 So good evening, everyone. It is good to be here. And again, like Dr. Cole, I want to thank you for hanging in there with us. And we're going to tell you a bit about what we've been doing over the last couple of days. It's good to be here. It's good to see former professor Michael Blakey taught me when I was at Howard. So it's good to see him again. But the American Society of Human Genetics is the primary genetic membership organization for human genetics professionals in not just in the US, but worldwide. It's an organization of about 8,000 members. And in 2008, Aravinda Chakravarti, who was in an earlier session today, he was president of this society. And he commissioned a task force to look at genetic ancestry inference, not just direct-to-consumer genetic testing, which we've talked a bit about today, individuals going and getting their ancestry analyzed and assessed, but also the inferring of ancestry in research. A lot of what is done now in direct-to-consumer genetic testing came out of academia. Those methods, those tools, a lot of them, and a lot of the researchers who are now in industry or who work both in academia and industry have helped to develop some of those tools. So the tools have been used and continue to be used in academia and are now being used in the marketplace. And so this task force in 2008 was charged with developing a statement, a summary statement, on the scientific and the ethical and social implications of ancestry inference, both in academia and industry, and then also to develop a white paper, which would be a longer document, really expanding on those issues in terms of the scientific and the social and ethical issues. So this paper was published in 2010. And for that paper, the purpose of the report in terms of what the American Society of Human Genetics wanted us to do was to engage and inform the membership of the society, but also the society more broadly, scientists and others, about the issues related to genetic ancestry inference. And then also to help them, the board of the organization decide, what does the ASHG need to do? What should their role be? What should the organization's role be in addressing some of the issues, the scientific issues, as well as the implications and applications of this information? So in the white paper that we published, these are some of the conclusions that we came up with, that we need to be very careful about how we apply this information. And careful because there are implications. We heard about some of the social and psychological implications today. And that the direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and not just direct-to-consumer, but also academic testing, the quality assurance how we know that what we're doing is right and accurate and scientifically valid, those things need to be thought about. But the whole field of population genetics needs some additional guidance. Not that there's no guidance, but it needs some additional guidance in terms of how we talk about the relationships between populations, the terms that we use, but also the methodologies that we use. And the question of federal regulation, does the FDA, does the FTC need to regulate genetic ancestry testing? Those questions have been raised. We didn't think it's necessary, at least not at this point in time. We thought there are other things that we could do. And that's one of the reasons that we did the roundtable to try to see what steps, what guidelines could we come up with before even thinking about what the federal government needs to do. And all of this brought us to the conclusion that we need to bring together people to think about these issues, that we need a diverse group of people. So that was what we did the last two days. We brought together about 60 people from these various groups that you see here, various types of geneticists, ancestor testing companies, consumer groups, genetic genealogists. And actually, many of the people in the room, well, who were in the room, some have left, were at that meeting. And we have some still here. And media and social scientists, people who also study the ethical and social implications. So at this roundtable, prior to the meeting, we came up, Mike and myself and the planning committee, worked on coming up with some draft consensus statements. So we said we wanted to go to this meeting and at least see if we can agree on some things. So we came up with eight draft consensus statements that we presented to the group. And we had eight sessions related to those statements. We first divided in small groups, five small groups, and then we came back and had large group discussion about that. And then we voted on these statements. Our outcomes, we had large agreement, really broad agreement on many of the things that we talked about. And bringing these diverse groups of people together, I think for me and for many of the other people, and if not everyone there, was just really gratified and encouraged by the collaboration that we established. And we came up with about two dozen statements that we agreed on. We're going to talk a bit about a couple of those and that we will continue to work. These won't just be statements, but we're going to continue to work to come up with guidelines that will help inform the field. And that for media to communicate this information to the public, we need to do some more work in terms of terminology that we need to work on.