 So we are really pleased to have Dr. Pamela Moreno here today. And Dr. Moreno is the former chief of biochemistry and bio related chemistry at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. And Pamela joined NIGMS in 1994 and played some very critical roles in raising the profile of the field of glycoscience and bringing it into the mainstream. Dr. Moreno was a key leader in the construction for functional genomics and later was instrumental in helping to establish the NIH glycoscience common fund. Today she is going to tell us a bit about the history of the NASA glycosciences report and the subsequent activities at NIH around glycosciences and how they were impacted by the NASA report. And I from everything I've heard there, we're going to be able to learn a lot from Dr. Moreno's experience so please go ahead and thank you for being here. Thank you. Can you see my slides? Yes. Great. I can't see you when I'm in presentation mode. That's why I have to ask. So I want to thank Steve for inviting me and I wasn't really sure what I could bring to the RNA community when I first heard about this. I remember Tosi recently discovered that RNA is decorated with glycans and there's considerable effort going on now to determine what they do. So that was my first thought is, oh, another area for glycobiology but then I realized after talking to Steve, you're really interested more in process. I asked him for some specific questions and these are the ones that he gave me. So I'm going to try to address these very brief with some very brief slides. I'm going to really rip through these so hang on to your hats. And then I'll take questions from you folks. Hopefully, when I give this presentation, most of these questions will be answered. But I think it's important to give you some time to ask me questions. So the role of a federal program staff, program officer. Oh, okay. Yeah, I was just making sure your slide for advancing. Can you see that? Okay, so the role of a federal program officer and the tools that are available them to move their portfolios are pretty unique. And I'll go over those a little bit. But paramount to this is the use of outside opinions to identify research opportunities and then it's incumbent on the program officer to find mechanisms to address these opportunities. In my case, it was glycomics and glycoscience. So program directors have they handle portfolios of grants they advise on the priorities for committing federal funds they act as advocates to scientific areas. They advise on the development of emerging areas of research initiatives operating procedures and policies. And I think it's important they serve as a fiduciary for federal funds, which always has to be taken into consideration. In 1995, my portfolio is. Can you hear us Pam. Yes, I do. I don't see your slides advancing. Are you. You don't see me going forward. Yeah, can you try moving them forward. Okay. If you'd like to share your slides on your own behalf, can you try sharing the screen again? Yeah, I'm sharing my entire screen. In Zoom or elsewhere. You're muted. I did it from from share screen. Did it not work. We're still on the first one. Can you see if you can go forward? Sure. The left corner to go to go forward. Is that changing them? Can you share your screen again? You want me to share a screen again. It's not working. Do you want to share the slides for me? I emailed them to you. Sorry about that. I don't have a Zoom, so I'm working off of. Your web connection. There you go. Okay. Can I advance those or do you need to advance them? I can give you a patrol to. I didn't have some on your behalf. You'd like to start. Yeah. Okay. Sorry to break your flow again, but you can. Yeah. Okay. So this is the information that was requested. How do I forward this? There we go. There are tools available. Next slide. Next slide. So glycans are the third information rich molecule. Polymer in the, in the human body. After nucleic acids and proteins, but we don't have, or we didn't have good tools to study these. To synthesize them to understand their structures. And so it was incumbent on our portfolio to actually try to make an attempt. To provide those tools. Next slide. In 95, when I, I embarked on this, both NIH and NSF had interest in the field. NSF had a database called car bank that was. Ending. And both their bio and chemistry directorates were involved. GM had my portfolio. NCRR had two centers and several other institutes were supporting some glycoscience awards, but didn't have portfolios in this area. Next slide. So the charge that was given to me was to expand the glyco conjugate portfolio. And going about this as a program officer, I could raise awareness through meetings and workshops. I could seek partnerships and leverage resources. That meant partnering with staff. We shared interest from other institutes and agencies. And I could utilize opportunities to initiate or augment existing initiatives or try to develop new initiatives. Those would be through funding opportunity announcements. And over the course of the last couple of years, things like the Eureka program, the Aero program, through supplements, through small business, and through intramural NIH itself. Next slide. So in 98, Dr. Zuhuni took over NIH and the NIH budget was doubling by NIGMSC, and the NIH budget was doubling. By NIGMSC standards, large team science was not something we embraced, but because of the doubling, it was something that we had to embrace. And so we developed a program called the glue grant initiative. These were $5 million awards, 10 years, and to solve a major initiative in research. Also in 99, the first high throughput tools for studying glycans came about. These were glycan arrays. And at that point in 99, if someone scanned all of the glycan libraries that were commercially available, you could come up with less than 100 purified glycans to put on an array. 100 glycans to study an infinite field of structures is not very good. By February of 99, at a Gordon research conference, I made a presentation to them on large collaborative grant mechanisms, the glue grant program, and suggested that this might be a great opportunity for the glyco community to coalesce and come in with a large collaborative grant to study glycans and address the issues to bring the field into the glycomics era. The community caucus, they formed a steering committee and they decided to go after this grant. Next slide. About the same time NSF was also very interested in glycans held a meeting and Laura Kiesling and Jerry Hart chaired that meeting to explore the future of lycoscience and the role of biology and chemistry in this area. And the meeting report that they developed called for the establishment of infrastructure, including chemical and biological tools, databases, a workforce and integration with the broader scientific community. Eva Barak brought this report to me at NIH and given the glue grant program and the opportunities to address these issues. This report was part of the basis for convincing our council that the glue grant program and glycoscience should go forward. Next slide. So where did we start in genomics and proteomics? You have structures, sequencing, synthesis, tools, knockout models, databases and a workforce. In glycomics, we had a few hundred structures. Mass spec was just being utilized to start sequencing. Chemical synthesis was in its infancy. There was chemical, chemo, biological and bio fermentation, but they were hampered by methodologies and lack of enzymes. There were a few tools, maybe a couple of dozen enzymes that had been synthesized by different groups, a few probes, one high throughput assay, a few knockout models, database was going under and no workforce because there was no training grants. So we had a big mountain decline. Next slide. The CFG was an experiment. In large team science, it started out with about 30 people. It ended up with over 600 labs internationally and became a model for a large team science. It's been written up and it became one of the successful programs that underpinned the NIH roadmap that Dr. Zuhuni developed and which evolved into the Common Fund program. So they were going after structures. They were developing methods for sequencing, for synthesis. They focused on chemo enzymatic. They developed new tools, knockout models. They developed a huge database that imported data through an electronic notebook that gathered information from all their cores. And the expectation was that people would be trained when they were working in this area. Because glycoscience is unique and the cores, they developed cores. Could have the next slide, please. Several iterations of the program got written up and eventually they settled on having a steering committee and then utilizing cores that were going to do all the work. And people would just give them their samples or they would provide resources and compounds and libraries to people. But everything would be free. All of the data would go into an electronic notebook and be searchable through the consortium databases. So this set up a model for doing large team science that was open to the broader scientific community and obviously worked since it attracted over 600 labs over the course of 10 years. And they found ways to keep this going. So it's still an active consortium out of Harvard. Next slide, please. Next slide. So the databases and partnerships that came out of this, obviously over 10 years, you know, you plan something the first year by five years, you renew it, but, you know, things change, science progresses, and this science progressed very quickly. So we knew we had underfunded the informatics efforts. And so we held a workshop. We brought in people and experts. We talked about this and it resulted in administrative supplements. These were a $1 million administrative supplements to the informatics efforts in each of the glue grants to try to get their informatics up and running very quickly. Japan, the CFG, NCI, NCRR, Dental, DK, the proteomics interest group at NIH, and Hart Lung all came together and held the frontiers and glycomics, bioinformatics and biomarkers disease workshop, which led to a white paper. And that ultimately led to the alliance of glycobiologists for detection of cancer and cancer risk, a U01 program that's still ongoing at NCI, and to the programs for excellence in glycoscience, which is a P01 program at Hart Lung. So you can see this theme is developing here. You set something up. You bring in outside experts. You look at the field. You request what their interests are, what the needs are. How does this advance the field? You bring this back. You synthesize it into program efforts. Distill it down and then work with your institutes to develop programs that address the needs to move the science forward. And of course, these are always competing against other interests from other portfolios. So you need strong information from your outside experts to convince your institute that they should invest in a given program. Next slide. The Naocot mouse project was ongoing. GM was given a million dollars to invest in that. And I convinced our director that the 22 glyco-relevant strains on the list of available mice to purchase would be a great investment for the glyco field. And we ended up getting all 22 strains. Subsequently, we partnered with the COMP program and completed all the mouse efforts within the CFG through COMP, which saved us about $300,000 a year. And we were able to move that money into other efforts. Next slide. Glycan synthesis libraries and standards was a sticking point. If you don't have the compounds and the compound libraries to do the screens or make the tools or understand the competitions, you can't move the science forward. So GM put together a meeting expanding the chemical space for carbohydrates, recommings, who is at Emory at that point and is now at Harvard, shared that meeting. And that resulted in GM's council giving us money to run an RFA for chemical synthesis. Child health also had interest and they ran an FOA for the synthesis of human milk, oligosaccharides, which is now a very active area for probiotics and commercialization. The RFA was really successful. We developed a number of methodologies that had the potential to move forward into automation and to benefit the larger community from those efforts. Carolyn Bertosi ran a meeting called expanding the chemical space for carbohydrates, roadmap to automated synthesis for NIGMS and GM's council approved a contract called for development of glycan libraries that funded about 15 companies to develop libraries and put them out commercially. So now we went from 99 compounds back in 2000 to thousands of compounds by 2011. Next slide. High throughput tools were gaining real traction and the CDC was using these to screen for the bird flu. Other arrays were starting to be developed. Jillian Air ran a workshop for us on, for us in AI on the information that was coming off of all of these different glycan arrays that were being developed and how we would interpret these. And this resulted in the CFG, putting together bridge projects for cross-platform comparison of these diverse arrays and era supplements for development of new novel arrays and their characterization in YGEM presentation. Next slide. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a unique opportunity for us to put in challenge grants for the functions of glycan binding proteins since the structure and function of glycan proteins since the structure and function of glycans. And we were able to make eight awards through that act and beef up the infrastructure. Next slide. Glycoenzymes, especially enzymes for synthesis of carbohydrate compounds since chemo enzymatic synthetic methodologies were becoming very popular. Josh LeBear had the libraries and Kelly Moorman and Don Jarvis had expression systems for them and these three got a large era supplement to be able to put this all together into a repository so people could order the expression vectors. Next slide. By 2011, the profile for carbohydrates and glycomics was becoming more high profile. Certainly many more institutes and agencies were interested and a number of workshops actually a flurry of workshops between 2010 and 2012 took place on the NIH campus and these in turn led to both RFAs and to interest by multiple agencies into doing a larger study of the field to see what needed to happen if we were going to take advantage of glycomics and glycomic efforts. Was this a place where we really needed to make a sincere investment? Next slide. So to sort of build interest across agencies and to coalesce what we wanted out of a report was that NIH issued U54s for resources for NIH and pathogen arrays and NIH's glycobiology SIG which is an intramural effort of laboratories put together a seminar series a course in glycobiology in an annual meeting to raise interest on campus and the interagency glycoscience steering community that I chaired brought together NIH, FDA, NIST, NSF and DOE to meet on our regular basis to discuss our shared interests and where we could partner and one of those partnerships was between NIST and GM for developing glycan standards and mass spec libraries. This all raised interest between multiple federal agencies and institutes and at this point GM went to OD and suggested that we commission a National Academy report in this area to look to see what needed to be done to move this field forward and several agencies stepped up DOE, FDA, NIH, multiple agencies within NIH and put together the funding for assessing the importance and impact of glycomics and glycoscience. The report came out in 2012 and it was transforming glycoscience a roadmap for the future. So this report has been used both by program officers at NIH and the multiple institutes to support funding for this field and to address the roadmap that was put together by the group, by Dr. Walt and his group. But it's important to note that I've shown you that these reports of various types get used by program officers and staff across the federal agencies to understand their portfolios and to help develop funding opportunities to move the field forward. But we expect that these reports are going to be nonbiased that they're going to be honest reports that show us where the opportunities are where the deficiencies are and to lay out what needs to be done if we're going to take advantage of the recommendations that people that are writing these reports are giving us. So whatever you can do to tailor your report to where are the opportunities and who's going to benefit from those things and what do we need to do in terms of a timeline to actually bring these things to fruition in a timely manner. Those are the type of things as a program officer I would look for in a report to justify making an FOA pitch to my institute for money. Next slide. The committee was held put together a great report. It was chaired by David Walt and we brought David back actually later in the program to do an evaluation of the chemistry portion of the common fund. So I'll talk about that a little later but remember his name. Next slide. This report provided a roadmap and I would refer you to chapter six of that report. It laid out a plan and it gave us a timeline to be accomplished and what could be accomplished if we made the proper investments within a timely manner for synthesis, analysis, modeling, enzymes, informatics, and education. So it was incumbent on program officers across the institutes and agencies to take these requests and make these recommendations and goals timelines. Next slide. For glycoscience, lots of people back into this field. Actually, everybody in the field has backed into it because their own avenues of research basically led them into protein, carbohydrate, and interactions of some sort. And then they were stuck. They were tied up in a traffic jam because they didn't have tools or expertise to move the science forward and really important science would just get dropped because they couldn't find a collaborator to move that area forward and answer the questions that came up. And then they could help them get around these traffic jams. Next slide. So as a program officer, I had already done what I could do out of a single institute or with my other colleagues across institutes and agencies. We needed something else that we were going to be able to use to push this field into the broader scientific community. We built up infrastructure over the years, but we really needed to get glycoscience embraced by the broader scientific community. And to do that, we needed a large concerted investment that could go across institutes and could address the deficiencies in the infrastructure. The NIH Common Fund, which came out of the NIH roadmap, actually the CFG was one of the models that was used for this. And we were able to get across the finish line and that effort was focused essentially on integrating the field with the broader scientific community. And that meant making simple tools that people could use, kits and reagents. Things of that nature that somebody that was not a glyco expert could actually use to answer their problems and get out of the traffic jam. So the Common Fund was established in 2006 out of the 2004 roadmap. It's been used to support a series of short-term, exceptionally high-impact trans-NIH programs, and certainly glycoics was obviously trans-NIH. And it was intended to change the way science is conducted by delivering data tools and technologies for broad use, which is exactly what we wanted to do. To be competitive for Common Fund for funding, you need to be transformative, unique, synergistic, cross-cutting, and catalytic. And we made a pitch that we fit all of those categories. And next slide. Luckily, we made it into the Common Fund. There are a number of hurdles that you have to go through to get into the Common Fund, but we made them through. And Dr. Lorsch was the chair, was led out of GM leadership team that were involved in this program. Officers that represented them are here. Next slide. We developed this Common Fund effort in three stages. There were three arms. We wanted to automate synthesis and provide facile methods for large library synthesis. We wanted to have tools that were familiar and easy to use and commercially available for the study of glycans, and we needed integration and analysis tools and a database. So these three became the three arms of the program. I headed the synthesis arm. Carl Kruger headed the tools arm. Amanda Malillo and Doug Shealy headed the database arm. Next slide. The Common Fund had a deficiency in that people made these huge programs, but then they fell off the books because you couldn't renew them and people struggled to keep them going. We didn't want to fall into that. We wanted a short program that made these tools and technologies and we wanted them translated into commercialization so that they continue to be developed and upgraded, replenished and advertised to the broader scientific community. So we put a SBIR STTR effort together through multiple institutes since the Common Fund doesn't use this mechanism and mirrored the Common Fund efforts with SBIR STTR funding opportunities. These were extremely successful. We got large numbers of applications every year. We put in about $3.6 million a year over the seven years to get these applications funded and to get all of the tools and technologies that were coming out of the Common Fund translated into companies. Next slide. The synthesis arms solicited applications. We were interested in targets that were justified on the relevance to human health and we were really interested in facilitating automation. Next slide. We funded 18 applications. We were able to put large libraries of natural compounds on the market when we developed new chemical and chemo enzymatic methods for facile synthesis so that you could go into a university chemistry department and hand them a paper and they didn't have to be a carbohydrate expert to make you the compound that you wanted and we were very interested in transitioning these to automation and we came up with I think four different platforms that are now available and commercially available to be able to synthesize carbohydrates so if you put a DNA synthesizer you could also put in a carbohydrate synthesizer into your cores at your universities. These are still being developed but for the most part the field is a quantum leap from where it was in 1999. Next slide. Chemo enzymatic synthesis is really useful. Anybody can do it if they have the right enzymes Aero allowed us to make these expression libraries and the Common Fund allowed us to push this forward, get all of these vectors expressed into enzymes and commercially available through glyco-expression technologies and several other companies that have stepped forward because there is real interest in these enzymes commercially. Next slide. The tools we put out initially are R21s for high risk high impact awards and a few U1s that were obvious things that could be done immediately and the R21s were then followed on with that opportunities to apply for U1s and we got a huge number of really unique tools out of this that are easy to use. Next slide. We've got reagents and tools that fall within these categories and most of these are being commercialized now or already commercialized. Next slide. The informatics effort was the last effort to go on the books. It's evolving at this point. It's an international effort and it fits in with several other efforts from Japan and Europe and Australia and Canada and these tools are all actually freely available on the web through this website so you can go from your protein to your glycoprotein and look at the structures and functions as they exist in the data. Next slide. These data analysis tools include standards for metadata, standards for representation, common ontologies, assignment of structures and simultaneous mining. The PDB has been cleaned up through an effort through the common fund and so if you go in there, if you see carbohydrates attached to your protein they're actually in the right linkage and appropriate structure. Next slide. The common fund has completed its work. I'm actually sitting in on the evaluation of the program tomorrow out of OD but as you can see it was built upon the National Academy report. I think the only thing that the common fund couldn't address since it doesn't have educational efforts within the fund was the training and that's been picked up by GM and Hart Lund who have put training grants on the books for glycoscience. Next slide. We've developed catalytic and chemo enzymatic methods. We have automation platforms. We have analysis labeling and modeling tools with demonstrated proof of concepts most have been commercialized. We have uniform informatics efforts and we're moving forward to integrate glycomics with other molecular databases and we have the commercially available glycoenzymes. So this program to my mind has fulfilled the National Academy of Science report and one of the things we did was to hold large workshops and meetings symposia for the chemistry division and we brought David Walt in as one of the panelists to evaluate the work that was done. This was a two day symposia. It's available online through the NIH video website and David was impressed that we had moved and kept through the timeline that the academy had set out for us. Within the seven years we had definitely checked off all the boxes and we're well on the way to the 15 year goals that they set out for the chemical synthesis of carbohydrates. For the other efforts we likewise had numerous presentations in final symposia which were well attended and highly viewed. All of those are also available on the NIH video cast website under archives. Next slide please. So we started out in 2000 with NSF laying out a plan and we established the first three criteria through about 20 years of RFAs, FOAs, common consortium for functions like comics and other programs that were held through RO1 portfolios and the common fund made the effort that was necessary for integration of this with the broader scientific community. The preliminary data that I've seen from the evaluation suggests that we've achieved that as well. Next slide. The 2012 report provided the roadmap, provided the timeline, pointed us in the right direction, placed the emphasis on synthesis, analysis, modeling, enzymes, informatics and education and disinformed the efforts of myself and numerous other program staff at NIH and other federal agencies. In terms of how to guide our portfolios and how to present to our bosses to develop the necessary funding to bring these across the finish line. Next slide. That's the consortium. That's the common fund team. A lot of those folks were in the consortium for functional like comics. We met every year and we reported out from all the different groups in person and each of these three teams met regularly, monthly actually by video to work together to develop the program and to move it forward. I'd like to congratulate them. At this point I'll take any questions. Thank you. We have a question already from Susan. Hi Pamela, thanks very much. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. I had a question about the SBIR STTR decision for this. Right. My understanding is that you need an actual company to get an SBIR and an STTR. No you don't. Actually the company just has to be on paper and so as long as you've contracted with your university as long as you have a piece of paper from the university that says they'll wrench you bench space in your laboratory for your company at a given rate per square foot or whatever then you don't actually have to initiate the company until you have the grant in hand. So just to understand that number one the synthesis seems to have gone more to academic labs or that's not true? That's not true. So academic labs basically push the synthesis forward and several of them have developed their own platforms now for automation which was supported by this common fund effort but they've also spun off companies from their laboratories because training is one thing making compounds and maintaining machines and pushing that forward is another. So it's much easier to get a large grant out of the SBIR program to set up your laboratory as a company and use technicians to continue to make the enzymes continue to make the compounds that people are requesting from you since you published on them. So that's basically how that's moving forward but there are several other commercial companies that have come in and partnered with them so they've essentially taken their IP and licensed it to move that into commercial platforms. A lot of our chemists developed tracking reagents tracking reagents, things of that nature and that IP was purchased by companies that are making these products and selling them commercially. The tools themselves some of the people that developed the tools have taken out SBIRs or the sister program, STTR where you find a company and you get a technology transfer grant part of the money goes to you to develop it and hand it off to the company and then the company further develops it and commercializes it. So there's two flavors to the business aspect of those. All of federal agencies use SBIR STTR and the people in our program the Common Fund program seemed very adept at being able to find partners or to work SBIRs into their own laboratories. So can I ask this is Brenda Bass, can I ask a nuts and bolts question? In your head, there's always a they and it goes back to another they and I'm trying to understand how this all gets put into motion. So I think there was a consortium I don't know how that started and then the consortium I think was involved in getting the Common Fund initiative is or the program are you talking about the consortium for functional glycomics that that was a glue grant and that arose out of my initiation of conversations with the glycoscience community at the meeting continual dialogue with the glycoscience community to develop an application to NIH to take part in the glue grant program and then several iterations of their grant went back and forth and eventually moved into a model where they were going to put together cores and an administrative group that would handle requests for the reagents and services of the cores. All the data would be public would be in a searchable database so that turned out to be a really exceptional program and it continues today at Harvard but that's not the responsibility of it's not the responsibility of a consortium of investigators to move a field so that the program directors like myself would be the people that look to all of these information that's coming in and look as portfolio managers we have tools to look at our portfolios to look at deficiencies to look at new areas where we would want to invest just like any portfolio manager and in that regard we use the scientific community as a sounding board so I showed you a number of instances where I myself or other members from other program officers from other institutes were involved in holding a series of workshops and symposia and meetings where we could bring in information from people that we invited to tell us what the needs of the community were and what the opportunities were from that community if we could meet those needs so they all develop white papers those white papers we as program officers would sit and digest and then we would decide if those things look to be necessary to move our portfolios you know could we put together an FOA or could we partner with other institutes to put together an FOA to move things forward that went on for almost 20 years to develop the infrastructure for this field and move it forward when it was essentially the point where glycoscience was really becoming established and people were in need of moving this into the broader scientific community that's where we as program officers myself and my colleagues from other institutes that were interested in glycoscience work together and made a pitch based on the national academy report that we we commissioned to NIH's office the director because common funds seemed like the logical place to utilize their funding to move this into the broader scientific community that was common funds mission that's what we needed to accomplish so we did the hand glove thing and melded with the common funds so we made our pitch to the common funds to become part of the common fund they rejected us we made our pitch again they rejected us we made our pitch again and finally got over the hurdles and we were able to move into the common fund and obtain the funding that we needed to be able to go out and solicit applications to make this field simpler to get things into kits to commercialize a lot of materials so that we didn't have that traffic jam you know all of us as program directors were getting constant calls from the broader scientific community saying you know I backed into this and oh I found out that this carbohydrate is involved in turning on this receptor and how do I study it and so you try to find them a collaborator but that's a slow process and collaborations don't always meld so we really wanted them just to be able to have the same access that people in molecular biology have you know that you could just go to a company and buy a reagent or buy a kit and that was the impetus to get us through the common fund and into the funding funding area so but all of those steps are driven by program directors who utilize the information they get from reports like the one you're writing. So if you're writing a national academy report you're not doing this de novo I mean somebody commissions you to write this and they obviously have interest in this field and hopes for utilizing your report to move something forward so whoever commissions you to put this report together you know take advantage of their knowledge of the field and what their interests are but I can tell you from glycomics perspective chapter six where they laid out this is the advantages that this field is going to provide us if we move it forward and these are the things that are necessary and here's a reasonable timeline for accomplishing X, Y, and Z to be able to get this accomplished so they gave us a 7, 10 and 15 year timeline under the categories that I laid out and you know that makes it easy for program officers to check off the boxes and write FOAs and push this forward we certainly utilize the academy report in terms of the synthesis and tools and databases to say these are things that are necessary but now we need to make them broadly available and accessible to the broader scientific community we need to keep them simple and easy to use and so that you don't need to be a glyco expert to be able to utilize them and that's basically what the common fund was about was making this accessible to the broader scientific community Thank you that was really helpful are there other questions at the table right now what was that to you can I ask one question one more question so is there anything that really laid out what we need to put in the consensus report that is most helpful to program directors, program officers is there anything you would say was unhelpful is there anything we should not put in the report don't recommend funding mechanisms and remember that this isn't just helpful to program officers it's helpful to applicants for funding so I can't tell you how many grants I've read where they cite this report and as justification for whatever it is they're pitching to NIH be it synthetic methods or commercialization of given products they use the report they use what the report suggests is important to the field and necessary for moving the field forward and why is that important because the report lays out really clearly what the benefits to human health and DOE and FDA are if these things are accomplished if we can do X, Y, or Z if we can have these tools available then this is going to move A, B, and C farther along and save us a lot of money I mean the folks in the Parkinson's field are really, really lovely news piece about having all of these glycol glycol products, glycolipids available where they weren't before and how this was going to open up all new avenues for research in that field this is the type of thing that program officers jump on and that's what we want to see okay thank you so much we have to move on but that was so helpful we really, really appreciate your time today sure and I would suggest the Academy report there's a PDF it's freely available you can download it take a look at the intro and the final chapter chapter 6 where they lay out this roadmap and they put together a beautiful pamphlet it's like a two pager people can't walk around it's like a heavy report but a two page pamphlet we took this around we showed it to people we pedaled this and quite honestly Europe and Japan both jumped on this and developed their own reports on glycoscience for the Europeans and for the Japanese and I ended up having to present with both of them on what their nations had developed so you can have really international echoes of what comes out of these reports yes thank you so much and I did just put the glycoscience report on our google drive for everybody thank you again good luck take care steve thanks camp okay