program just started two years ago. So those are undergraduates. And that is one of our problems in terms of developing metrics that it takes a long time for pups to become even professional students and then junior faculty and publish and have impact. But we are working on, what I showed you today are metrics related to numbers and stories and process. We delivered these courses, we put on these training programs. We're really working hard to come up with better metrics, that is metrics in terms of impact. How many papers have our trainees published in the PubMed core journals, in high impact journals with impact factors over 10? How many guidelines have they developed and so on and so forth? But it takes a long time. Great, Talmich, so I had two questions. The first is the POP program, I mean, it was really exciting. What I want is the in vitro program. And particularly as it relates to, you know, as it relates to underrepresented minorities, it seems like there's a real opportunity to do in vitro fertilization that ends up with people way downstream. And we have to start somewhere, so is there a possibility of expanding? The POP program was really developed with the dual purpose of training younger folks and enticing them into clinical and translational research, but our real focus is to have that program be mainly filled with underrepresented minority undergraduates and that is a clear focus of our selection process. In terms of going to younger folks, we would also like to do that. There's actually several good programs that Renee Navarro's been involved with and that we've supported for high school students as well. We, it's, I think POP has worked well because we're able to pair them with our professional students and our professional students have some research questions, they have some ideas and they can work together with the POPs to produce real protocols that then often go on over the course of the following year to be actual projects. And so expanding that capacity to pair the young folks with people is one of our challenges. But we are focused on recruitment both to bring people to clinical and translational research but also to try to recruit underrepresented minorities and we like to use these programs for both of those purposes. Yeah, because I know we do a number of programs of faculty involved in the community with high school teachers and things like that and maybe there's a way we can tie them together as well. No, that's a great suggestion. And we've just found this out since we started this program and working with Renee that there are, I would say there's four or five programs for high school folks that are run by various UCSF faculty. They all, for example, need some training. So we are now producing, designing clinical research will be tested online starting in August and that would be a great training approach for high school students as well as our POPs and others. My final question relates to basic science so one of our problems is that the position scientists are, bench scientists are actually one of our more difficult areas to recruit and retain. And I wonder, are there specific programs looking at that subgroup? Because I think you've done a great job with the clinical and translational but I'm worried that is there something we need to do with that group as well to encourage them to stay in it? I guess I would have to, I think there's not. I mean, GEMs is focused on graduate students and postdocs but graduate students who have an interest in human disease and has a robust program for trying to get them more interested and keep them interested but it's not necessarily focused on MD basic science researchers and so we haven't really focused on that group and be interested in anybody's thoughts on activities that might be useful in that area. Yeah, can't be as hard as fetal surgery. Good Sam. Just, you definitely get the an acronym prize for your POPs program but we pride ourselves on having four fantastic professional schools and we have a fantastic graduate program but it's always been a bit of a disappointment to me that they run on parallel paths for the most part and we've not been very successful in getting them to intersect in a meaningful way. I know the masters in translational research and the GEMs programs are partially designed to do that but they still seem to be fairly segregated in our educational goals and programs and I just wanted to have any thoughts about whether we can, or even is it a goal? By that you mean sort of a segregation of our graduates. They don't have much to do with each other. With the BMS PIBs and the, yes. And the professional students, yeah. And I, you know, that's true and I have to say that I've spent lots and lots of hours trying to improve that situation and it's hard to put your finger on what the issues are. I think there are some lack of incentives. You know, the whole graduate PhD sort of programs have very reasonably rigid benchmarks and capstones and so forth that seem to sort of preclude a lot of flexibility in their training and we have the same problem I think from the other side. The clinician researchers find it somewhat difficult to work with people who don't understand their acronyms and their shorthand for disease related issues. So bringing those two groups together is really challenging. I mean, I personally would like to see this happen a whole lot more. We tried, we for example have tried to get the graduate division to use one course for ethics. We thought if we can just bring them together on a couple of courses that everybody has to have that might be helpful and have not been very successful in getting that approved. But it's a major challenge. Yeah, we certainly believe that that should produce new ideas, greater creativity, open up new doors. If we focused on it more at the funding end, thinking about how do we bring together these multidisciplinary teams? And then you're right, the Master Translational Medicine Program is really meant to span disciplines, but we haven't taken advantage of the existing programs nearly as much as we could. We've really been creating those other programs as standalone programs that just happen to involve people trained in various other pathways. A great point.