 Yes, the meeting summary is sort of an art form, and I think those of us who go to lots of meetings have been in instances where it was done so badly as to ruin the entire meeting. And occasionally one actually witnesses an experience where the meeting summary brings to your mind conclusions that were somehow vegetating back there and then make it into your consciousness in a way that a skill for a presenter can do. Maynard, I think you clearly have renewed your reputation as a performance artist in this particular art form, and I think we're all very grateful to you for summarizing a very broad and diverse discussion in such an effective way. Thank you. I want to follow up on one of your suggestions right at the end and take a little straw poll here. Because it was one of the questions that I posed the first evening, and we've heard your opinion, and some other people have expressed theirs to me privately, but let's just see what everybody thinks here. So Proposition A is that we should declare victory for the human genome project, and I'm going to be more explicit in Proposition A here at the essential completion of the human sequence. Notice the word essential there, which is Spring of 2003. Recognizing that that heterochromatin in those nasty centromeres will not at that point have all their base pairs lined up properly. And we will then, this is still part of Proposition A, identify what happens next with some other term, such as, for instance, genome research. Or, if necessary, we could come up with some catchy new label. That's Proposition A. Proposition B is we will consider the human genome project to be a continually evolving entity, adding new goals and opportunities as the science and its medical applications move forward. So you have there a clear distinction. So I guess I'd like to have a show of hands here. And this is not a binding vote, because ultimately, probably you all aren't going to decide this. But it would help. It would help to have some sense of the community. So, all right. All those in favor of declaring victory for the human genome project roughly around the spring of 2003. Can I see your hands, please? Okay. All those in favor of having the human genome project continue to evolve and add new goals as we go along. Okay. That's very interesting. I guess that's something like a three to one or so, three to one, two and a half to one, something like that ratio. All right. So noted. We'll see what we do with that. Depending on which of my staff I ask later on today, some will be glad I asked this question and some won't. No revotes. That's it. I'm sorry. I don't want to hear about chads on your ballots or anything else. Goal here now basically is to wind this up. And I'm going to do so very quickly because we already have run a bit late, but the discussion in the final presentation certainly warranted that. A couple of logistic issues. I would like if you are a speaker and you had PowerPoints and you haven't already arranged how you're going to get copies of those to us, please do so because I think as the archive of this very important meeting, we'd want to have those. So speak to any of the four folks who've been involved in the organizational efforts, particularly who I also want to thank again, those being Eric Green, Kathy Hudson, Mark Geyer and Elka Jordan. And if we can get your PowerPoints, we'll make them part of the record of the meeting, which I think will help the whole process. In addition to thanking those folks, once again, I'd like to thank the staff that have worked so hard on this, Steven Robinson, who helped us with all of the presentations on the PowerPoint this morning. Thank you, Steve. And again, Susan Mix and Karen Hajos for all of their hard work in the organizational efforts of getting all of this stuff done, including all of those handouts that you got handed this morning from these diverse set of breakout group leaders. And I should thank them once again. I don't know too many meetings that would be bold enough to ask people to run breakout sessions, giving them exactly five minutes notice, and then expecting them to stay up until one o'clock in the morning, synthesizing the results only to have to present them to their peers in a very tense situation the next morning. So you all are very tolerant and that's much appreciated. And I think it is a reflection on this community that people are willing to do things that you probably wouldn't do at the average meeting. What's next? Let me put this overhead up. First of all, if there are folks in your vicinity who are interested in absorbing the wonders of this meeting, it is going to be up on the web. And that will happen sometime or anytime after nine o'clock next Tuesday. If you want to scribble that down, if you go to that website, click on past events and then click on the link to NHGRI. And assuming you have on your particular PC, the real player software, you will be able to look at a webcast. You can pick amongst the segments and see what's there. You don't necessarily have to go from start to finish although that could be fun too. We will be putting together a summary of the meeting and that will be emailed to you and particularly notice the bottom of this overhead. I am sure as you go home, you will be thinking about this meeting and nothing else. And it may be that some great ideas occur to you or observations or deep thoughts or whatever and we would much appreciate hearing those things. So please, if you would, put those things down in emails and send them to the address that you see here, which is the same address that was used for organizing the logistics for this meeting. Be warned, however, that that does not go to me. That actually goes to the four people that I thanked a few minutes ago, Eric, Kathy, Elka and Mark, so don't get too personal about things that you... A few people did that by the way already and I hope you don't mind how many other people enjoyed that. So now, seriously, what's next here as far as the planning process? As I described the first evening, what you have now been a part of and I would call this a very successful part is a process which is going to play out now over several months. We have a bunch of great ideas from this about additional workshops that we will probably be scheduling in the next six or eight months and the staff will be distilling through all of this, trying to figure out what topics seem to make the most sense and getting those together. And then we will be bringing by sometime next fall a similarly sized group together to look at what we think at that point will be a more well-developed specific plan of what the future of NHGRI's agenda might well be and asking people to say, well, did we get it right? And some of you may have very well overlap between those groups, but we'll probably also have some additional folks who weren't part of this meeting to vet our ideas on. Anyway, this whole process is intended to be completely open and inclusive and public and you are likely to get asked in various ways to respond to other opportunities to be part of it and we hope you will be. But it really is wonderful, I must say, from my perspective to be able to draw upon the intellect of such a remarkable set of people in a fashion such as this and in the workshops that will happen in the coming months. And we know that that is a big demand on your time and we hope it feeds back in some positive way in terms of the opportunity to listen to what a lot of your colleagues are thinking about the future, something that we don't always spend as much time on as we might. So with that, I would like to say thank you from the bottom of my heart to all of you for spending these two days here. You're welcome to enjoy the lunch downstairs and then head out. There's some people who are staying here for additional discussions about the ELSI program. Those people work very hard. They started early and they're going to leave late. And to all the rest of you, please have a safe trip home. God speed and many thanks.