 I won't need the full half hour, so unless there's more discussion, you'll even be able to head to the airport early. But I did want to make us a few wrap up points, there we go. First thing, this is impossible. You can't wrap up an intense two and a half or two days and a half hour or even a few hours. I'm not even going to try to do that. So far, I think the only regret I have about this meeting is if I would have thought through it knowing that we were having Eric Boerwinkle speak early and Eric Lander will always say things and having me with the same first name. There were multiple times where the meeting went on, Eric said this, Eric said that I was confused the whole time whether I said it. So when there was really an insightful comment, I just attributed it to me and when it was really stupid, I attributed it to one of the other Eric's. But in retrospect, we should have had a rule. You had to have a rule of which Eric we were talking about. Well, it's called lossy compression. Ah, is that what it is? I'll just smile and pretend to actually get that joke, okay? Yeah, some of you laughing, you don't get it either, so don't fool me. Okay, it's been it's been quite a couple of days. I'm sure some of our heads will spend for another couple of days. I think I would start by just saying I warned you. I showed you earlier this and I got to believe this is sort of very much at least the way I feel. I mean, lots of good options, some of them maybe go in parallel, maybe even some of them converge, but we can't do all of them. So I think and even some of the discussion we heard at the very end where we really can't be everything to everyone and we do have finite resources. But nonetheless, we heard a lot of good things. And if anything, the reason our head is spinning is because we heard very motivated people, really bright people telling us lots of really important and good things and we've just got to sort of sorted out moving forward. Um, as anticipated, we knew from the people we were inviting. Indeed, the discussion has been quite vigorous. It's been vigorous inside this room for two days. But we also noted that has been quite vigorous outside of this room for two days. I credit this photo to Maggie Bartlett, our staff photographer. You got to admit it's a winner. And I, you know, I, and I can't help but think when Adam said that, you know, he actually, when he was young, wanted to be a zookeeper. This is what his career became, you know. I know. Yeah. Well, we actually have the other one. You just used a different finger. I noticed, but remember, this has been video cast and video archived on government computers. So we had to be careful. Well, in any case, um, so let me tell you, um, just sort of a number of things and it's not going to be lengthy necessarily. Um, I just thought of what was of interest to me, I set this whole thing up with the opening presentation where we laid them some things out that I had staff work with me on to sort of frame what our expectations were, but I've got to tell you, having gone through a number of these meetings, whether it's for the sequencing program or whether it's for our strategic planning effort, a lot of times you go in with a framework and then sometime during that two days, the whole framework gets blown up and then gets put back together. And that didn't quite happen. Not that we came in with a strict framework, but we came in with some ideas. Um, and, um, to be honest with you, I was surprised by what I didn't hear and this is me just sitting at my computer today and just thinking about stuff. Um, and I admit going in, I think, oh, at least over the last four and a half years from time to time, I might have been persuaded that I might have heard some things. Um, but I didn't hear them at this meeting. For example, um, I didn't hear, uh, at least, uh, not overtly the idea that we should just sync our flagship. So I started out with a metaphor of what our genome sequence program over the years has been a flagship and I didn't hear, uh, at least a strong outcry, really any outcry to just sync the thing that it was time to disband it completely that it didn't have value. I thought that was important. I laid out for you at least my seven major characteristics that have been to date and actually I've heard them parroted back in ways, mostly constructive ways of these are sort of adjectives that describe what our genome sequencing program has been associated with. And I didn't hear change these characteristics. In fact, some ways I heard them refer to in supportive ways or ways of using these to harness new opportunities, uh, going forward. I would notice that when, um, we published this, uh, in 2011, um, the, the, the biggest thing we faced at the time published it and certainly subsequently both within the staff of NHGRI, absolutely a council and some of it's probably on video cast you could watch and certainly among the community were, were views either that this, which implied sort of a progression for more basic research activities to more clinical applications, either that we were being way overreaching by going too fast or we were being incredibly, um, um, not realizing the opportunities and we're going too slow and, uh, I heard them, I heard both views quite loud. In fact, usually I heard it quite shrill and what one thing I did notice at this meeting, um, was that, um, that we didn't really hear that we're either moving too fast or too slow. And in fact, it just wasn't particularly shrill. I mean, yes, there might be people advocating for some aspects of the different domains more than others, but it didn't hear an overt cry that we had a completely wrong in terms of the pace that we're trying to make this progression happen. So I thought that was interesting. Um, I sort of laid out a number of things about what NHGRI wants, um, and, but it was our opinion that, again, we could have been argued with and I didn't really hear very many cries of NHGRIs the wrong wants that we don't have it quite right. So I thought that was important. I even laid out at the last item here an idea which, um, is a little different than what we've done in the past of to maybe building in some formal cost sharing associated with our large scale type efforts associated with our genome sequencing program. And I floated this idea of consider a formalizing approach for cost sharing, um, and the rationale for it. And interestingly, I actually didn't hear that cost sharing won't work. In fact, I've heard it from several people, ideas around specific projects of yes, this would be a great example where cost sharing could work, would work, should work and even some ideas of who to go and maybe try to partner with to make it happen. So this idea was not shouted down. Now that's all quite good, but that doesn't mean this is all going to be easy. And in fact, very little of this is going to be easy. So if I think about what I've heard the past couple of days and, um, and both in this room and then as I floated through all the breakout groups yesterday, and I spent a half hour in each of the four over the two hour period and just listening to things that were said, there are a number of things that will keep me up at night worrying because that's my job is to worry. One of them is the fact that you hear it over and over again, NHGRI leadership is critical, NHGRI leadership is critical, and that's very great to hear and appreciative that does come with a significant amount of work and where that leadership has to be implemented is sometimes at very tough, tough places. And that's going to require a lot of effort on the part of not only myself, but more importantly, a very heavily worked staff with a lot on their plate when you say NHGRI leadership, that means a lot of energy extended or being given by some very, very senior level division directors and program directors. So that comes with a cost. The second thing that'll keep me up a little bit at night is I am seen and others have commented to me and maybe it's a good thing, but it just we have to think about it organizationally as a blurring among some of our programs. We have a very, as I framed on the first day, our flagship program with its clear cut components, but you even heard in some of the talks yesterday and today how there's many opportunities that are spilling beyond those flagship components and into some other areas. Genome function comes to mind in particular some of the other activities in our genomic medicine portfolio and this blurring, I think, is going to I'm sure will result in some discussion at the NHGRI level and at the council level as we go to think about moving forward with our flagship program and which of the ways it interacts or incorporates or moves over or whatever into these other aspects of NHGRI and ways that I don't think it was as much of an issue three or four years ago as it seems to be now. I also think what will keep me up at night is and this is always an issue is defining our external boundaries. I think that's just getting harder and harder, not easier. Maybe naively I thought it might get easier, but where does NHGRI stop in terms of what its responsibilities are and I'm not even talking about, you know, disease areas versus non-disease areas, but even issues about where do we start treading into water that's more of a regulatory or something that would a regulatory agency might do or something an educational group might do and so on and so forth. A lot of expansive ideas maybe because our leadership can be effective in some quarters, but where our boundaries are and again all this comes with energy and time of staff. We can't do everything and defining the boundaries I think is important to us. Obviously budgetary climate, it's not that it's bad, it's as much bad as it is just frustrating, it's hard to know which way the trajectory is going and there's reasons to be quite pessimistic and there's other signs that maybe things will get better, but doing all of the things we've talked about for two days knowing that the budgetary climate is at, or the budgetary situation is certainly not stable and well-defined makes it very frustrating to make decisions, especially decisions that might have two, three, four year implications. And then of course this comment that came up multiple times is recently about 10 minutes ago that other NIH institutes don't know how to do this well, which is a little uncomfortable at first when I hear it because of course we have representatives from other institutes right here who have been very nice to sit through two days of this meeting and occasionally hear that they're not doing it as well and not to mention that the word will get back to the institute directors and the institute directors talk to me about what they're not doing well and so forth, but then it gets particularly concerning when the next thing out of somebody's mouth is and I need to go tell them that they're not doing it well. So, but there is sort of this issue of there are things that we have done well over the years and we are models of how to do them and clearly we would like to influence the style at which some of the science is being done on some of these projects, but we do have to be sensitive partners with our colleagues at NIH, but we can't tell them how to do it. We have to hopefully convince them to partner with us and try it our way if they haven't done it before or have them see ways or when they've experienced by working with us ways to go forward in a very concerted and organized way with us. And then last thing is this idea of cost sharing, recognizing that this is not going to be easy, money's not plentiful for anybody and the idea of trying to take any of the initiatives that were new that were named or any of the ideas of expanding and trying to broker those deals either at NIH with others or beyond, whether it's other agencies or private foundations and so forth, that's going to require significant work and energy and we're going to have to just deal with it and I'm prepared to move forward on that, but it is certainly one of the things that will keep me up at night. But, you know, lastly what I want to say is I don't want to end on sort of what's going to keep you up at night as anything negative. I actually think this, I'm coming out of this meeting even more optimistic than when I went into it. I am profoundly optimistic. I'll give you six reasons what I wrote down why and many of you have commented on it but I just have to start with it. I mean, there's no question the scientific medical opportunities are spectacular. There's no question genomics is greatly contributing to that incredible set of opportunities and there's no question the collective energies and accomplishments of people in this room and then we're by representing the genomics community more widely deserve a lot of credit for it. So that just has to make you feel really quite good if you think about on what's going on in genomics over the last 25 years and what we have all collectively contributed it's made these opportunities spectacular. I think there's terrific ideas probably too many of them but terrific ideas that have emerged from this workshop even the last hour we found new things I was writing down a new idea so there's no shortage of good ideas to help populate an incredibly exciting landscape and I will also say and it came out again even the last couple of hours I am very flattered on behalf of the entire institute and even hearing the last things about the great program directors we have there seems to be incredible confidence in NHGRI by people here now maybe that's because we invited you here we invited our friends but no in all seriousness I think what we hear repeatedly is part of the genomic way that NHGRI does business is very much intertwined with the style and the staff and the style of the staff and I would just say we appreciate hearing that and you give us that confidence and that will help sort of give us the energy and the motivation to move forward but it does certainly makes me optimistic as leading the institute and then I was gratified to I float to the balloon about this cost sharing models and there appears to be optimism some people particularly optimistic about doing this and maybe there's even some optimism of things going on that maybe with the budgetary situation will improve more generally obviously nobody really knows that that's much more tied up into politics but there does seem to be optimism about for us to explore these cost sharing models some of which where we might have to go figure out who the partners are but some of it might be that the grantees have to go help us figure out where the other partners might be for cost sharing some of these large projects and having that be a more integral part of this program I did write down several cases where things that we were criticized for a few years ago suddenly we're being complimented about and I have to bet that feels good because certainly I can think back on three years ago when our strategic plan came out or when we renewed the sequencing program there's some criticisms around some of the new things we were doing and I wrote down when I heard somebody say wow I was once a a critic of this but now I can see this is really a good program so I'm glad to see that we're being complimented about tough decisions we had to make three four years ago and finally and I already mentioned this I was pleased to see that that because three years ago there was I think a much greater shrillness associated with basic science translational science clinical science going on in the genomics field and I just think that that debate is just while it's still there and I think it's a healthy debate it's just less shrill it's a little less personal and I think it's much more in a constructive tone and I'm really pleased to see that and actually I think there was a lot of good ideas coming up across all quarters where somebody at one end of a spectrum might be giving some constructive ideas for enhancing activities and proposing activities at the other end of that continuum and I think that's a very healthy way to have things go so our job now meaning NHGRI's job is to fill in the far right part of this we actually have a meeting that starts in about an hour and 20 minutes a post mortem among staff to start to think about this and start planning that will lead to a discussion that'll take place in the open session of our council meeting in September and from there we will move forward to figure out what the to be determined is going to be and what the green elements below show now as question marks are going to be so stay tuned that's what follows this in the coming weeks and the coming months again starting almost immediately and I'll end with where I began just by saying thank you thanks to all of you for coming and all of you who have participated either in person or remotely I do want to say a special thanks and maybe it sort of is consistent with what I said earlier about the confidence you have in NHGRI very much reflects the confidence you have in our program directors Adam Felsenfeld as you can see really both leads this program but leads a team of people Shannon in particular was very helpful with logistics but the other program directors that work on team sequence as we call them in our sequencing program but others that have been recruited into this and you saw various other program directors who maybe previously weren't formally part of the genome sequencing program coming up and helping co-chairing and being a vital part of this conversation I thank all the program directors as well because I think it is what makes NHGRI unique and get the compliments that they've been getting throughout this meeting so thanks again and importantly it doesn't end because you all know where how to get a hold of us and please keep your feedback coming we have been getting emails already from some of you things you want to share with us at least more privately or just ideas you didn't want to bring to the floor we love those emails and I'm sure we'll get more of them keep them coming you seem to know my email address and you know Adams and that's fine and we'll share with each other so you can send either one of us but do keep your feedback coming in the days and weeks ahead it'll be important for us then as much as all the feedback you've given us so far in the past two days have been so with that I will end the meeting and I would say thanks again for coming safe travels back and I'm sure we'll be seeing you again soon bye bye