 Okay, so just to start with, I want to ask if there's anyone in the audience from the public that would like to offer any comments or ask any questions. And if so, if you could please go up to the microphone. And since there's not a mad dash to the microphone, we'll go ahead and open it up to council now. If there are any comments here and others, please feel free to come up to the microphone at any point. And again, for those on the phone only, if you do have access to a computer, please email to the NHGRI comments at NIH.gov. And I've got the inbox open right here, and we'll read your question. Rick. So, I see, I'm glad you added the reasons why you want to do this at the end, the advantages. Are there parts that are really broken right now, I mean, meaning, I mean, I think the idea is now that you have, it's not that it's hierarchical, I guess, but each of those divisions will have sort of, they don't necessarily report to the director on every, in the way that some of them have been now, right? Careful, which, when you say director, do you mean the institute director? You. So, at the moment, only the division director reports to me. Right. So under this model, the four division directors would report to me. The ones that were not divisions, but offices. Right? Yes. Currently they, how would they, how would they operate differently than they do under division? So, to be honest with you, the administrative division and the division of policy communication and education will, that will not change. I mean, that's, that is essentially a name change. Those directors, Laura and Janice Malaney, report to me now as office directors, and they will report to me as division directors. So that, that's actually just a, that's not a substantive change in, with regard to reporting authorities. And I really want to emphasize, no, I don't mean to imply for a minute that anything is broken, but it's, it's much more looking towards the future and trying to anticipate where I think we need to be at a lot of different levels, including how various things are done that I, I believe that, that now is the time to sort of situate ourselves in a way to anticipate the, the new challenges we face with a broadening scientific portfolio. I think you want to be careful not to look, you, you may have said this, at least from outside and almost kind of, almost inside, but the outside, it looks like everybody works well together and, and it's very cooperative. It's an unusual group compared to other groups that I've seen before. So Rick, I really want to, I really want to echo what you, I want to guarantee to you that we have talked about that issue internally more than any other issue. And, and the real key is, is this slide here, is that how do you, what we're trying to do is thread the needle here of trying to put enough, there's a lot of reasons why structure is good for an organization, but if structure creates siloing, compartmentalization, the antithesis of the genome institute, then it will be a disaster. So the way we've organized this here, even with the colors and even with, you know, the way we've thought about it, talked about it is we are trying to get the best of both worlds. I believe if there's any institute that can get the best of both worlds, this is the institute that can do it. Amy? Yeah, thanks Eric. So I think this, I have two questions. I think this makes a lot of, a lot of sense. And I, so I guess there's the internal running of your office. And I told, and I can see how this works really well for that. My first question is given sort of the cross-cutting nature of the green boxes, for the extramural investigators who are funded through NHGRI, how does this impact sort of who they're accountable to, and especially for those who have cross-cutting sort of scientific and genomic medicine projects that overlap, is how does that get impacted? We don't believe, we don't believe, I think you're doing something on this keyboard, so I don't mind saying to blow up here, we don't believe that necessarily this reorganization would result in substantive differences to the program directors that you're reporting to. I'm going to look at others around the room and see if anybody is nodding their head to the contrary. So I think the direct relationship you have around a given program, a given consortium, a given project, it'll remain the same here. That person's boss might be different, but that person, their supervisor might be different, but that person and that program, because I believe that where most of you in Iraq with are around the green things as much as anything, and those are not going to change. Okay, and my follow-up question, just can you say, you said before that the Division of Genomics and Society was going to incorporate the LC research program, but be broader than that, can you say just a little something about what you mean by that? Well, I mean, it goes to the same set of issues that were discussed extensively during the strategic planning process that led to the publication in nature, is that there is, I believe, and I think I've heard from others, that we shouldn't, that the LC research program has been wildly successful, but there might be some areas that, and behavioral research might be one, and there might be others where some people felt that maybe they don't quite fit into those three letters, and that if we simply could broaden it, and without losing it, but just broadening it, and incorporate that, that we could get a win-win. So once again, I think we're looking to thread the needle here of building on our past successes, and not getting too constrained with just three words, and maybe making the words a little more diffused, which would give us more freedom to operate, but I don't mean to imply anything but actually growing enthusiasm for that set of activities at the Institute. So I think it's a really good idea, the way you've organized it with the cross-cutting themes, but I would be interested in hearing a little bit more if you have thoughts about what the roles of the divisions themselves would be, not to create silos, but if you're going to fund a lot of the activities with these cross-cutting themes, what's for the division to do? So I would say there's two things the division to do, the divisions to do. Number one is to provide intellectual, you know, areas of concentration. I mean, I do believe that the, you know, where the the greatest concentration of expertise in genome science is going to be in that division, and won't be exclusive, and I do believe that the more population oriented, clinically oriented, medically oriented concentration will be the division of genomic medicine, and so forth. So I think one of it is to try to sort of provide that local, you know, the organizational chart, that sort of local grouping of expertise, and then I think there's a secondary issue of we are a growing organization in terms of sheer numbers, and I think, you know, it's really hard to have too many people reporting to any one person, and by dividing that up, I think there's more mentorship, more professional development that can be done by these division directors by having it broken into smaller groups. So I think, I think making sure that's happening as well would be very beneficial. Carlos? Eric, can you comment on the relationship of these three proposed divisions to the other divisions that appear here on the website, namely the Division of Intramural and Extramural Research? So how does this end? Okay, so let me be clear, let me be clear that, so what used to be the Division of Extramural Research now becomes four things. So the Division of Extramural Research will go away, and replacing it will be four new divisions on the far right. Division of Intramural Research will remain essentially the same, but right now we have one Intramural Division, one Extramural Division. There is, I mean, I've lived now on both sides, or I've lived in different parts of the institute. I mean, there is some interaction, a lot of intellectual interaction, but they each have very separate missions. One is to do grants and contracts and oversee extramural programs. The other is to do active on-campus research, quote-unquote. So I would say that those interactions will remain absolutely the same. The interactions between intramural and extramural will remain unchanged. It just, it'll just be, you know, distributed across more extramural divisions, but I don't think that'll have any impact on the interactions. You look puzzled, Carlos, did I? You know, I'm just curious, what, so do you view this in some sense as a way to give more direction to the extramural funded projects that you aren't able to do now, or is it a way to flesh out the best ideas that are out there and put them under a broader umbrella so that folks can work together in terms of their extramural funded programs, or what's the advantage of having four divisions versus one division of extramural? Well, I guess I could put it, I could try it another way, is as the extramural program continues to grow, having a single person responsible for supervising 30-something individuals gets to be a bit much. And so I would, I would make an analogous to maybe a department of internal medicine where at some point you want to break it down into divisions because it almost gets to be too big. And so to me, this sort of strikes that right balance. So first of all, I think this is really good to do this, and it's super important that there's structures aligned to what you're trying to accomplish as a goal. So I think it's the right time to be doing this. So with these divisions, where you show that cross-cutting slide, how are you going to make decisions and budgetary assignments and things like that so that the divisions are working cooperatively rather than competing with one another because ultimately you're all trying to achieve the same thing, but I could see some kinds of tensions there perhaps. Maybe that's a healthy thing, but I was just curious if you could comment on that. So it's a very, very astute and fair question. I'm gonna answer it in two ways. First of all, I'll answer, I'll just give you that in general how's it gonna work. It's gonna involve a huge amount of transparency and group process involving the leadership of these divisions working very extensively with me. So that's the short answer. This will be group decisions. And what I can tell you is that even without going to a reorganization, just facing the budgetary realities that we are facing right now, and perhaps even difficult outcomes even more so. Next year, we have already been working through group processes of prioritizing. I can't say more about that right now, but council will learn more about that because they have opportunities to get in and learn about such things. So you will be hearing more about that in council's sessions. But what I will say is the short answer is it's a group process to build consensus and compromise and argue and debate and all the very productive. And we've been doing this now for certainly the past four to six months and it's going extremely well. But we just want to come on that. So you don't know you'll also... Well, and this group here will have significant influence on making decisions on how big some of these green boxes are as you did in making even most recently decisions about our genome sequencing program. That was a very inner process of evolving workshops and then advisors and then you folks and then our sequencing advisors and then staff and lots of that will be done. At the end of the day, if the question is who's going to make the final decision, me. But as much as possible, I hope my decision making is more influencing and getting people to come to consensus. Yes. Can you maybe put your microphone on? That's right. Going back to the Division of Genomics and Society, not to make too much of a deal out of names because they do matter and they don't matter. But obviously changing it from Elsie to this is intentional and has been discussed quite a bit. So I guess what I'm wondering is if certain things have been left out in the past, what do you imagine happening within this division differently that would bring those things in? So the first thing I'd say is that I fully expect the Division of Genomics and Society when it gets a director and I want to give leeway for the new director to come up with the fine-scale architecture of it will absolutely include the current Ethical Legal and Social Implications Research Program. I could imagine other things that are not being done now, being done under that, General Rubrik. I would also tell you that increasingly what we are seeing is that our staff in our Ethical Legal Social Implications Research Program are called on to do an extensive amount of consultative work. And not just worrying about getting grants and funding opportunities and overseeing grants but in fact they are being called on at various stages of project development to be experts and I think that should be more prominently featured as part of that division, that this division not only has this Elsie Research Program, it has a whole set of consultative responsibilities that go towards the rest of the institution. It turns out it's going the rest of NIH because once again we are the leaders in this and I would like to see that more formally part of that division as an example. Just following up on that, I think that's been some concern is that because we are positioned to move out into the rest of NIH I think in a very important way there's something perhaps to be lost by the lack of branding. So Elsie is a term that's internationally known and there are many people who when they say they want, they'll say it's an Elsie issue. Without really even knowing what those words break down to. So I think it would be unfortunate to lose that especially at this moment. No intention to lose the branding. I would give an analogy would be the other thing that has a great brand name is the $1,000 genome. But I'm not naming a division, division of $1,000 genome. I'm going to say that within the division of genome sciences their genome sequencing technology program and the thousand should continue on or whatever the next name is. I think we can get both. By not, we're not extinguishing the brand Elsie. We will keep it. It will be a prominent feature of the division of genomic society. I just don't think we need to name the division that. Pearl? Thanks. I also think this is a great model. And I have a lot of enthusiasm for expanding the division of genomics in society. But I would wonder as it expands would there be any different relationship or collaboration with the Office of Communication and Policy? So, well absolutely it won't necessarily have to be different in a bad way. I think this is a great opportunity to enhance those interactions. No question. In fact there was some very good discussion about that in the webinar. Some questions that came in exactly related to that. I would absolutely think that division and I don't probably need to keep going back. But needless to say, I mean part of the reason why I sort of like these seven divisions are sort of an equal footing. I could absolutely imagine like lots of arrows we could draw of interaction but without question the division of genomics in society and the division of policy communications and education will have wonderful arrows going back and forth and integrated in great ways. And they both will be prominent divisions at the institute. And I'm just going to interject here and say that I think we also anticipate and look forward to building those same kinds of bridges with the other research divisions because particularly going into genomic medicine there are a lot of questions that have to do with the domains of expertise that we have over in OD and we look forward to increasing those collaborations. Ross? Well I want to echo the comments that this reorganization does make sense in the sense of moving the institute towards the direction of the strategic plan. My question, I'm glad this is up there, anytime someone sees what used to be a simple structure breaking out into something far more complicated the question arises is what's the cost? In particular will there be an impact on the research funding and I wanted to give you the opportunity to address that. Yeah absolutely not. I mean there's some very basic and simple things that are done at a very early stage of the fiscal year to how much money goes to each of the major and I would absolutely, there's absolutely no intention to adjust the percentages going to the different areas. And to be honest with you I don't actually believe that changing the structure should have much budgetary impact even on how we do business to be honest with you. Any e-mails? No we haven't had any e-mails yet. Are there any other questions from the audience or from council? Okay. So thank you very much. If anybody thinks of anything the e-mail inbox will stay open so please send the comments.