 It was really stimulating and Frank set of discussions and I think we didn't solve the problem, but we at least articulated the problem. And I think that that was really good. And so, I think the challenge, I think we made clear that there's not only a prospect for an ultimately unfunded mandate, but really just a more general unsolved problem. And I think the critical question going forward is, you know, when we look at making open science happen, you know, is grassroots gonna get us there? Collaborations and partnerships or do we need a sort of higher authority really directing traffic and paying attention? Can the funders provide more information about how it's going, right? You know, how they see things progressing is what they want to happen actually happening? And if not, you know, why is that? Is it because there isn't enough money in the system? Is it because there isn't enough crosstalk? You know, there's a talk about making sure that costs stay reasonable. What is reasonable? Is reasonable going to evolve? And then there's a question of what is particular about chemistry? Are there elements of open science and chemistry that, you know, we need to think about a little bit more specifically and drill down a little more? I mentioned to Sarah, I'm extremely excited to see the ACS repository come online. It's gonna be really interesting to see how that endeavor might facilitate data deposition. I'm also generally excited about a lot of the repositories that have been making headway. And I think you heard Ale say, you know, the NSF runs this repository. Why don't they push people to put their data there? And I think that's a question that, you know, we as a community need to keep asking the NSF, right? Because, you know, they're already putting money into it. The community already supports it. How can we, you know, actually benefit from that synergy? And so I think those are all questions that we I think talked through productively. And now we need to take that information and help other people in the community and especially program officers and people affiliated with funders help them understand that we want to help them help us facilitate open science. Thanks so much, Jake for inspiring. I think we did a lot of excellent, just following up on what you said, Jake, I think we did a lot of excellent problem statement articulation. And I think that's always gonna be your first step in trying to unpack a really large area like this. And, you know, I definitely took note that, you know, we're not only coming into what sounds like a whole new, you know, mandated space, but actually, you know, we're looking at an ecosystem that needed to evolve probably quite a long time before this that isn't quite fully working and it isn't quite sustainable. So we do have a broader responsibility both as a domain, you know, but also an ecosystem of research. You know, how does this move forward? Not only for, you know, new areas of innovation and technology, but just to sustain the scholarly research that we have valued in this country. So that's one thing. Thinking about the problems of, you know, how will global and sector variabilities impact the research experience? Thinking about equity implications. On the one hand, whole plethora of policies and different expectations about what data where, you know, what data models, what publishing models, what fees might be associated with it. So we're definitely in a transitionary zone. So I think we're gonna need to evolve that. One thing that did jump out at me, we didn't really talk too much about this, but maybe this is something we could dig into a little bit more tomorrow is a lot of great activities starting to come up. Lots of communities and different stakeholders working on this, still all feeling a little bit siloed. How do we collaborate even more? How do we not end up with a lot of fair silos so that you're, you know, you just need to go to each data system, like you always have gone to each data system and need to understand and learn how to work with each process or each publisher's policies. So I think that might be something that we wanna dig into a little bit more too. I really think that reproducibility, maybe that could be an helpful framework to think about these problems going forward too. I heard issues of reproducibility coming up both in wet lab scenarios, you know, with the smoking or the evolving cells, but what about computation? I think actually Olaf and Ali spoke both to that, that there's a lot of variability that happens in those environments as well. And so maybe reproducibility, if that's a high, it's an important value to this domain. Where do we wanna go with that? What do we want the outcome of this effort to give us? Can we improve reproducibility in our research as a positive? So not only step out of a long-term, challenging research environment, but actually be able to evolve our domain towards values that we can improve our science on. So I think there's a lot of opportunity, but it's just a lot of work. And I think we're starting from my perspective as a librarian, and I'll probably just echo a lane here. I can't help it, the librarians. We see the back end of things. We're the last stop, help, you know, if everybody comes to us for help. We are in a turning point. I think we have to make this a turning point, whether or not all of the efforts that we're seeing go forward are generalizable or appropriate for all different communities of practice. Everybody does have to make it a turn here. We can't keep publishing and doing research this way. New career, new career students, they need new skills. Industry is evolving, globalizing, pandemics are happening. We do really need to make a turn. That's not quite coherent, but it's just sort of a lot to, there's a lot that happened today, that's great. So I think tomorrow our panel, our last panel is gonna be focusing, if we can dig in a little bit more on what actually can we do to support the research community. And I think we could break that down into terms of what's happening now to support the research community. Are there things that are happening now that we can make more broadly available and broaden the awareness of? And what are the next steps in improving services and support for translating some of these directions into practice, particularly for the research community as the authors and of publications, as the generators of data that we want to be shared. So we're gonna be having our last panel. We'll be hearing from small research institution. We'll be hearing from industry and then we'll be hearing from the library and community specific support services around chemistry and around data curation in the library context. And that'll wrap us up for this workshop. All right, and so we'll see you all. Yes, yes, yes, Mark. Yeah, yeah, yeah, cause they're on Zoom. Thank you so much for. I was gonna say, we'll see you all tomorrow at nine, but wait, there's more. Again, observation, I come from an industrial background. Many people here are talking what I would claim in a very academic way. You have Mackenzie Scott, Bill Gates, all these people out there giving money. When we talk about things like the protein data bank, it seems like we might be a little bit myopic if we only think that federal government is the only funds that can go towards something like that. We can express that they are useful and maybe the national academies could help do that, that some of these repositories might be funded by somebody philanthropic. Gates put a ton of money into one of the largest cancer studies he's ever done. Mackenzie Scott's done a lot of other things that are around science. So it might be if we can make the case that that's another bucket of money that could help solve some of the issues that we're talking about here. Stimulated a little bit of follow-up conversation. Just can't get enough. Well, I kind of skipped over it, but the Schmidt Foundation, Schmidt Futures are actually funding the ORD. Yeah, I mean, Gates Foundation was a big driver of open access around the time that Plan S kicked into gear. I mean, there was, I think one of the reasons that the US even long prior to the Nelson memo, one of the reasons that the US got wrapped up in the Plan S frenzy was because the Gates Foundation had an open access mandate. And that was sort of particularly tied around the CCBY license and making research, not just free to read, but free to compile in various forms. And so, yeah, they've been very involved. And they're like most very wealthy foundations, they have strings attached to what they want to pay and when, which is fine. I mean, that's how they work. But it's certainly not a situation where they're just standing there offering money. There's a lot of, but we're right. Yeah, no, I, yeah. All right, more to come.