 Excuse me, it's a little awkward now because so many people have left, but we've heard about a lot of amazing opportunities at the meeting, and you've also heard that the funds are not infinite. So I guess a question to ask is among the various things you've heard, what are the dependencies? And so are there some of these that where if certain things don't happen, then the rest of it can't go forward anyway? And so in terms of thinking about priorities, which are the things, you know, we don't want to throw, the problem with asking for priorities is there are all those ones that are lower. So let's talk about the higher priorities. Which are the things that need to go forward in order to make progress in this field? And without which, the other things that we would like to see happen are not likely to happen. Is that a reasonable question? If a hard one? Nobody's going to want to answer this, I know. I'm going to take a stab at this. I think I heard some consensus on the value of continuing to build the catalogue. There are examples Manolis Kellis using from the roadmap data talked about the connection between Alzheimer's and the immune system, which came out of, you know, unbiased production of data from many different tissues. And if you had focused on Alzheimer's in the brain, you would have missed the immune connection. There's a very, very stimulating, you know, talk. And so I think there's an argument that says, I don't know who said it earlier, that you really don't know what you're missing until you see it. And to some extent, that catalogue is going to be dependent on the practical realities of what cells you can get. And so groups need to be able to get access to the material if they're going to make a proposal. So somewhat, it will be directed by, you know, what's out there in the community already. So by its very nature, the project has to connect to the community for samples. I think that's the way it's been in the past. It'll probably be the way it will be in the future. But the systems have been evolving. There are all sorts of organoids now. My colleagues at Salker have kidney organoids, brain organoids, et cetera. And so I think there are other ways to get to it. But I think getting at this catalogue is going to be very valuable. Not in a way that you can couple it with function. I think they're not either or. I think if you pick the right system, and, of course, this is a ground up, actually, right? Because investors are going to propose different systems if the project goes forward. And if your system couples with an assay that's high throughput, so be it. We want to get to that encyclopedia. I think all the PIs think that that's an important goal. But it has to be coupled to the continued development of the catalogue. Well, in fact, if you're going to have a path for community generated cell types to enter a pipeline once the cells and the technology are available, there has to be that infrastructure, I think, of some production act, some level of production activities. So let me just jump in back. We have a project, Mike Snyder and I, this California Institute for Generative Medicine has a stem cell genome center. And that project is to enable genomics in the stem cell community. And some of the funds from the center flow to those investigators to prepare the cells. That was on a competitive basis that those groups were chosen and say, hey, here's an interesting biological system will help you do the genomics. And you've got to have all the cells. You've got to have hundreds of different cardiomyocytes or whatever. It's not necessarily a cell catalogue, but focused more around the disease. So I think that's a reasonable thing to do. The groups that have the ability, either they're brought into the consortium directly as part of a proposal as we did being rented with Jamie Thompson, or as John has a lot of collaborators getting samples within his community in Seattle, that it'll have to be an integral part of the project either way. Yeah, and we've, you know, as many of you know from the sequencing program, we're trying to invent ways to engage as much of the community as possible in developing those samples opportunities. I'll go over there. The other one I wanted to comment that I wanted, or the other priority that I wanted to mention, which we haven't. Well, I guess we have talked about, but not explicitly as a priority, was the collection and vetting of data through the DAC and the DCC. It seems like this cannot go forward without a robust effort for those activities. Is there a fairly good agreement on that? No. I just want to stress out one point. If indeed the goal is to move forward in having more cells added to the list, which I fully agree with, and this is something others have said, and I'll just voice my, I'll put my opinion in the same direction. It's not that they need to be fully characterized, but characterized on a subset of specific features that need to be defined so that we know exactly which ones we should prioritize, and at the same time keep investing in in-depth characterization of a small subset of cells, such as what we have right now for the FG2, the K562, and the GM12878 cells. I think you need to stretch the grid on both ends, not just on one end. Yeah, I guess I wanted to echo the idea that sort of encode, the Tier 1 lines are incredibly valuable for, they're kind of like model organisms for cells, right? We choose a few model organisms because they're useful and you explore them, and encode is choosing a couple cell lines to go really, really deep on, and at least as a methods developer, that's incredibly powerful to have that mountain of data to synergize with when developing potentially new things. And I would also argue that just as far as just understanding cell biology, it almost doesn't matter what kind of cell you choose, in some sense, to understand these broad sort of organizational principles, but going into those Tier 1 lines and trying to get at functional validation or magnitude of effect for these regulatory elements would be very, very powerful, I would argue, and add another dimension, a validation dimension to these cells that are sort of model organisms of cells. And I think that that, I think, fills a lot of the peoples of what encode should be in terms of sort of breadth-first understanding of a small number of things and also depth-first, but much less dense, as was just recently said. Thanks. Well, any comments on that? I will set it, but I'll just echo it. I think there was consensus around it, maybe there wasn't, but validation as a theme, right? Meaning that as a more significant component of what's going on, even if it's directed at validation of things that were predicted by encode 1 through 3, right? I strongly agree that there was a consensus around the notion of validation. What I struggle to understand is what people actually mean when they say validation. And I ask that actually multiple times, because I know what I mean for very specific purposes that I happen to care about. I actually don't even want to say it, I don't think it's relevant to it. But I'd love to know what it is that you mean in the back of people's minds when they say the word validation, and it's usually coupled to the S word function. So it's kind of... And I don't think it should be... The notion of it, I don't understand what it is. And I don't think it should be overly specified, meaning it's a sort of thing that one could look at a bunch of... Sure, yeah. No, the spectrum of what it means for someone that something has been validated. So one of the discussions that we've been having with our council is it's really awkward, I can't see a V, then I can't see my people. That's all right. It is about the balance between top-down and bottom-up, investigator-initiated and consortium and so forth. So are some of these various things that we've talked about including perhaps validation, the kinds of grants that could come in, if we would say we're going to set aside some portion of the encode budget, whatever that is, whatever the total is, and whatever the set aside is, that we anticipate that there will be really interesting applications that will come in that won't be part of a cooperative agreement, but they'll be working on encode-type problems such as these validation problems that would use encode data sets in an interesting system and look at validation. And could these be reviewed effectively at a study section like GCAT? I'm really getting down into the weeds now, but these are the kinds of things that we're going to have to start grappling with starting at 4.30 this afternoon, right? I mean seriously. Or is this the sort of thing... So now you're asking that we describe in a program announcement or something what we mean by validation versus letting people come in with ideas about what they mean by validation and there may be different ones. And so we could do that and we could either have our review office set up a review of people who are really thinking about this or the reviewers are really thinking about this or let it come in through CSR. So just, yeah, come. I think if you maybe made it one level higher and didn't call it validation and for example called it a program in in-depth functional studies of encode elements, I think that's something that could catalyze people, you know, generally because you don't want to... I think the word validation... I was using validation as an example of the sort of thing that might come in under this. But that in-depth functional characterization and, you know, to include... It essentially becomes de facto validation. But that, I think that would organize... Rather than just wait for the stuff to come in, that would organize a response because a lot of people are interested in it. So, I mean, Paul, okay. So I think that what you suggested sort of initially that instead of having a small group of people decide what validation means or what assays are the best to sort of put out, you know, an RFA, put out something and say we want ideas. Give us your best ideas and have a grant review panel look at the ideas because, I mean, we've talked about this over and over again in the past day or so that we all agree that validation and characterization of these things is essential but there's been no consensus on what's the best way of doing that. That's one big hole, as you've said, that we all are struggling with and we all may have our own ideas but I don't even know if we have formalized projects yet. But I think that's something where that's the sort of the best of science when you let little people come up with their own ideas, choose the best of those, give them money and then see what comes from that. So I like the idea very much of having that be an investigator-initiated approach. And talking to people, various people in the community, they were excited about functional tests and validation but they didn't want, they really adamant about it not being the same production centers. They got to really bring in some new blood or open it up, let everybody compete and get the best ideas, as Karen said. I would put in two comments. The first is, I wholeheartedly agree, I think there are two scales to it. There is functional validation by the expert for a small number of things at exceptional depth of follow-up on the mechanism, which has huge value. And there is functional validation that is done more on the bread scale, still in the biological system, still with an assay that needs to be done by the investigator and there has to be a balance in the portfolio between these because there is value in each. And whether they're both done through the same mechanism, I don't know. And the other, because you posed it very specifically about the study section, there should be a special emphasis panel. I do not think that you would get the necessary expertise in the room in the standing study section, definitely not in GCAT, which is a great study section, but that's not its area of expertise. Other comments. Are there other questions that other NIH staff want to ask? Yeah, John, go ahead. I want to make one comment regarding the sort of RFA versus GCAT and I will disclose I'm a member of the GCAT study section that the problem with RFAs is that there's a timing issue, right? In some way, you just flush out what's ready and you don't wait for things to develop. And I think the advantage of a program announcement, maybe with rolling receipt or whatever, and I think a study section like GCAT, as long as it was prepared and new, I don't know, I haven't tracked the number, but my impression is at least 20% of the members, if not more, are recruited ad hoc to deal with the specific grants that come in. It could be, that number could even be much higher. So I don't think it's impossible, but they're, you know, I think the rolling aspect is the most important, is the fact not to capture one point at a time. Yeah. Okay, anything else? If not, I'll turn it over to Elise. Thank you. So I just want to thank you all for being here. I have just some brief slides. Really just thanking everyone who has helped organize this meeting, the organizing committee, and the, and co-consortium, and do we have all that coming up? Just this one. So we really couldn't do this with the organizing committee. It really was huge in organizing the meeting, as well as leading the discussions and synthesizing this has been really incredibly helpful, as well as the Capital Consulting Corporation. So the encode consortium obviously needs to be thanked again, as well as the encode external consultants panel. And a big thanks to our colleagues in the NHGRI Communications and Public Liaison Branch, specifically Lvaro Encinas and Chiara Palmer, who are in the back who have been here with us for the last two days and have made it possible to have the webcast and are doing this with a very rapid turnaround. It's already available. Last night's already available. So thank you very much for your hard work on that. And then finally my NHGRI colleagues. But most of all, I want to thank you, especially those of you who have stayed through the very end and your hearty. And we really appreciate that everyone really did participate. We tried to keep this a small meeting so everyone felt comfortable to speak up and think it really worked. Thank you so much. Appreciate your help.