 All right, next up is the Advancing Genomic Medicine Research RFA Renewal, and Christine Chang, Program Director in Genomic Medicine, will present the concept. She's also remote. There she is. So, I am presenting the Advancing Genomic Medicine Research Renewal Concept Clearance, or AGMR, on behalf of the AGMR team, which also includes Renee Ryder, Johnna Narula, and Veronica Abraham. By way of background, some of the Council members might remember approving this concept three years ago at the February 2020 Council, the first iteration, which was then published in June, and it was for the R01 and R21 mechanisms. And the background remains, the purpose remains the same, and that is to stimulate innovation and advanced understanding of when, where, and how best to implement the use of genomic information and technologies in clinical care in all persons, irrespective of racial ethnic background or socioeconomic status. The scopes and ejectives also remain the same, and that is to address the research gaps related to the use of genomic information to advance the application of genomics in clinical care. We are asking the projects to be broadly applicable to genomic medicine. And with the RFA mechanism, like the current iteration, we plan on convening grantees yearly to enhance communication and disseminate findings to accelerate genomic medicine research progress. We would continue to encourage investigators who are new to the field of genomic medicine to apply, including those from a variety of disciplines, which could include genetic epidemiology, health equity disparities, implementation science, and genetic counseling just to name a few. Studies encompassing diversity would also be encouraged, and this could be diversity in terms of racial or ethnic minority groups, lower SES socioeconomic status, underserved rural communities, and or sexual and gender minority groups. For the changes that we're proposing to this new renewal of the concept, one of them would be issuing a no-see for the small business or R43, R44 mechanism, which would follow the standard receipt dates. I think to really grow the field of genomic medicine, allowing small businesses to apply would definitely accelerate that progress. We're also proposing to change the receipt date from alternating receipt dates to one date per year. What we found with the alternating receipt dates was that it could be confusing for some of the investigators. And in some fiscal years, because there are three receipt cycles a year, some fiscal years would have two cohorts of application and some only one, which would make it a bit unfair. And then also with the alternating receipt dates, it barely provided enough time for applicants to revise and resubmit. So changing it to one date per year would allow more time. Similarly to the LC-PAR's presentation you heard earlier from Dave Kaufman, we also plan to pursue increasing the budget for R21s provided that NIH approves that. And for the same reasons, we would like to increase the project period from two to three years and also the amount per year from 200k direct cost to 250k direct cost. What we found is that while we've had funded some R21s, we definitely receive far fewer R21s than we do R1s. And we hope that by increasing the budget and the project period, this will increase the number of R21s coming in and funding competitively. For the mechanism and budget, similar to the current iteration, we're proposing to fund up to four R1s a year and four R21s. And as mentioned, the budget per year and the project period for the R21s, we would hope to increase. And we're also looking into the possibility of having other ICs sign on as well. That's the end of the concept presentation. I'm happy to take questions. The discussant leads are Dr. Skulow and Cho. Hi. Thank you, Christine. I'm supportive of this renewal. I think the feedback we got from as part of the strategic plan clearly made it clear that genomic medicine is a high priority area for the energy and it's probably the best institute best adapted to rapidly, you know, transduce the multiple advances in genomics and the very large data sets that we are accruing into the bed to the bedside. So I think this mechanism is a really good one because it kind of feeds off of the consortia led initiatives from the energy and this in investigate initiated mechanism kind of multiplies that impact. So far, it seems like 12 R01s and 3 R23s have been funded. And one can see from a listing of those that their high impact and do and address diverse aspects of genomic medicines. I think going forward, this is a mechanism that's compelling and synergistic with the consortia led efforts. I also thought about whether the energy I would want to keep it as an open invite or specify areas of emphasis. I think keeping it open is good and selected the best science, but also then keeping in mind programmatic needs at that time would be reasonable. And of course, I see that, you know, we are continuing to emphasize diversity and reduction of health disparities. I think the changes with nosies for the small business grants are, I think, a really good idea. And as was discussed earlier, expanding the funding and time period for the R21s also makes sense. So I'm really supportive of this mechanism going forward. Thank you. Yeah, I have very little to add to what if the card just said. I think that the proposals have listed look high impact right now. The movement, it's it's always tricky with R21s. And, you know, it's it's hard to kind of get things done in two years. So I am supportive of the idea of expanding the budget to 250 max of directs for over three years. And the only thing I would add that's new is that I do think that we have to start thinking about kind of regulatory and economic issues. So like reimbursements across states can be very different. I do think that this is something we have to think about in the future. Thank you. Lynn, go ahead. Yeah, I just have a question about expanding the budget and the length of R21s. Is this happening at other ICs as well? I guess I would default to see if someone else might might know that this is sort of happening across the board at NIH or if this is an NHGRI initiated idea. Yes, Christine, this is Terry. I think it's it's really on an institute by institute basis and really a program by program basis. So so if there's a need for a particular program or if it's demonstrated that two years just isn't enough for a given area, then then they will ask for that. But not everybody does it and not for every program. No, well, thank you. Of course, one can't help think about the effect of increasing the size of budgets and the length of time necessarily that's going to decrease the number of total awards at some point. No, excellent point, Lynn, and you're right. We have to balance those off. We had hoped for four, as Christine said, four R21s per cycle, and we only have three total across the four or five cycles we've already done. So so we're thinking, you know, stimulating that a bit should should be able to help. Thanks. Any other comments or questions from council? If not, can I get a motion to approve the concept? And second, all in favor? Anyone opposed? Anyone abstaining? Thank you. Thank you, Christine.