 Good afternoon. Welcome everyone to the pre-application webinar for the Diversity Centers for Genome Research. Just to give you what we're going to be talking about, we will go over the goals and objectives of the FOAs. We will then talk about the eligibility criteria for both FOAs. I'll give an overview of the full-scale FOA, which is the U54, and then an overview of the phased. FOA, which is the UG3, UH3, will also talk about the application submission process, and then there will be plenty of time for questions and answers. So a little bit of background about why we developed this initiative. As we all know, the genomics workforce is not a reflection of the U.S. population, but we do know that diverse investigators bring innovative ideas and increase objectivity and research. And minority serving institutions have shown to award 25% of all science PhDs and MDs and health profession degrees to black and Hispanic students each year. So we've developed these FOAs to enhance diversity in genomics research. The goals of the objectives are enhancing that diversity by establishing genomic centers at minority serving institutions with the mission to serve historically underrepresented populations. And these centers will carry out innovative genomic research studies. The centers would also foster genomic research career development and enhancement for trainees and investigators at all levels, enhance the genomic infrastructure, computational, analytical, and ELSI research capability of the institutions, as well as establish sustainable partnerships and disseminate resources and findings. So I am going to spend a little bit of time about the eligibility criteria for these FOAs. The applicant institution must be domestic, so it must be a U.S. institution, and it must have received an average of less than 50 million per year in NIH total costs and less than 25 million per year of R01 total costs of NIH support for the past three fiscal years. The institution must also award a doctorate degree in the health professions or sciences related to health and have documented historical or current mission to educate students from any other populations that have been identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. And this is defined by the National Science Foundation. If there is not a documented historical or current mission to educate students at the institution, the institution can have a documented record of recruiting, training or educating and graduating underrepresented students is defined by NSF. And if that institution delivers health care services, it needs to provide clinical services to medically underserved communities. So the diversity research center is just given the overview of the program. Applicants that have developed genomic capacity in infrastructure would be able to come in for the full scale genome research center opportunity. But advocate institutions that are still developing their genomic capacity in infrastructure and not yet ready to perform all the activities of a full scale center can come in for our phased award, the UG3-UH3 award. And in order to move from phase one to phase two, you have to meet milestones that would be set in phase one, as well as submit an administrative application that will be reviewed administratively. If those milestones are met and your review successfully, you would then go on to phase two to be a full scale genome research center. If those milestones unfortunately are not met or if you're not reviewed successfully, we hope that the funding for the phase one and the activities that you do in phase one will still prepare you to be successful for other RFAs or other R1 opportunities or either other opportunities for funding from other organizations. So I am just going to give you an overview of our U54 RFA, that's the RFA HG202026. Budget limit for the full scale center is this 1.1 million direct cost per year for up to five years. And that full scale center includes an administrative core, the genomic workforce development core, a community engagement core, two to three interrelated genomic research projects that address critical issues in genomics. And then you also have to have an external advisory committee and you can have an internal advisory committee as well. And the center would need to have an evaluation plan to evaluate all the activities of the center. So the administrative core provides the overall management of the center that includes administrative, fiscal education, training and scientific activities. It fosters the synergy with the other ongoing genomic career development activities at the institution. And it develops and monitors the core and project milestones, including evaluating each proposed activity or core. The genomic workforce development core provides genomic research experiences, career development opportunities and education enhancement activities to the students, fellows and investigators in order to develop or enhance their expertise in genomics. It develops creative approaches for recruitment and retention of individuals from diverse backgrounds, as well as takes advantage of the unique aspects of the research project that I'll talk about later on. The investigators at the center's talents and other institutional resources. The community engagement core facilitates the engagement of the community in all aspects of genomic research and this includes development of materials for genomic education and training, research design, analysis, outcome assessment, data sharing, as well as translation and dissemination of study results. The research projects should be structured. The center will be structured around the two to three research projects. So all the activities administrative core, the workforce development core, as well as the community engagement should all be structured around those two to three research projects. And those projects should address one or more critical issues in genomics and that includes genomic technology and methods development. The genome structure genome function genomics of disease the use and impact of genomic information and clinical care. LC research the ethical legal and social implications of genomics research genomics and health equity data science and or computational genomics. And those centers should bring together different areas of expertise and approaches to provide synergy and allow each project to accomplish more than it would be able to on its own. So going on to the companion FOA the face approach the UG through UH three FOA and that's RFA 20, RFA HG 22 027 for the UG three phase, the budget limit is 300,000 direct costs per year and you can request one to three years. The activities in phase one include enhancing of plans for the organization implementation and evaluation of a full scale genomic research center that includes plans for providing the research experiences of courses all the course that are involved in the full scale. You would recruit and retain relevant faculty and trainees in order to carry out the activities of a full scale center you perform training on any software and equipment needed for the projects. You'll test and implement the protocols and procedures as well as identify and provide solutions for any logistical problems that could be foreseen. And we encourage at the centers that will be awarded in phase one we encourage collaboration with the full scale centers the awardees of the U54 opportunity. So the criteria to advance the phase to includes identification, the commitment of the faculty and staff for center cores and the proposed projects completion of training for all planned software and equipment assessment of mechanisms proposed for regular communication coordination among investigators. The external advisor committee review and approval of all procedures and protocols successful achievement of the defined milestones for phase one potential for establishing a full scale genome research center so we'll evaluate your potential of actually carrying out the activities that you're proposing for full scale. If we're encouraging results of genomic capacity building activities that you do in phase one in the appropriateness of your research and equipment space we will do a site visit before you move on to phase two determine that and then also as always the availability of funds. So, for phase two, the budget limit for phase two is 2 million in total cost per year for four to five years successful awardees will apply their plans for force for the full scale center including the refinement of the proposed approaches and tools that occur during phase one. And in phase two centers will carry out the activities of a full scale sooner, including all the components that I just talked about them that are listed for the U54 full scale center that includes the administrative core, the genomic workforce development for the community engagement core as well as the two to three research projects you carry out all those activities in phase two. And I want to point out the total length of the UG three US three awards so that's both phases cannot exceed seven years and that's why the phase two is four to five years and that depends on the length of your phase one. So, I just want to talk about components that apply to both funding opportunities. And that is the evaluation plan each center must have an evaluation plan and in that plan the metric should include include increased collaboration, the development of additional research projects analysis and tools, increased submission of genomic applications to NIH or to other organizations, publications and presentations enhancement of capacity for conducting genomics research at your institution, the institutional commitment and collaborations that you have will look at the number of students trainees investigators from different systems that are exposed to genomic research, and then the trajectories towards successful genomic research careers and your progress of your research projects. The advisory committees, each center must have an external advisory committee and that's for either FOA that you come into even in phase one you need an advisory committee as I said, the advisory committee must consist of at least six members from target communities and external scientific advisors with relevant expertise. The responsibilities of the external advisory committee includes evaluating the progress of the center, evaluating the protocols and procedures, assessing recruitment of faculty and trainees and plans for capacity building, assessing the solutions for logistical problems and reviewing analysis plans and outcomes. The center may also have an internal advisory committee with members that are not like not directly supported by the award, but this is important to point out that this is optional you do not have to have an internal advisory committee, the external provides ready you do have to have that you can have an internal advisory committee but those members cannot be supported by the center. So, both FOAs offer funds for equipment so the grant will provide up to 500,000 in direct costs for genomic technology and equipment in addition to that overall cost cap. And this will occur only in year one of the award period for the phased funding opportunity UG three UH three applications that funding would occur in the first year of phase two. So, even if you do receive phase one award, your equipment funding will not be given unless you reach phase two and it'll occur in your first year of phase two. I'm sorry, there was a question in the chat about can for research projects be allowed or is or three projects the maximum allowed. Three is the max we can talk about whether you can have different aims within one project that is that is allowed but only it's two to three three is the max. Thank you. So resources include we're not limited to and this is for the equipment budget. Those include laboratory equipment supplies statistical and viral bioinformatics software, including computational equipment and cloud computing resources. So collaborations are allowed, but 70% of the budget will need to stay within the applicant institution because we are really trying to build the capacity at the institution. So collaborations are required within the research center and they're encouraged between the centers that are funded for the consortium, as well as other NHGRI consortia. And the collaborations must provide the complete capacity needed to carry out the genomic research projects and the didactic and practical experiences. So, your applications need to have a plan for enhancing diverse perspectives. So applicants must include a summary of strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the center through expanded inclusivity. And that plan should explain how enhancing diverse perspectives is viewed and support it throughout the application. I'm ebony. Sorry, there's another question. Do research projects have to be our one level intensive or are 21 exploratory. The research projects can be any scale. They can be smaller or they can be larger. I'm happy to talk with you. And I'll talk to you at the end of this presentation about reaching out to me. I'm happy to talk to you about your project and whether it fits within the scope of what we're thinking. But yes, they can be any scale. They can be a smaller scale project exploratory or they can be the R01 size, depending on your capabilities and the evidence shown. Thank you. So, just examples of the plan for enhancing diverse perspectives is the plan should include a plan to enhance recruitment of women and individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented and biomedical research workforce. They should have proposed monitoring activities to identify and measure that plan and the progress benchmarks. The plan needs to the plan to utilize the project infrastructure to support career enhancing research opportunities. The plan to develop transdisciplinary collaborations that require unique expertise or solicit diverse perspectives to address research questions. Plan could be to for outreach and plan engagement activities to enhance recruitment of individuals from diverse groups as research participants, including those from underrepresented backgrounds. So these are different examples of plans to enhance diverse perspectives that can be included in your application. But please don't think this is just the limit. You can have other plans. And we can discuss that further. So we will have consortium meetings. The centers are expected to meet as consortium with other awardees twice per year. And during those meetings, you'll present your research progress, discuss any challenges that you have and promote collaboration amongst the centers and share best practices. The centers are encouraged to attend other research consortium network meetings as well to increase to increase collaborative opportunities. So I am just going to talk about the specifics of the Institute's research interest. So, as you know, there have been other institutes that are jointly collaborating on this FOA with us on these two FOAs with us. I'm going to talk first about NHGRI's specific interest. For NHGRI to fund the center, the projects may include applications to a particular disease area. But because NHGRI is disease agnostic, they should demonstrate that the methods and knowledge generated are generalizable. The studies focused on disease etiology or outcomes should examine the role of both genomic and non-genomic contributors to human health and disease. If the focus is in clinical genomics, it should improve assessment or outcomes in all populations including underserved populations and include technological or computational methods for the production or analysis of diverse data sets. In all applications, regardless of focus, should explain how generalizable or broadly useful and transformative the findings and approaches will be to the field of genomics. And I am going to hand it off to Jonathan to talk about the National Institute of Mental Health's interest. Thank you. The National Institute of Mental Health is interested in research programs that examine the contribution of genetic and genomic factors to risk and resilience in psychiatric disorders in ancestrally diverse minority health and health disparity populations. I'd like to expand on that on the next slide with four points. First, NIMH is interested in discovery of genetic variants associated with serious mental illness in ancestrally diverse and understudied populations. The interaction of genetic and familial risk with environmental factors that may influence the development of serious mental illness, including genetic risk for suicide is of interest. We're interested in deep clinical characterization of cohorts from diverse minority populations and a collection of a minimum set of common data elements is expected following an NIMH notice. And finally, LC research to address a range of ethical, legal and social issues for individuals from underserved communities that are underrepresented in psychiatric genetics research. And with that, I'd like to turn it back to you, Ebony. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. And so I am just going to tell you about NIMHT's interest. The mission of the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities is to lead scientific research to improve minority health and reduce health disparities. So NIMHT encourages genomics projects that use approaches encompassing multiple domains of influence. Multiple levels of biological, behavioral, social, cultural, environmental, physical, environmental health system. And multiple levels of influence, including individual, interpersonal, family, peer group, community, and societal to understand and address health disparities. And I'm going to turn it over to Elena, who is going to talk about data sharing. Ebony, I will be going over the current NIH and NHGRI expectations with regard to genomic data sharing. To comply with the genomic data sharing or GDS policy, NIH expects investigators and institutions to first develop and provide a plan for sharing genomic data in the resource sharing plan of one's application. In addition, applicants must provide an institutional certification document before the notice of award if working with human data to assure that submission of large-scale human genomic data is consistent with the NIH GDS policy, the informed consent of the original study participants, and the preferences of the original study population. This document also outlines any limitations on future data use as deemed by an IRB or Equivalent Privacy Board. The NIH GDS policy expects genomic data to be shared in a timely manner to an appropriate repository. There are specific data submission and release expectations with certain milestones to meet ahead of publication. And the last two bullets on this screen relate to expectations of data users. So the policy expects that users of large-scale genomic data will make use of data responsibly and in accordance with the NIH Genomic Data User Code of Conduct, as well as site data in publications and presentations appropriately. Next slide, please. The NHGRI as an institute that is rooted in the ethos of data sharing has several additional expectations pertaining to the sharing of large-scale genomic data. Where the NIH sets a minimum bar for the number of participants to trigger applicability of the policy, NHGRI does not have a minimum threshold and finds value in the sharing of smaller data sets. So if applicants consent, NHGRI expects explicit consent for future research use and broad data sharing, no matter when the samples may have been collected. Therefore, if applicants would like to generate data with legacy samples where submission of genomic data into a data repository or that secondary downstream use of data was not a feature of the informed consent, then please provide justification for using those samples and seek an exception to this expectation. Additionally, we encourage that studies generating large-scale genomic data consent participants in such a manner or use samples where participants were consented in such a manner that allows for broader forms of data sharing, for general research uses through controlled access, and avoid restrictions on the types of users who may access the data to maximize the number of ways in which the data can potentially be utilized down the line. We recognize that this is not always appropriate. It's our general encouragement, especially for projects that are creating data resources for the broader scientific community. But it's important to note that we will and do approve plans for more limited sharing when there's justification for this. And finally, NHGRI has aligned our timeline for submission and release of non-human genomic data, for instance those generating data from model organisms with the slightly more aggressive expectations for submission and release of human genomic data, with the goal of making these data rapidly available to the greater scientific community. Next slide, please. This particular funding opportunity announcement also encourages applicants specifically to get feedback from the communities in which the research will be performed regarding plans for sharing individual level data, resulting from the research projects with the scientific community for research purposes, and to integrate that feedback and those recommendations into the center's data sharing plan. My next slide, please. You can learn more about the details of the NIH genomic data sharing policy at sharing.nih.gov and learn more about NHGRI's specific expectations on genome.gov's page for genomic data sharing. And there you will also find some key documents for data submission and frequently asked questions. I'll also note that our webpage will be updated very soon to broaden our information in light of an upcoming NIH data management and sharing policy, which will be effective on January 25, 2023. And again, grantees and applicants can learn a lot about the upcoming policy on sharing.nih.gov. I hope that was helpful, turning things back over to you, Ebony. Thank you, Alayna. And I just want to highlight Alayna's point of what is in the both FOAs, that we are encouraged and expect you to work with your communities, engage your communities in developing that plan for data sharing. And as she mentioned, if your community does not agree with NHGRI or NIH's policy, you can request exceptions for what is expected in data sharing. And I am happy to talk to you about it, or I can give you Alayna's information. And so please, we really are encouraging you to engage your community to get an understanding about how comfortable they are with the data sharing policies and whether you should stick with those policies in sharing your data if you do come in. So going to the review criteria, we do have our deputy director of the division of extramural operations on the call here to answer your questions. He's also a scientific review officer. I want you to pay close attention to the review criteria as you develop your application. And please note that the content of that application will be judged against this criteria. So please pay close attention to that criteria and make sure that you're including all those components that will be reviewed. So for submission, before you submit, please, please, please schedule meetings to discuss your potential application and your proposed research projects with me or any other program directors that are listed in the RFA. I really encourage you to reach out to us. You can reach out to us as many times as you need, as many times as you would like. We're here to answer your questions and give you as much guidance as possible. And make sure that you include all required components that are listed in the FOAs and give as much detail as possible. We know that there are page limits but give as much details as possible within the limits that are set. The first application due date is December 6. Please do not wait until the day of that the applications are due to submit your application. You will often deal with errors in submission. And unfortunately that there are no exceptions, even if you started to submit on that date, your application has to complete the submission by that date, not just have started. So we encourage you to start that submission early. And then try again. As you know, if you're not successful on the first try, some people may not be. We are wish all of you luck, but please think about resubmitting. There are additional receipt dates for both FOAs and that's in June of next year and then a year later. And so we do encourage you to please resubmit if you're unfortunately not successful in the first round. So we are envisioning that successful diversity centers for genome research will carry out innovative genomic research studies. They'll foster research career development enhanced students. They'll enhance institutions genomic research capacity. They'll enhance the genomic infrastructure at that institution and they'll enable the investigators to be successful in obtaining competitive extramural support for genomic research. As well as establish the same partnerships with relevant stakeholders to increase collaboration. And lastly, successful centers will disseminate those resources and findings that were developed during the center funding. And these initiatives align with the NHGRI strategic plan and the diversity action agenda. It maximizes the usability of genomics for all members of the public. It champions a diverse genomics workforce, as well as embracing the interdisciplinary and team oriented nature of genomics research. In this, on the action agenda, these centers will develop and support training programs and networks that connect undergraduate and graduate education to careers in genomics. As well as develop and support training career development and research transition progress to lead to independent research in clinical careers in genomics. I would like to thank you all for attending this pre application webinar. These are the contacts for the funding opportunities. They're all so listed in the RFAs and most of these people are here to answer your questions now for grants management. We have our grants management officer, Dana Ingersoll, who is here to answer all the grants management questions. So happy to answer any questions that you have. And I am going to stop sharing so I can see your faces. So we do have a lot of questions in the Q&A. So the first question that we have comes from Pamela Park. What are the conditions required for the infrastructure? Are there criteria listed somewhere to look at? And is it in phase one or two? Can you repeat that? What is the, I'm sorry. What are the conditions required for infrastructure? I'm assuming infrastructure building are there criteria listed somewhere to look at? And is this required in phase one or two? So, and I'm going to ask the person if I'm if I'm not answering your question to please clarify in the Q&A. So you in order to come in for the U54 opportunity, you need to already have that genomic infrastructure to carry out all the activities of the cores and the research projects for the phase one and phase two, the phased approach. You can be building up your infrastructure and developing that infrastructure in those one to three years in order to carry out. So by the time phase one has finished. So, for instance, if you come in for three years at the end of those three years before you go into phase two, we expect you to have the infrastructure to carry out all the activities of phase two. And please let us know if that does not answer your question. Okay, we have another question. How do we reach genomics research? Does it mean researching using genomics data only or does it include other omics like epigenomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics? It does include other omics, but I really encourage you to reach out to me or the other program directors to talk about your research project to make sure that it is a fit within the institute's interest. Okay, we have another question. Is there any expectation to include pilot projects or allocate some funds to support several pilot projects during this award to support other investigators in the institute? So, I think you probably know a lot about the RCMI centers that support pilot projects. This funding opportunity does not support pilot projects for other investigators. It just supports the two to three research projects. Okay, we have a question about data sharing plans. For the data sharing plans, would these requirements each be addressed by a unique plan for each of the three research projects, assuming that the projects will have different participants and different needs? So, and Elena, you can help me with this answer. If there are different plans for each of the projects, then yes, it needs to be a different plan. But if you expect to have the same plan for all three projects, you can make sure that you clarify that and say we will have the same data sharing plan. And then you can just summarize what that plan is for all the projects. Elena, is that okay through our office? Yes, that's I think what I would have said that you can describe your plan in the resource sharing section of the application either way, depending on whether it's sort of applicable across the entire project or different amongst the sort of sub projects or individual projects. All right, there's an NIMH question. Do genomics research projects have to be on mental health related research? Yes, for NIMH, we support the study of genomic contributions to mental health traits, a wide range of them. And so please feel free to reach out to Geetha Centiel or to me to discuss any possible projects that might overlap NIMH interests. I will want to follow up that you don't have to have every project be a mental health project because we jointly fund a lot of things. And so don't feel that if you do have a mental health, all the projects have to be in one disease area. We do jointly co-fund centers. And so, again, as Jonathan said, please reach out to us to discuss. For the requirement that applicant institutes, I guess what they're trying to say, for the requirement that applicant institutes are doctorial granting, do those degrees need to be research based doctorial degrees or do degrees such as doctor of physical therapy and doctor of nursing practice qualify the institution to apply? Yes, they have to be doctors in health sciences or research so that does qualify the institution. Is this the first cohort of centers to be selected for this RFM? Yes. That was the easy answer. This is the first time that we have issued these two FOAs. Okay. The next question. Can we involve community college students in the training of undergrads? Yes. Yes. You can involve community college students. You can involve high school students or middle school students in the training, elementary students. So all levels of students can be involved. They don't have to be enrolled at your institution. Okay. We have another question. The projects should be related. Is that correct? Yes. The projects should be related. They don't have to be. And we can talk. I would love to talk offline about what you mean, but they do have to be related in some way. But yes. Well, the two to three research projects last five years for the U54 or do you expect other investigators to join the ongoing projects as the original investigators rotate off if they give follow-up funding? Yeah. The projects proposed need to be projects that would occur within those five years. So they need to come to completion within the five years of funding. We don't expect there to be a follow-up on the project. You need to have some outcomes and analyses at the end of those five years. Okay. And it looks like the last question we have so far, but please send in more questions. What is the total number of pages that are needed to write for the UG3-UH3 program? Do you need to have at least six pages per each core? Not for the UG3-UH3. I think the page limit is 30 pages for that one. The U54 has a number of pages per core, but for the UG3-UH3, you have a 30 page limit total for the entire application, including both phases as well as the activities of the core. We do know that's a lot less than U54, but please note you can expand on that when you come back in to transition from phase one to phase two in your administrative application. Okay. Our next question. If our biology department does not award PhDs, but other departments do, are we biology still eligible to apply? Yes, you are. Ebony, I would just like to make a comment because there seems to be some concern about degrees and whatever. And I think it's fair to say that NIH does not discriminate against people who might not have a PhD. What really matters is whatever project you are planning that you have the demonstrated expertise to carry it out. Thank you, Betty. So this is very important. Yes, thank you, Betty. And just to introduce Betty, she is the NSRI Director of Extramural Operations. I mean, for instance, you can have a master's level person who has 2030 seminal publications. That person would definitely be qualified to submit an application. So you really have to show what you can do. And before we go, Rudy, would you comment on the application in which PIs may have external and internal committees and whether they should name these people in the application? Because I think that could compromise perhaps potential reviewers for you. So could you speak to that, please? So I can certainly describe the NIH policy in general, which says that you can talk about an advisory board, whether it's internal or external. You can talk about the roles of the individuals that should be on the advisory board. You can talk about how you plan to communicate with the advisory board, how you plan to use the information that they provide to you. You're not supposed to identify the individuals in advance. Now, Ebony, I will admit that I don't know if there's specific language in the U54 RFA that says they are allowed to do that or they're encouraged. No, there's not. I'm sorry. You should not have any contact with any individual in advance saying, I'm going to submit this application. If I receive an award, I would like you to serve on the advisory committee. And the reason for that is I may contact that person and ask that person to serve on the review panel. And he or she will already be in conflict, not just with your application, but all of the applications. So if every applicant were naming six or eight individuals to serve on their advisory board, there'd be 50, 60 people that would just be taken out of possible recruitment for the review panel. So describe the advisory board, its activities, how you're going to interact with them. But please don't name individuals. And just to highlight what Rudy said, and please do not reach out to the individuals before award as well. All right. We have another question. And I think you answered this question, but I'm going to reiterate it because maybe the person didn't hear your answer for the U54 application project. Can it be our 21 level? Yes, it can. We have written it where any scale project can come in. It can be our 21 level project. But as I say, and I can't say it enough, please reach out to us and talk to us about what you're proposing. And we can really let you know if that scope is a fit within and if it's responsive to the funding opportunity. Okay, I think this is another NIMH question. Do psychology PhDs qualify for the institution for projects in mental health and biomedical? I'd like to echo what Betty Graham said and say that we don't discriminate based on the background of the applicant, but the degree that they have, but instead are they proposing an appropriate project. And again, Keitha Centiel and I are available to discuss any mental health related projects. And just to clarify, the doctorate requirement is the institution. It has to award doctorate degrees, but the PI does not have to have a doctorate degree. And the directors of the projects, the project coordinated, the project leads do not have to have a doctorate degree. And can I just add one thing? I'm seeing a lot of questions on mental health and I feel like I need to make a plug for the research interest for NIMHD as well. So please keep that in mind that there is interest in variety of different disease and conditions that this program targets. Thank you. Does the Genomics Workforce Corps also support faculty development? Definitely. The Genomics Research Corps supports student, trainee, and faculty development and all career levels. So it doesn't have to be a junior faculty member. It could be somebody in the mid-stage or even senior that wants to do genomic research. So yes. For the capacity requirement, can any aspect of data generation be subcontracted to core service providers in initial years as the equipment is obtained and optimized? Yes. That is okay in the application. As we said, the 70% of the funding needs to stay with the institution, but you can do collaborations. You can subcontract for some of the activities that you're proposing. You can subcontract to organizations such as if you want to do Illumina or to do your genotype and those kind of things. That is allowed as you're getting your equipment up to speed. Or even if you do not want to do your own sequencing for your project, that could be subcontracted out. You don't have to do everything in-house. Another capacity question. Are DNA sequencers allowed in the budget? They are pretty pricey, including training and reagent. Is the budget for equipment flexible or is there a strict cap on it? The cap is 500,000 for equipment. So we can pay up to a portion of that if it's over the 500,000, but there is a cap on the equipment for 500,000. And Deanna, that's probably, did I get that right? We don't have any more open questions, but I do encourage if there are any questions as one just came in. If you do have any additional questions, please do type them in the Q&A and we'll make sure to answer your question. This is another capacity question. For expenses related to measurement in an outside company, will that count as part of the 30% allowed budget outside? Or does that count as part of the 70% budget within the main institute? So you're saying expenses related to measurement. Are you saying measurement of your, like, are you saying measurement of in your evaluation plan? Are you saying your research measures? You're using outside. Right. What, what I take the question as, I maybe shouldn't have read it exactly how it was written, but as I take the question, it's if you contract out that 30% is the 30% that is, that does not have to stay within what is included for the main institution that receives funding. So I guess they want to know, is it 30% of the budget that needs, that can be attributed outside of the institution? So my understanding is, are you asking if you subcontract out your measurement, whatever if you're doing the research measures or whatever, is that part of that 30% that would be yes any collaborations would be a part of that 30%. And if you, if I'm not answering your question correctly, please clarify. And Deanna, if you have anything to add, or I don't know if you've read the question differently. Yeah, it says omics marker measurement. Okay, so if you are looking at the measurement, that part is considered collaboration. And that would be part of the 30%. Can members be prior or current collaborators. The members can be prior collaborators, but they cannot be paid. If you do get an award, they cannot be paid from the grant. And Deanna, if you can explain about per diems and paying them as advisory committee as an advisory committee, that's different than them being a part of your collaborator and they're collaborating on the study as well. That's not allowed. And I'll turn it over to Deanna to talk about paying them for their time to be advisory committees, advisory committee members. So there's no, there's no limitation. I'm going to say this, there's no limitation on paying people who are providing a service. It has to be based on institutional policies and has to be something that the prudent person would pay if they're providing a service. It can't be an honor area just for being an advisory committee member. They have to actually be doing something and providing a service back to the grant. Can I, can I raise a question? Are you saying that I'm trying to figure out whether we're into a conflict of interest situation. If somebody is going to be an advisor to your project. That person cannot be participating in the research. And that's why I'm trying to figure out where that question is coming from. If they are part of the research, they cannot be an advisor. That's clear conflict of interest. And I'm wondering if you mean if they've collaborated with you on other projects, if they're past or current club collaborators on other projects, they can then be an advisor on this to your center. If they're not involved in this in the center projects in the center activities. If they are club current collaborators from another project, or past collaborators on another project, then they can be advisors. But as Betty said, they will be a conflict if they're collaborating with you on any of the center activities that you're requesting funding for. Yeah, but I, I guess I'm also trying to draw a fine line with with appearance. It's not a clear conflict, but it is an appearance. And so I just worry about that part of it. It's a good point, Betty. Just like with the research with the research grant, if somebody is read application of a reviewer is reviewing it. That person has to have a certain distance from the PI of the application. So I would just encourage people to think very, very cautiously about putting someone as an advisor who's been a recent collaborator. And I'm not sure how you define recent, but I think that's important. Okay, we have another question. Can you please describe the general motivation for the recipient institution being a doctoral branding institution, regardless of education level of the PIS slash PDs. That may help clarify the line of questioning. So the reason that we asked that the institution be a doctoral granting institution is we are trying to support institutions that will increase the genomics workforce and increase the. And so in order to have that capacity and for individuals to go into the genomics workforce, we do want the institution to grant grant and doctorates to train those students so they can go out into the genomics workforce. But we do understand there are all levels of investigators that may not have PhDs, but do have the expertise to perform the research. And that's why you do not have to have a PhD to perform the research. Okay, so I'm going to go back to the question because we received another question about it. Can you go over the norms to set up an easy. I'm not sure if that's a better question. I was just typing that I'm about to leave, but can you, can you rephrase that again? Can you go over the norms for setting up an easy. The norms for setting up. Well, I'm not an expert on it, but clearly. You want someone who knows the area. Very well and can provide you the advice that you need to make sure that your project. Is moving in the right direction. So, unfortunately, there are no boundaries for that. A lot of it is just. The experience and making sure that conflict of interest is taken care of that the people you appoint have the right expertise. In, in the area that you're looking for. And again, that could be someone who's more junior or more senior. So, I, you know, I think. The P I has to use his or their best. You know, the best advice that they can give themselves or seek from others about. Whether this person is appropriate. And I have to leave because I have another meeting to attend to, but I'd be happy to answer any questions if you want to send them to me by email. Thank you so much. Sorry. And I do want to point out that the funding opportunities do ask that you have community members as well on your external advisory committee. Our foreign sites allowed. Foreign sites are allowed foreign institutions are not allowed to be applicant institutions, but you can have foreign sites as part of your center. Will the trainees in the genomics workforce core be trained within the projects of the proposal or other genomics related projects. We would like the training to be on top of the 2 to 3 projects that you will be carrying out. But I don't think it means that you have to only use those 2 to 3 projects if you have other projects available for training, but we really would like that training to be on top of the 2 to 3 projects. The center will fund the training on top of those 2 to 3 projects. It doesn't mean that you can't have other training going on at your institution. Ebony the 1 thing I would like to clarify is that they should not be using this project to move students off of an established training program. So someone's already being trained on an established training program in RSA, then they need to stay on that program and not use this one to supersede it. Thank you, Deanna. Great point. I think this is back to the question. Can they be advised or consulted on technology systems or platform setups that not be a part of research investigation? Yes, the advice can be to any aspect of your center. You could have an advisor that advises that and they could have other advisors that advise your research. So it really, you can set up your advisors as you see fit to give you feedback on that. Can we use this grant to expand our graduate program? No. This grant is for training and you can have didactic opportunities that you develop, but they have to be coordinated with the 2 to 3 projects that you're going to be carrying out. So those didactic opportunities needed to be related to those projects that you're carrying out rather than expanding your graduate program. I think this is again about that you stated that they cannot be named in the proposal that is confusing. Can you clarify that please? And I am going to go back to Rudy. Sure. Again, I would encourage the applicants to think about the kind of expertise that they need on their advisory board. And so that should be part of your description. I need someone who has expertise with genomic technologies wet bench. I need someone who has expertise with computational methods. I need someone who knows how to phenotype patients because we're proposing to recruit a cohort to study. So areas of expertise should be described. You can then go on to talk about how you'll use it. How often will the committee meet? What is the information exchange? Are there's going to be live meetings, zoom meetings, phone calls? How will you integrate the advice from the advisors in your research plan? How will you use the advisors to change directions? And if your research isn't working the way you had anticipated or you're encountering problems, how will you use the advisors to pull you out of that rut? But don't name the individuals in the application and don't contact them in advance of submitting your application. And say, if I receive this board, would you be willing to serve on my panel or on my external panel? Because that then invalidates them from me being able to recruit them as reviewers. I hope that clarifies the question. Okay, I think we have one more question, but please continue to send in your questions. Yes, this question is asking if there are international visiting fellows, can they submit the application? Are they eligible to submit for this application? And that is a question for Deanna. Hi, so the applicant organization is who the award is made to therefore they're responsible for determining the appropriate PDPI for any application that's submitted. We can't really answer that question for you because it's up to the applicant organization. Thanks, Deanna. It looks like we have a couple more questions are coming in. If we apply in December, when will we hear about the outcome? So you, the applications that come in in December will go to our May council. So there are May 23 count 2023 council. And at that time, if the funding recommendations go there, the awards will be made after that probably by the end of the fiscal year. So by September 2023, August to September 2023, I would expect funding to occur. And again, that's, I can see if Deanna agrees with that. Sorry, could you repeat your timeline? I said that the applications go to May council. So I would expect funding to occur between August and September of 2023. It just depends. It depends on the institution on what their, I mean, NIMH may have a slightly different schedule than we have. So I can't really say for sure. Yeah. Well, all the things that come into this FOA will be awarded by NHGRI and NIMH and NIMHC will be co-funding the awards. Okay. All right. And let's say we have one more question so far. Can the project PI also be the core leaders such as a genomic workforce core leader? Oh, yes. Yes. That the project PI can also be a lead of one or more of the cords or one of the projects that is allowed. There aren't any more questions in the queue, but I do encourage all participants if you do have an additional question to either contact the program directors from each of the ICs represented or please put your question in the Q&A. And again, we thank you for attending. We'll wait a few minutes just in case. I know it often takes me a little while to come up with the question. So we'll wait a few minutes to see if there are any last questions. But as I mentioned before, please reach out to any of us for any questions you can reach out to us any amount of times. We're happy to answer anything even to clarify. Don't make assumptions. If you're not sure, reach out to us. We can clarify anything as you're developing your application. A lot of times questions come up. So please, please reach out to us. And if we're not the right person, we will make sure we direct you to the right person or get those answers for you. And our contact information is are in the funding opportunities. I am just going to share the slide as well. And these will also be posted at the frequently asked questions. There'll be a slide deck of these slides for you to consult as well as recording of this meeting. So it looks like we do not have any more questions. Again, thank you so much for attending. Thank you for your questions. Thank you for listening. And we look forward to your application.