 Okay. I will take just 30 seconds of my seven minutes to thank the organizers for a fantastic day, and thank you all for sticking it out until 4.10 in the afternoon for me. Okay. I come to this from an empirical project that I've been conducting on personalized medicine. As part of this project, we've interviewed and spoken to and done field work amongst various stakeholders and advocates of personalized genomic medicine. When we first conceptualized this project as an empirical project a long time ago, we knew we wanted to include patient advocacy groups, patient groups in some way. But by the time we got to data collection, that looked very different, right? So it looked like we thought we were going to be talking to rare disease patient groups, sort of the traditional ways in which patients are conceptualized. But then we had been following a lot of what had been going on in the consumer driven genetics world and in the other worlds of what we're now calling participant driven genomic research. So as a result, we reconceptualized our project or this part of it and conducted interviews with those folks who are conducting or who have created projects and organizations around the idea of participant driven genomic research. In fact, I've interviewed some of the people in this room or my research staff has, whether you remember or not. And so we were really interested in this idea. We did some searching around the web. You know, it was a very grassroots, bottom up inductive way of finding these folks around citizen science, participant driven research, open science. Our qualifications were that they had to be doing something in the realm of genetics and genomics. So we excluded other kinds of citizen science projects as a result. And what we were looking at, what we came up with was we wanted to think about ways of characterizing this type of participant driven genomic organizations. And what we found is we wanted to understand the objectives of their work and the ways in which their practices embody their own moral and political goals. And we found that, and we were really interested in seeing how those political goals and even scientific goals were in line with or not in line with what we might think of as traditional academic goals for genomic research. And what we found is, at least for the people we spoke with, I can give you – I didn't include it here, but I can – they all spoke on the record. I can tell you which organizations they were – that they were defining their own research in part as a challenge to traditional academic genomic research. And so you'll see here this is, in some ways, kind of the dark side of citizen science that we haven't talked about too much. Right? Everybody here sort of like rah-rah, gung-ho, will all work together. I think there might be some challenges out there for groups that aren't represented in this room today around just what kind of involvement they might want with folks who are in traditional venues. Okay. So what we found is the folks we spoke with are actively interrogating and aiming to disrupt the traditional relationships that they see out there between research, the university, obviously citizens and participants, and the market. Right? That's one of the goals that they had going into it and it's one of the things they hope to achieve on the other end of it. And so what they told us is their goals are to engage the public in the conduct of science, to promote the use of open source software and open access to data, and to transpose the hacking practices. As Jason said, this has only been talked about a little bit today, but we found this is the heart and soul of the endeavors of the community we were speaking with, that they wanted to transpose those practices onto the realm of genetics and genomics and synthetic biology and to literally de-institutionalize research and develop innovative solutions to scientific problems or simply as matters of curiosity. Right? So this is the bio-curious, DIY bio, that kind of community. And so I'm just going to give you a little piece of what they were telling us and these are more indicative of what this community thinks. So they're working outside of traditional venues, right? So I think it's the regulatory environment and I think it's continuing to look at this new information through an old lens that no longer serves and no longer fits. It's like trying to look at the sun with a microscope. Right? That's talking about me. That's talking about all of us, right? I still today get frustrated with the strains of paternalism that I see sometimes in scientific and medical research where there are still studies that are structured in a way that would shield individuals and shield participants from knowing certain things, from being able to access certain information. Right? So the idea of open access and that idea that paternalism still does exist. Even in ways in which we think we're engaging participants now. And we think that they're coming from a really different kind of ethos and a different kind of orientation towards scientific research. Here we see, I don't really want or need someone else to tell me how to, one, do my research or to live my life or whatever it is. Like whatever the belief is or whatever your personal reason is, there are some shared aspects of these cultures, like a dedication to transparency, to open source, to lowering the cost of access to freedom of data. There's part of that that sort of, you know, let's pull these technologies out of the ivory tower. And I would say it's not even so much a reaction against authority as it is a belief in grassroots, a belief in, I'm the best monitor of my own health. I'm the best judge of what I should do about it. And I don't necessarily want to go to someone who sits in a big chair with a fancy degree to tell me what to do. I want to know and understand and take that action myself. And I should say these aren't the, I don't know if it's clear, but these aren't the participants. These are the people who are starting up these organizations, right? So this is a message and the motivation and the sort of raison d'etre of these organizations moving forward and engaging and enrolling the public. And they also think that there's a different kind of relationship to society, to what our obligations are as scientists and with scientific research. We ought to be doing more for ourselves in the world than just publishing things in journals that only other scientists read. You know, there has to be some translational mechanisms. This is a very different kind of thought about translation than what we, I think. There has to be some way so that we can discuss and make available to at least those who are interested to nine scientists as well as scientists. Well, it seems that if you put billions of dollars into sequencing and trying to understand the point of the genome, then there ought to be numerous ways to make it matter to people, right? So I should also say that it is true, I don't remember who made the comment, but almost all of the folks we interviewed are scientists themselves, right? They would, calling them lay people would be a gross misnomer, right? There are people who've chosen to move outside of the academy and outside of traditional institutions to conduct their science and to conduct scientific research. And one thing I had to cut out of here that's really important too is that, I would say that primarily their primary goal and what they told our interviewers is that their primary goal is really science education, right, science education to the public. I'm gonna be done before that. And so thinking about this as a goal of teaching lay people and participants how to do science and how to do science in their own terms, in their own kitchens, garages, that kind of garage science DIY mentality. So to conclude, I think we need to think a little bit more about how our goals and the goals and motives of these organizations might be, how we are gonna come to the same page about what scientific research is and what it should do. And that the goals and motives of these organizations shape how the research is conducted and how, and these future participants' relationship to research when we try to contact them and when we try to enroll them. Participant-driven genomic research largely positions itself, the folks who are in charge of it, positioned it as a challenge to traditional research and with a different set of values and ethics. And these ethics, I think this is the LC challenge. These ethics sometimes were encountered to conventional research ethics, which was developed in conjunction and alongside traditional academic research and engages kind of different and larger principles about the purpose and orientation of contemporary scientific research. Okay, thank you.