 Thank you very much, and can I have the slides up please? So as Jeff just mentioned, I am the institutional official at the University of Pittsburgh. I have been involved with research for many years. I am a faculty member. I've been at Pitt for 30 years. And one of the things that people don't often get about institutional leadership is the fact that they are researchers. They've been in the same role as a faculty. They are faculty. I'm still funded to do animal research. So I understand all about it because I do it for a living. Can I have it in the next slide please? So as Jeff also mentioned, I run an office and this is very typical for animal IOs, an office called the Office of Research Protections. And that includes all of our research regulatory functions at the university. Next slide please. And that does include animal research, as well as human subject research, the IRB. And one thing that people often get confused about or concerned about is, oh, human subject work gets a lot more attention than the animal work. What our institution, I think, is pretty typical. We have six times more IRB protocols than we have IACUC protocols. Human subject work is usually more pervasive in an institution, more funding, so it gets more attention. And we are affiliated at our institution with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which has its own communications department that promotes all of the health care that it does. So, of course, human subject research gets more attention. There's a lot more emphasis on it. Our office also includes support and oversight for FDA trials of clinical trials, conflict of interest, stem cell oversight, biosafety, again, gene research, which, again, is controversial, and also safety, like radiation safety. We do research integrity investigations if there's concerns about fabrication of falsification of data, and we do export control and research security. So a whole bunch of things. So, yes, your institutional official is concerned about animal research, but in most places, they're also concerned about a whole bunch of other things. One of my jobs is to pay attention to what's happening and let our communications department know if there is anything going on that's either bad, that may hit the press or good that they need to publicize. So either thing comes to the top. And it's important that I know everything going on so I can do that. Now, most of the bad stuff that happens is not animal research. There's a lot of different kinds of research that go on that can be controversial in addition to animal research. We have been really hammered lately over fetal tissue research as an institution. It's been a real issue for us that we've had to contend with. And we've learned a lot of lessons about communicating for fetal tissue research, clearly a controversial topic that are very applicable to animal research. Very similar strategies you need to take to communicate about these issues. So today in a few slides, I'd like to talk about our strategies for communication at the University of Pittsburgh and to provide some advice to faculty members about communicating about their research. And this is pretty global. It doesn't matter if it's animal or human subject or any any topic at all, things you need to think about and also how to avoid landmines. So we do have a office at Pitt, the Office of University Communications and Marketing, and that office is involved with doing all of the communications that are done on our campus. These are our communication specialists. And one of the things to point out about this office, it's the University Communications and Marketing. It sort of tells you what their job is. It's to sell the university to many different stakeholders, to the public, of course, because we want their support to government. They fund our research. They also are involved since we're a state related institution and providing money for our operational budget. We also want to appease or support the most important audience of all high school students. Why high school students? Because one of the things when I got into this position that I learned that most surprised me is we're a major R1 research institution. We're number three in NIH funding in the country. But tuition is one of our biggest income streams. It's just a few dollars behind research. So getting those students in the door is very, very important. So that's why in a lot of the communications materials, you'll see very happy undergraduate students because they're important. We want more coming in. And I'm not sure if I can play the movie if you could do that for me. So this is actually from the front page of our communications website. Just to tell the world, I mean, this is publicly available, what they do for a living. And they communicate in many different ways, social media, web publications. They do all of the media relations and communications for our institution. So again, they're there to sell the institution. That's their goal. And if you want to work with your communications people, which I advise you to do, bear in mind what their job is there to sell, sell, sell. They're to make there to promote what you do for a living. So anyway, that's what communications do now involved in communications regarding research. And again, communications regarding other issues involves other stakeholders. If it's, you know, about what you do in terms of your athletics program, obviously different stakeholders are involved. But again, if there's communications about research, and this doesn't always apply, sometimes if it's a fairly simple communication, Combs just handles it. But if it's something complicated or potentially controversial, they're going to go, they're going to talk with scientists. They're going to talk with the scientists, bosses, a dean or department chair. If it's a regulatory thing and research, they'll come to me as the institutional official. And I will talk with our animal program. If it's animal research or our IRB folks, if it's human subject research, legal counsel gets involved looking at legal issues and our government relations people get involved in terms of how this will impact our funding from the government. A number of people play a role in looking at our communication strategies. And again, not everything, but sensitive things, crisis communications, a whole bunch of people look at. Now at Pitt, I think we've been very, very transparent about our animal research. We'll make it very clear that we do it. We have a website, animalresearch.pitt.edu. I encourage you to go to it, look at it. It's a pretty extensive site. We periodically put out emails and ask our researchers, do you want to be basically focused on on this website? Do you want to highlight your research on our website about animal research? It's public facing. It's there. Now, we've also dealt with the press quite a bit in terms of even allowing the press in. I mean, we're talking about major press coming in with cameras into the animal facility, photographing animals. Now, this is always clear, very carefully curated with our comms department, making sure they know exactly what their limitations are and coming into your facility and photographing. But we've been on Vice TV with non-human primates. There's also been a story on 60 Minutes. It's been a while back about our in terms of our brain interfaces and what we're doing in that area. And we're also in a sort of a segue between what we're doing with animal research and human subject research. So the things that our comms department really focuses on when they are thinking about communications or advising faculty about communications. It's, first of all, they want to promote the university. How is this going to affect the reputation of the university? Is this a good story to advance our reputation? So a good animal research story is one of the things that they want to promote. But it has to be a good story. And I think the most effective stories out there are when there is a clinical trial or there's a cure. Here's a cure. And look how we got there. That makes it very clear to people that this animal research leads to cures. I think that's very useful. As I've said, your comms department wants to market you. They want to sell you to the public and to those high school students to get them to come in and give you tuition dollars. We also look at legal ramifications of things that are going on, particularly with crisis communications. Now, if it's known that there's an investigation going on, for example, often the feedback is we don't comment if an investigation is ongoing. And that's the perfect response. If an investigation is ongoing, you don't have the facts. So why start spouting information you don't know? So you have to be very careful if you know that a legal investigation is going on. There are legal ramifications. Law enforcement gets very angry if you confound their investigation by going public. And then you also look at security concerns. You don't want to put information out there that a nefarious party could use to violate your facilities or target an individual. So you really shouldn't showcase an investigator's research, particularly animal research, if they're uncomfortable with it being out there. You need to get their permission to do it. And we've seen people that are reluctant to have their research publicized. Don't do it then. I mean, if the scientist doesn't want it done, then you shouldn't do it. You shouldn't force it down their throat. So when we advise faculty on things to consider when they are talking about their research is know who you're talking to and temper your approach accordingly. Now, this we've mentioned this several times during this meeting that some of the best ways of advocating for animal research is you're not going to the media, but talking to your neighbors, your family, etc. We've seen in social movements that's the most effective communication. You win people over one at a time, person to person. And with the holidays coming up, we're going to be interacting with family a lot in the next week, golden opportunity to sell animal research. And that's how you do it. And we've seen this being the most effective communication route. The other thing, and we've learned this from fetal tissue research, a truly adversarial audience will not be swayed by your arguments. By talking with them there, you're just giving them ammunition to use against you. You know, so if you know that a publication is going to be very adversarial to your work, why talk with them? They're not going to spend it positively ever. So be careful who you talk to. So we have complete academic freedom at the University of Pittsburgh. Faculty can talk to anybody they want to. But we also tell them that you can speak for yourself and not the institution. You can't say, University of Pittsburgh supports this viewpoint. Our chancellor can. I can't, you know, unless I'm specifically authorized to do that. That's an important point. You don't speak for your institution, you speak for yourself. One of the things when I started being interviewed about my research most disappointed me is a reporter would talk with me for an hour. And my name wouldn't be in the article or one sentence. And it's usually the sentence I didn't want quoted was quoted, you know, it's like that's what happens. A reporter may talk to 40 people to get their story, 40 scientists. And you may help inform the article, but you may not be a prominent part of the article. And that's an expectation you need to actually be aware of. And as I've mentioned in a question earlier, you may actually be embargoed about what you can say about your project. If you're funded by industry and there's proprietary information coming out of your study, you may be restricted on what you can say about it. And you have to really respect the agreement that's in place. And as I mentioned, research security is becoming a bigger deal. So the government wants you to be open, but it also wants you to secure your data. And it's a very, it's a tight road that people are going to have to walk in the future. So that's another concern that we have. You know, I encourage people not to talk a lot about unpublished data, because we've seen instances of people stealing their research. You don't want that to happen, right? So you talk about your published studies. And again, respect funding. If there are restrictions on communications, you need to honor them. And again, some things that we tell people to avoid landmines, consult with your communications department prior to agreeing to give an interview. Most people don't even know who their communications department is, even though they look at their stuff every day on their computer. They look at all the stuff that they put out. But the communications department can give you good advice, including this is a very adversarial media outlet. You may not want to talk with them. So they can really give you good advice. And if you're particularly be talking on camera to a major news outlet, let your comms department negotiate this for you. They know what restrictions to put into place, how the best practices that should be there. You don't, you may not think of anything. So let them negotiate. More and more of these interviews are on Zoom. And one trick I learned, let your comms department do it. Set it up. So it's your Zoom, not the media Zoom that you're on. Then you control it. If there's chat messages or whatever, you get them, they don't. So that's an important thing to consider. Again, media training is important for faculty, particularly if they're going on camera to give an interview. And our communications department offers it. And of course, you should never let people enter the animal facility or come into your lab without permission. There's security concerns there. Again, if you are involved in an investigation or somebody's actually looking at your work, you know, you've been targeted by an animal rights group, you may not be the best person to talk about this. You're going to be on defense the entire time. Let somebody else defend you in those cases. Make sure your funding source is comfortable with what you're discussing. And the other thing that we've learned yesterday is reporters may be much more interested in telling a good story than getting the details right. So remember what their perspective is. And I think that's important as well. They're not there to tell your story. They're there to tell a good story that's going to quote sell newspapers. And that's all I had in terms of the slides. And I think now we have some interview questions. Yes. So this session's a little different. Bill and I will be somebody, not from an adverse media, but interviewing Bill. And I should, in full transparency, say my daughter went to pit. So it has my money. It was a very good school. So, all right, Bill, you covered a lot of some of the questions I was going to ask. But how about has anything changed at pit when you've embraced a more open environment regarding animal research? You know, we've been much more open for a few years. Now, I think we've always been open, but again, it was about three or four years ago we put up our animal research website. And I do think we do encourage people to talk about their work. And we do have articles out there about animal research quite often, you know, during that we did a lot of the COVID work at our institution during the pandemic. And we had folks from our vaccine institute out there all the time talking about their work. So we are open. We coach people on how best to sell their work to the public, talk to about their work to the public. But we are, I think, pretty open about everything. So would you say that it lends itself to a more, not relaxed, but more engaged environment? I think it does. I mean, I think we're pretty engaged. And we encourage our scientists to be very engaged with the public. So what would advice you'd give others who are taking institutional buy-in and maybe don't have it yet for expanding communications about their animal programs and research? Again, I think you need to be able, I mean, you tell people that you want to sell it in the right way. You need to be very open and honest about what's going on. And I think it works. Point people to places like us that do have our websites, and we are open about the research that we do. They might get started by dealing with, and your comms department at a university knows who's going to be friendly to you. You know, start by engaging friendly media outlets that you know are going to be helpful and not harmful. So I mean, those are things that you might do. And you mentioned you had the slide with all the different responsibilities you have and there's people at other universities similar type positions. So does it take a crisis to get engagement and change or can it happen differently? Well, a crisis always focuses here. So there's a lot more attention to a particular topic during a crisis. It's not the best time to tell your story because you're going to be by definition on defense simply because people are accusing you of doing things. And again, we did have some problems in terms of an infiltration that happened a number of years ago. And that did encourage us to be more open about what we did. It really taught us, yeah, we have to be more proactive about our communication strategy. So it did help us be more proactive at that point. So any advice on when leadership changes and you have to educate new senior leaders or like if yourself should leave, how do you keep the continuum going? So again, it's always a challenge because a number of folks are involved in the whole communication strategy. As I've said, there's attorneys, their government relations folks, your comms director, and they turn over all the time. So there is turnover. You just need to meet with people and talk with them and really try to get the very top institutional buy into what you're doing. And the last question is people often say, you know, public institutions have it harder than private institutions because the public institutions get funding and you know, they're FOIA. What do you have to say about that? Again, it may go the other way because if you're a public institution and everything's publicly available already, then there's a good reason you should be open about the research you do because everyone knows about it already. Private institutions may want to be a little bit more cautious because a lot of their information is protected. It's not out there and they may be more reluctant to share. So I think it's important for everyone to be judicious in the information they share with the public. You know, if I was a private, in Pennsylvania, we have an affiliation with the state but our open records laws don't force us to, for example, put a meeting minutes out. And so we don't. You know, I think that it's okay to be somewhat protective of certain materials because that allows free dialogue during meetings. You know, you do want confidential discussions to be frank and open. So if you have to put them out there, it may constrain communications a bit. Well, thanks, Bill. I'm going to turn it over to Jeff and Allison. Yes. Thank you so much. We now have a brief video of Bill, an inter conversation that he had with Lana Rivolo-Grasser, who is a postdoctoral fellow with the Neuroscience and Novel Therapeutics Unit within the Emotion and Development Branch of the National Institutes of Mental Health. So Dr. Yates, I've been approached by some media outlets who are interested in having me speak on the animal research that we're doing in our lab and at our institution. Is there institutional support for me to be able to do this? Sure. And our communications department will definitely work with you and help you and give you advice on how to do this. And some of the things to think about initially are first, who are you talking with? Because some media outlets may be adversarial to animal research or what you're doing. And then you may not want to engage with them because whatever you say is not going to be posed or relate in a very positive way. You need to actually know your audience and know who you're talking with. And you may not want to engage if you know that who you're talking with is going to just try to misuse what you say. We also give media training to actually help you talk with the press in the best possible way. If this is going to be a print article, often or a website article, they will likely be talking to a number of people on a particular topic and they'll take quotes from your interview. They may take one sentence from an hour interview. So that's why choosing words very carefully throughout the interview is very, very important. Because often they'll take the sentence out of the interview that you least want them to publish. So you have to remember that as well. Another important thing to remember is what does your research funding contract say? Because some research actually is you can't make public statements about it without the funding agency approval. That's just maybe in your funding agreement. So you need to check with that. Sometimes your results are embargoed by, for example, a commercial sponsor. So they need to approve anything you say. So make sure that you can actually speak on the topic legally. Now, if you've been targeted for in terms of the research that you've done, if you've actually been accused of wrongdoing, for example, you may not be the right person to defend yourself because you're going to be in a basically in a bad position if you talk with a press, for example, if there was a report to O law about non-compliance in your research and that was obtained by a group through FOIA, you may be very concerned that the press may actually be very adversarial. So you would not want to defend yourself. You would want the institution or somebody else to defend yourself. So think about the situation, but certainly the institution can help you in terms of navigating the press. That sounds great. And I am wondering, what are those institutional protections that they have in place in case there is some sort of retaliation or aggression from maybe not only a media outlet, but folks who are reading what's published there? So again, that's possible. People do have free speech rights. So often people will come to me and say, well, I got a negative email from a person who's opposed to my animal research. And we also not to the police department and they'll look at it. And again, if they just say that we don't, I don't support your research. I think it's bad. I think it's cruel. Nothing we can do about it. That's free speech. People can criticize you. If there is any threat of violence against you, then certainly that's something that law enforcement will get involved with. So you do need to know your chain of communication, who to go to. Often you may start with the IACUC chair and they'll point you to the police department or an equivalent at your institution who will basically give you security advice. Thank you. That's really helpful. And now what if I notice something that's going on at my institution that I want to make institutional leadership aware of so we can always be ensuring the welfare of animals in our work and avoid any negative consequences for both our science and our institution. So you're talking about an incident that you think is inappropriate. There's a problem. So by regulation and law, the IACUC has to consider any concerns. And in fact, there must be avenues at your institution to report noncompliance. So we have in our institution signs in every animal facility and in fact every animal use site about where you go to if you have any concerns about animal research. So the information's out there. You go to one of the contacts there and there's also mechanisms to report things anonymously. And you can rest assure that the IACIC will take it very seriously and we'll do an investigation. That's great. And if I'm asked about those types of investigations that are happening outside of my own work at the institution, is the recommendation like you said to not defend and to lean on the institution support to handle those types of queries? Again, if you're asked about a noncompliance event at your institution, you probably will know nothing about what the institution is doing. You may think your institution's doing nothing when in fact they're doing a lot because obviously these investigations are confidential to protect people that may be innocent, including whistleblowers. So you're never going to know exactly what's going on in the background. Allow your institution to take the lead in commenting. Often the institution's going to say, we don't know what's happening yet. We're still investigating and we can't comment until the investigation is done. And I have one last question for you, Dr. Yates. I'm curious how we handle visits from legislators or other lawmakers who might be interested in seeing the work of our university that might intersect with visiting animal facilities. So your university likely has a government affairs staff and that staff, that search job is to interface with government. And so if you are contacted by an office, a congressional office, for example, you should go to your government affairs people and they'll help you navigate that. And they'll give you advice on how to deal with it. They probably will want to be involved in this whole endeavor. And if you think that it would be helpful to have a legislator who's negative to animal research visit your institution. Again, your government affairs staff would be the people that would help arrange that. They have the contacts and conduits to make it happen. And at our institution, we have actually brought in congressmen into our animal facility and shown them around. And I think that can be helpful if it's done appropriately. Of course, it would be a big security breach if you tried to do this on your own. You get into trouble because you don't have authority to bring visitors into the animal facility without your permission. And it sounds like that's a way that we always make sure that the animals are being protected as well to monitor who's interacting with them. Right, you do not want strangers in the animal facility at any time. You need to go through official channels. But again, you have a large staff at your university, a lot of very trained professionals who are expert in dealing with the press, with the government, et cetera, and make good use of them, make use of their expertise, and they can give you good advice. Definitely will do. Thank you, Dr. Gates. It looks like the responses are slowing down if we wanted to share the results. So it looks like many thought that the conversation was constructive and effective. And if you found it frustrating, unhelpful or inadequate, I think I'd like to pass it off to Bill and Lana to talk about how they thought the conversation went. Again, I think it went okay. These things are interesting. This was actually an unscripted conversation, so it was really off the cuff. But there are lots of resources out there. I think that was the main point to make that investigators can go to at their institution to help them navigate how to communicate with the public about any topic or how to deal with the government on any topic. That's really key. You really do need to know work with the professionals who really are expert in these areas. Yeah, Bill in this case represented an institutional leader who was really supportive and informative, right? Had all the facts to share with us, able to connect with the right people who to get advice from. We were also talking about this a little more after and thinking through the other points of advice he shared were to have communications personnel, the communications team that he referred to in his slides on the call, if possible with you. They can always advise and kind of monitor how the conversation is going. One of the things then that I was reflecting on and watching this was, again, a very positive leader, supportive leader here, right? What if you have an institutional leader who is not supportive of outward communication or maybe animal research more specifically? You know, I don't think that's going to happen very often. I think most institutional leaders who oversee animal research programs are going to be very supportive of them. They know that the importance of those programs to their institution. More and more we're seeing in laboratories that people aren't just doing animal research or human subject research, they're doing both. They're very interested in being translational. And people notice that, that the fact that you do with the animal research to move to human subject research, to move to a cure. There's a continuum and more and more labs are involved in that continuum. So people know that. They know the importance of this research. So Lana, what did you find hard or difficult to, in that conversation? And how, now that you've done it, how would you suggest preparing for a conversation like that with, for someone else who has to talk to their institutional official? That's a great question. So one of the points of advice that Bill had shared with me was to do an adversarial mock interview for when you're speaking with the public, with whatever the target audience might be, like in case you were to encounter pushback. And I think, you know, he just shared that most of the time chairs institutional leadership are going to be supportive, right? Because they're overseeing these types of research programs for a reason. But even if it is a supportive leader, having an opportunity to practice what that conversation is going to be, perhaps with another colleague who's gone through the process before, to make sure even that you're asking the right questions, right? There were things when we were viewing this video back, thinking about, oh, I should have asked who else can be on the call with me if there are any legal teams or communications folks that can join. And I forgot to ask that. So being mindful and just preparing for the conversation, talking it through with someone else so that you don't miss any important points that you might want to hit, and also being prepared with all of the facts and the information. So again, Bill talked a lot about the importance of knowing the outlet that you might be speaking to. So have you read pieces in that outlet that have been written before? Do you have an understanding of who their target audience is and what their goals are and being able to bring that information to the conversation? And your comms team, again, probably knows at least locally who all the outlets are, who's going to be friendly and who's going to be adversarial. That's why they're such a good resource. Thank you both. So this morning, we spent a lot of time talking about openness and the ways we are moving forward in that space. However, sometimes it can still feel like an institution being open is the exception, rather than the rule. And there is often a safety and numbers element that can make people feel comfortable. Do you think that this could be achieved through some sort of official mandate to provide, say, annual reports on animal research information? Well, we do. I mean, at least for large animals, we send those to the USDA. We have to. So that's already covered. You know, in terms of rodents, we actually can estimate the number of rodents we have because we know how many cages are there every day. We don't actually count the number of rodents. That's actually not required. So, but in terms of some aspects of your program, you may not want to be open. There's proprietary things that go on. And I think if an institution, if an entity is getting, for example, a lot of commercial studies, that's what they're basically doing. They may be inclined to be less open because the people that are paying their bills are actually giving them research don't want them to be so open about the work. There are a lot of considerations. I'd like to encourage our virtual audience. If you have questions, please post them in the Q&A. Alice. So I agree with everything that you've said and doc creates. But I've also run into institutions where I've heard the very frustrating response, don't poke the bear. We're just going to let this go and it'll go away. Especially when things have calmed down a little bit. And I'm thinking, this is our chance to get the story out there. And they say, no, no, no, no, no, don't go there. And this is the calms people who are telling me and who are advising the institutional leadership. When you hear that kind of thing, do you have any suggestions for how, and they also don't want to talk about it for very long. So do you have any suggestions for how to get through to people that there may be a different way to think about this? Again, I think there is institutional turnover that occurs. So I think it's important if you're having pushback at your institution, encourage the folks that are pushing back to talk to people at other institutions to get their perspective. I think that's very important. You may have, for example, a person in your council's office, a lawyer who is not so familiar with this topic because they have a lot to worry about in a council's office at a university. And go to an attorney at an institution that's more open. Get their perspective. I think that's the key. Bill, if I could, what steps were needed to create your animal research website, like what offices and departments were involved and how did that come about? So our comms department wanted to do it. So our comms department said, this is important now to make sure that we have a site that we can point people to who are concerned about our animal research. So they led it. Then they came to the animal facility folks, intending veterinarian me, others to actually get content for it. They looked, they highlighted Americans for Medical Progress because our former comms director when that site was created was a big advocate for that group and got information from their site. And then, of course, more recently, we've actually put out email solicitations to investigators, do you want your work focused here and focused on here? And you'll see a number of work from a number of investigators that's out there. And that's because the investigator said, yeah, I want my work featured here. So I think that's important. Now, sometimes investigators are more reluctant to be on websites like that because they're afraid of targeting and other things. So you also then need to bear that in mind. If they don't want to be out there, then you shouldn't push them into the limelight. Great. Thank you so much. So going back to the openness topic, because we've had a lot of discussion about that today, what advice would you have for other institutional officials as they consider movements like the USRO initiative when they're doing their internal calculus of whether or not to formally join something like that or to do it more informally? I do think that institutions, this is a new initiative. And I think it's safety in numbers. I think it would be very effective to have a campaign to try to get a lot of people to informally sign on before they formally sign on. If there's a lot of institutions think this is a good idea, but I don't want to be by myself, then that's a good way of getting a lot of people on at the same time. You just need to have buy-in in the background before you have buy-in in the foreground. Nicole? So you've talked about work that you can't speak about proprietary projects and things like that. And I was curious about your thoughts in some cases, and this has been for audiences of scientific audiences, we've been able to gather people where they're not actually talking about the science itself, a compound or the actual experiment, but rather the care of a specific model or the importance of a specific model. Have you had experience where you have a study where it's exciting and you can't talk about the actual research, but you're able to at least talk about the uniqueness of the model that's being investigated or the nuances of the care and whether that is something that we could be more open about? I think being generally open is very useful. I think it's important to do easy to do. I mean, if there's restrictions because of proprietary concerns about particular research, they just don't want you talking about the data, the exact results from the study or what drug you're studying, for example, what compound, not about the general aspects of the research. And I have one last question, but if anyone else has a question, please post it and we'll ask. So for our faculty, our scientists, how do you recommend they prepare themselves to come to your office to ask about, that I'd like to start an initiative, I'd like to make sure that you are pretty open, but say their institution is not, how do you prepare them for that conversation? Or what advice do you have for them? Again, you need to know your institutional leadership and their background. You know, I'm open about this because I've been an animal scientist my whole career. I've been on AMP's board for 20 years. So I'm open to this stuff because that's just my background. If your leader is from a different background, I think you really just need to do benchmarking. That's really what cells institutions is. This is what other people do. We're not playing the same game as other people, including very reputable institutions. So we need to actually step up to the plate and be just as reputable and open as they are, because that's the norm, not what we do. You need to have the data to back up your arguments. So oftentimes folks that might be concerned or might want to have conversations with their institutional official about these topics are not senior investigators. Some of them might be earlier in their career. They might have other positions in the facility. How would you empower them to seek out their institutional officials specifically? So again, you just need to know who they are. They're largely scientists. Most people that work up to research oversight roles were researchers themselves. That's what gave them the background to do that job. So I think you basically tell people, don't be afraid of them. They're open to discussion. And that's a concern. People actually, because I've been at my institution for 30 years, it's a little different because everybody knows me. So it's like when I go to a meeting, I have to leave an hour early because I'm going to encounter people in the hallway that want to talk with me. But again, if you don't know your institutional official, first of all, get to know them. Schedule a meeting. It's not frightening. And also really encourage your institutional leadership to get out there and meet people. That's part of their job as well. Paula? Dr. Grasser, I just have a question for you. Could you provide some, just your experience? So I know you've done stuff and has to do things. Can you provide any insights on your experience in accessing conversations with institutional officials to do something in outreach or communications? Yes, of course. So I think there's been a few intersecting questions about what if I'm an early career person, I don't quite know where to start. Also talking about maybe not reinventing the wheel and following models of other successful institutions if you're lacking something. One thing that you could definitely leverage and bring to your institutional leadership is the idea of hosting a BRAD event. So BRAD is Biomedical Research Awareness Day. We usually celebrate BRAD on the third Thursday of every April, although of course it doesn't have to be that day. It can be whatever day works for you and your institution. If you sign up and register, and I'll of course make sure that Nia gets all of this information so that she can share it out with everyone. And if you sign up and register, we'll send you a toolkit with everything you need to host an event at your institution, perhaps to educate other fellow scientists as well as staff around your university about the work that's being done and to celebrate all of the many people who are involved in making that research possible. You can also do outward community-facing events with places like schools or a community center to provide some of that education. So the resources are there, and I think if you can show, look at the success of these events. They're occurring all over the country, all over the world. That can be a great place to start and to know that their support even above and beyond what your university is offering as well. I would also say taking some time to participate in events like this to learn effective communication skills is really important. And it's a great area to invest time in for trainees really for graduate students and postdocs, even if you are feeling that you might not have the bandwidth to put on an event or take a conversation forward in a certain way. It's so important for our trainees to be educated in science communication and have that skill going forward. So hopefully that's something that time can be dedicated towards as well. Excellent. Thank you so much, Dr. Yates, Dr. Grassner, and all participants.