 So, the next presentation is going to be by Mark Geyer and what I asked Mark to do, maybe I even foreshadowed a little bit if you listen to my director's report where when I got to the Common Fund, I talked about sort of the phasing out of some Common Fund projects like molecular libraries that we've been involved in and then I talked about the birth of new Common Fund projects that were going to be heavily involved in like the undiagnosed diseases program and then a bunch of projects in between those two in terms of where they are in their life cycle. Needless to say, and it relates to discussion we've had with council before about how NHRI's extramural program is heavily involved in helping NIH lead Common Fund initiatives and that has lots of advantages and it has also the additional responsibilities. I mean, I will state unequivocally, without knowing the numbers off the hand, I've looked at these numbers before, we are by far, by far the institute more involved with the Common Fund than any other institute and I think, you know, I don't know what, I forgot the exact number of how many Common Fund projects were co-leading, but it's like, how many is it Mark? Eight or nine or something or ten? I think it's nine. Nine, nine, and then the next institute that's co-leading is like two. So, I mean, it's like, we stand out completely. Now, that's, we think this is good. There's a lot of reasons for that and I think many of them are obvious, but it is therefore though a big component of our extramural program and it only continues to be so. It's not fading away by any means. And so, I thought it was important to give an update at a council meeting where there was time for this so that you can sort of see the big picture about all the different responsibilities we have for the Common Fund and so that's what Mark's going to give you and it's a bit of a scorecard about where things are, where they're going, but it also, I think, gives you a complete view of our involvement at leadership responsibilities for different Common Fund initiatives. So, just to make sure everybody knows what the NIH Common Fund is, I thought I'd start there, the 2006 NIH Reform Act established the NIH Common Fund as a pot of money under the control of the NIH director for the specific purpose of supporting forward-looking projects that had broad application across many of the missions of many, if not all, of the NIH institutes but which no one institute itself was going to take charge of and lead. And there have been several different processes that we've gone through since 2006 to identify such projects and to get them up and running, but at the moment there are now 27 of these projects that have been initiated and they range from very basic, let's see, something like epigenomics or nanomedicine through very applied patient-reported outcomes measurement information system and so forth. And each of these projects is managed on behalf of the NIH by the ICs and for each project at least two ICs are institutes and centers are designated as the co-leads. There may be three or even four on occasion. And then any institute that has interest in being involved in the development of the ideas and the management of the program is welcome to add one or more members to what's called a working group. So each of these projects has a lead or co-lead institutes and then a working group consisting of staff from all of the institutes that have interest. So what Eric is saying is that for the project, these are the projects that NHGRI is a co-leader of. So of the 27, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. I was right. Nine. So a third of the Common Fund projects have NHGRI as the co-leader and in many cases our institute really takes the major role even among the co-leads. And then those are the programs, the Common Fund programs that in addition to the ones we're leading, we have staff who are participating in the working groups. So we're talking about somewhat over half of the Common Fund projects that NHGRI is involved with in one way or another. And there actually are a couple of others. Extracellular RNA communication which is a relatively new one where we probably should have somebody but don't and then there are one or two that are being developed now where staff is actively participating. So that's basically the point I wanted to make by this talk. I put in, I think, I finished it over the weekend so I think it's gone into the electronic council book if it hasn't, it will be. Just a table of a little bit more information about both the programs for which NHGRI is the co-lead and here is the dollar figures that I used earlier and coming up with $200 million. This is the total amount of funding from the Common Fund for FY 12 in each of those programs. Common Fund programs all have a finite lifetime. They are, originally they were up to 10 years and generally made as either two or three year pilots before they really got going or the first phase and then a very hard review to determine whether they were still relevant and still important to go for another five years but it was a 10 year max. The trend more recent in the last couple of years is to make it harder for Common Fund programs to actually go for 10 years because they're trying to generate, they've sort of reached the maximum amount of funds available for Common Fund programs and now the only way that can get more, get money for new Common Fund programs is either if the NIH, the total NIH budget increases then the Common Fund can increase in proportion or else by turning over existing programs into new programs. So for H3 Africa for instance, which in terms of all the development work we did in planning, everything we heard said you really have to have a long-term commitment to this effort to have a chance for it to then become sustainable but we were told that we couldn't even announce it as a potential 10 year program. We had to announce it as a five year program and if it goes well then when we come through review and if we do well in review there's a good chance that it will be continued for a second, five years but we were not even allowed to mention 10 years. Jill, you look. I just was curious. You talked about sort of these short pilots and then moving into the funding but I assume those pilot years count towards the 10 years, right? Right. So GTEX is an example of one of the projects that started as a pilot. It was initially started as a two year pilot with the purpose, the goal of simply demonstrating that enough donors could be obtained and that RNA of sufficient quality could be obtained from multiple tissues post-mortem. It actually took almost the two years to collect the data so the pilot was extended for a third year to do the analysis but now that the analysis was done and it was shown to be very feasible and informative it's been renewed for another five years. So as I said NHGRI is a co-lead for nine of these programs. This is the first four and then five and you have this information available to you and then there are several other programs where we participate in the working group in pretty significant ways that are also shown in this table. So I think I'm going to stop there rather than going into specifics of any of the individual programs. Eric gave you some highlights this morning in the director's report of about four or five of them and we will continue to update you regularly on these programs, these projects in the director's report but we wanted to give you an overall picture of how deeply involved NHGRI is in this major effort on the part of NIH. Rick, I think it's great this is one of the hallmarks of the institute that you reach out way, way, way more than others. How do you end up taking these on? Do they come to you or do you solicit them? That's one thing. And the other is when you say by far I didn't actually get the percentages mark but just seeing that list was remarkable. It's a huge number. You don't have the staff, sorry, your staff must spend some significant portion of their time on this. It goes back to what we were talking about this morning. Yes, let me answer them in reverse order. Well, actually, did you put back up, if you could put back up. There was actually a column in there that listed the staff commitment we have to each of those projects. To be fair, we get funds from the common fund to support the staff. So our extramurals, let's say we didn't have anything to do with the common fund, we would have a smaller staff. I mean, so it's not that these are not, while it is put on people's backs because they want to do it in Medicaid but the truth of the matter is we have a larger staff because if you look at the column, CF, common fund, FTEs, those are just and then and so forth. So it just indicates how many individuals that the common fund is providing resources for in terms of salaries and so forth. So correct. So when we put in, when we develop a proposal for the common fund and we develop a budget for that, we include so-called RMS sector, paying for staff, staff travel, and so forth and so on. However, I will say that this, that doesn't really capture all of NHGRI's costs. Things like the actual grants management, they don't pay for, we don't completely recover costs. The budget office, the administrative costs, we don't completely recapture our costs. And the argument there, of course, is that we do benefit. And maybe this relates then to your first question, Rick, which is how do these ideas come through? Everyone's a different story, right? I mean, and to be honest with you, the fact that some of these were ideas that Francis had and he incubated when he was in this institute, when he was a director, and then, you know, either while he was director, became a common fund or when he became the NIH director, became common. These are not all fully independent phenomena. And some of it's that. Some of it is we have ideas because in every single year, they go through a different process of nominations of new common fund initiatives. And so, and we're often there in the middle of putting things forward. I'll tell you, to be honest with you, the latest edition, Undiagnosed Diseases Program, I had no idea that it was going to end up in the common fund. It was a corporate issue that had to be solved at the NIH level. We worked very hard with Francis to figure out what was the best long-term, because it was being done through a very sort of short-term funding arrangement that had to be fixed in the next phase. It was clearly a successful program. And so, that was the institutes getting together and institute directors getting together and debating different options. And at the end of the day, they said, you know, this just feels like common fund and develop a larger network and so forth. And so, that was the institute directors basically endorsing the our proposing, the idea that it should go into the common fund and then Francis agreed to it. So, there's an example. That's not even the solution we were looking for. It just ended up being that solution. I will tell you similarly, you heard about this morning the three reports of the working groups from the advisory committee to the director with data and informatics and big data being one of, one of three, all three of those are being looked at as possible, new common fund projects, big data just being one of them, but even the workforce issues and some of the other in the third working group as well. So, they come from different means and then they get debated and then they ultimately get decided. And the same thing happens even with pilot projects that, you know, some of them they fund as pilot and then they decide whether to scale them up or not. The common fund office in the last three or four years has made an effort to reach out to the community for ideas as well. And they've had each year one or two meetings either by, mostly by invitation. They started off inviting a lot of senior people to one meeting and then next year they went to inviting many junior people at the start of their career just to talk about areas in which common fund projects would be appropriate. And I'll say one last thing. The other reason, of course, why we have responsible for so many of them is purely cultural. And it's the fact that so much of what the Common Fund does are sort of top-down, managed, highly focused, community-oriented projects that guess what? That's our culture. That's what we're good at. And they turn to us and, you know, and many of them are not disease-specific and they're very enabling. And that's just what we're good at. But I also think it's a sign of the totally awesome power of genomics. And of genomics on a lot of them. Yeah. Do you have a graph of the budget of the Common Fund over time? I mean, I'm just curious as to whether this kind of enabling, infrastructural kind of, the percentage of money that's going to that has increased over time or not? I don't have it with me. The answer is yes. The legislation that established the fund started out at maybe $250 million and then increased to $500 million over a few years. And then now it's stable level of $500 million a year. Like all the rest of us, they're capped. I mean, they're sort of flat. They are. Are there questions or comments? Okay. Great. Thank you, Mark. So I think we're scheduled for a break now. Seems like a good time for a break. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to take a break. And then when we come back, we're going to do the one concept clearance we have to discuss. And if we time this just right, then we'll be done with that at four o'clock, which is when we will move to the last topic related to the Intramural Research Program. So I'm thinking we should reconvenate at 10 after? Quarter after? Quarter after. Okay. And I guess the place upstairs we know is open now for another 55 minutes or so. But we will reconvene then at 3.15. Thank you much.