 All right. Well, my happy task is to remind those of you that attended the Genomic Medicine 2 meeting in December, what we talked about, and for those of you that didn't have a chance to be there to give you a little bit of background, some of which Dan alluded to, to set the stage for what we're going to be doing some at this meeting. So one of the first things that Dan alluded to is some of these issues of what the barriers are to genomic medicine. And I suspect we'll be talking a lot about these barriers during the course of this meeting. Trying to figure some of this out is really important. One of the things that many of us are struggling with is this whole question of, do we have adequate evidence for the value of actual implementation of genomic variants and the relationship to either dosing of a drug or adverse avoidance in a drug or a risk score for some disease of interest. Institutional and physician acceptance is an important one, and we spent a fair amount of time at the last meeting hearing from some institutional leaders who gave us their perspectives on that, and I'll say more about that in a second. Education of patients and physicians is clearly going to be very important. Many of you that have tried to do this know that there is a group of physicians who are enthusiastic and anxious to do this, and then there are some people that are not sure that it's worth the trouble at this point, and that really reflects the debate that both Dan and Eric have already talked to you about. Consents, and actually I'll just comment, I think in many ways it's interesting. I think our experience is that the patients may actually be out ahead of the physicians in a lot of cases on this, and that's sort of an interesting place to be. Consents, making sure that we've got consents right in this area is an important aspect to consider, and there's a working group that's dealing with some of these issues, and then things like sample availability and the recruitment for genetic studies continue to be interesting challenges for us in terms of thinking about some of the ethical and social issues related to those as well. So the meeting goals for the December meeting were to develop ideas for multi-center collaborative projects, you already heard that, to learn about new projects on ongoing partner sites, to identify infrastructure needs and possible solutions to speed the adoption of genomic medicine, and to establish mechanisms for the sharing of best practices. And so that discussion led to a lot of action items, some of the highlights that we heard from the institutional leaders that we need to make genomic medicine part of an institutional strategic plan, otherwise it really doesn't succeed. Need to demonstrate value, especially in the cost arena for health centers, and genomics research needs to be part of the cake, not just the icing, and I thought that was a particularly great statement to hear. And that we encouraged an institutional leader perspective publication, and I'm not sure if anybody knows where we stand on that, but I think it would still be a very important thing for us to continue to work on. I think the key thing that happened, there was a lot of discussion, a lot of really good interactions, but one of the key things that happened was there was establishment of five or six working groups that came out of that meeting. Those working groups have been working since December, and at the end of the day today there's going to be a chance for those groups to be getting together and to continue their work, and then we will hear some reporting out from each of those groups. But to give you a sense of the groups, there was a cancer working group, and some of the things that they thought were important, ready for prime time, were Lynch syndrome screening, a neuroendocrine cancer screening approach, and then what they sort of described as important crumbs that were left behind were how do we deal with moderate risk variants, how do we think about clinical utility, what are the screening and treatment recommendations that would be related to that, and I think this theme of what's the evidence behind a particular variant and whether it's, and we've used a variety of words, and we've debated about the words, about whether it's actionable, whether it has clinical utility, whether it has clinical validity, and I suspect we'll have more discussion about some of those terms during this meeting. Very rare and probably genetic phenotypes with no known associated diseases are something that needs to be thought about. Germline and somatic variation for tumor progression and drug resistance, and cancers that rarely have somatic alterations, such as carcinoids and pancreatic endocrine tumors. So we'll check in with the cancer group later. There's a group interested in the periodontal microbiome, thinking about pharmacogenetics for dentistry, questions like timing of warfarin withdrawal prior to dental procedures, impact of known pharmacogenomic variants, and CIP2D6 for pain management. And then another area in terms of type II diabetes and periodontal disease and or periodontal microbiome type, and a few issues to look at that in the microbiome. And so hopefully we'll hear an update about that as well. There was a lot of interest in the family history project. Family history, as we all know, is one of the most beneficial genetic markers, set of genetic markers that we have. And the goal of family history working group was to develop an outcomes research agenda to look at towards implementation science, to integrate family history into the clinical workflow. And they proposed a series of small studies to interrogate and evaluate the best, cheapest, and least time-consuming way to collect family history data. Something that everybody says we're still not very good at. Propose the construction of an advisory group on family health, family history. Information interface and education for providers. Again, a key element here in all of these is how do we educate the people that actually are going to be the front-line users of this genomic medicine information. Explore electronic media tools to help patients create their own family history. There was discussion about iPhone apps that might enable this. Validation for family history information and building models that include use all the data. There was a pharmacogenomics working group that wanted to compare head-to-head whole genome sequencing, directed sequencing. Some of you are familiar with this VIP or PGRN-Seq platform and other technologies. So how should we be implementing those? And then there was discussion about applying next-gen sequencing technologies to rare serious adverse events for discovery, family-based pharmacogenomics implementation. There was a sequencing working group that set up a very ambitious set of six working groups. There have been quite a few phone calls in this, but the goal was to improve the reference sequence set for clinical analyses, set standards for reporting genomic data, to set standards for reporting phenotypic data, to develop analytical best practices so that work done at multiple sites could actually be readily comparable between the sites, to create some kind of central repository for clinical comparisons and to set wet lab best practices. There was a group that at one point had the interesting name miscellania. We have subsequently come up with, I think, the group has come up with a more appropriate name, the clinical research interface. One of the things that this whole discussion about genomic medicine brings up on a regular basis is what is the boundary between research and clinical care, and I think we are really pushing the envelope in terms of how to think about that boundary, or maybe that boundary is getting fuzzier and fuzzier, but related to that, there are a whole series of IRB related issues. If it is clinical care, there is a different set of consents and approaches that need to be taken from research. There is obviously, I have already mentioned the sort of clinical research interface. Implementation consultants for systems wanting to implement in various practices, what kind of information can be best practices that are shared. That's a question again of variance, and many of you, I think, also participated in not one of the genomic medicine meetings, but a meeting that addressed the question. It was called ClinSeq or ClinVar, ClinAction, yes, thank you, working group that was also in December that thought about what kind of resources do we need to put in place in order to capture all these variants that people are seeing in their clinical work. To develop a suite of validated methodologies to collect data and to answer clinical research questions, clinical research interface questions, and then to really think about how to develop qualitative research to understand practitioner experience with genomics, and I know that's something that some of the Emerge groups have already been working pretty hard on. So there were a series of action items in addition to these working groups, which was to convene a CEO of health systems around genomic medicine. We need to think about how to advocate and enable a patient role in this process. We want to be able to share documentation for clinical use of software for sequence analysis, demonstration projects showing cost effectiveness and utility, and that the breakout groups should persist and continue toward the next meeting. We're at the next meeting and we'll hear about the clinical groups, the working groups and what they've done, and I'm now going to turn it over to Teri, who will talk us a little bit about some opportunities for this area of thinking about demonstration projects. So any questions I can answer about genomic medicine too? All right, Teri.