 Okay, we're on to council initiated discussion. I think you've all seen this before. This is where we turn the microphones over to the council members. And we ask you for any requests that you may have for future reports that would be made at future council meetings. Or if you're aware of problems or concerns in the research field that you think should be brought to our attention. So the floor is open. And we're all ears. While people are thinking about it, I just as a preview and just thinking about the next council meeting or two, I did wanna bring to council's attention that at the May council meeting, we will consume, I don't know, maybe at least an hour and a half or so of the open session for a bit of a, once a decade kind of a deep dive into our intramural research program. I announced this, I think last May actually. But Gail and Lynn are co-chairs of a blue ribbon panel that will take a once in a decade look at our intramural program. Now council spends 99% of its time worrying about the extramural program. But this is a very high level look that is asked to be done on every intramural program once every 10 years. So Lynn and Gail will be presenting the recommendations from that group. And in addition to that couple to it, we will have just a general overview of the intramural program by our scientific director, Charles Rotimi, who has never presented to council. And we try to get the scientific director just giving just updates, you know, every year-ish or every year to two years. And so we're gonna couple those together in May. So that'll be part of the open session in May. But we would love your suggestions about other things you might wanna hear about. Steve, go ahead. Yeah, I know that we have, or not we, I guess we as big NIH has the new NCI director, Monica Burt Magnoli. I was wondering if we could get her on the agenda before everyone else does. So, you know, start building relationships there and dig through what we could hear about her ideas in terms of genomics, applications even like the Pangeeno to understanding cancer mutations and better treatment, ways of getting more money out of the HITCI. We will put her on the list. She's been very public about the fact that she's facing some health challenges right now. So her schedule is particularly challenging, but we could think about, if not in May, we could aim for September, but we will add that to the list. Thank you. Okay, Mark and then Laura. So this doesn't pertain to requests or future meetings, but it's more of an issue that's emerging, I think. And that is that I think for all of our relevant graduate programs that stipends are going up in a pretty good clip. And the issue that worries me a bit is just the gap between the NIH graduate students stipend that's paid on training grants and what we actually pay our graduate students is growing. And that's a particular concern for training grants where we can't just pay off the grant the student at the normal stipend, right? And moreover, our hands are a bit tied in that we can't use federal funding to make up that gap. And so that now puts pressure on investigators and departments and universities to try to fill that gap. I know even with the new NIH stipends here for most of our grad programs, that gap is about $7,000 a student per year and likely to grow too. And this is of course an NIH-wide issue, right? Yeah, does anybody want to speak to this? We can certainly have it on the list to discuss. I see a couple of people going to microphones. Betty, you want to comment or events? Well, the only thing I can say is that Congress decides what the stipend level is, not NIH. So I think in order to get change, this is one of the things that we cannot do here at NIH. It's something that we have no control over. Does anybody know about that? I actually thought, Diana, please come to the microphone. I wasn't sure that was true. I thought it's at least from the intramural side. I know we said maybe on the extramural side they don't. But Diana, what do we know? So there was a, is this on? It's not. It's not. Diana, if you could feel free to come maybe sit next to events and grab that microphone and I'm sure someone will get a camera on you. So there was a report done many years ago by the OIG and it was a special report where they went in and looked at the University of California and what they were paying their graduate students versus their postdocs. And what they found is the graduate students were being paid far and above more than a postdoc was for the same amount of work. So they put into place a rule that the postdoc zero stipend level is the limit that we can provide to graduate students for total compensation that includes stipend, tuition and fees, everything. That's our limit is the zero level and we can't change that. That was a determination made years ago and what we've followed. I was just gonna ask Dr. Hendorf, Lucia Hendorf to maybe make some comments. She's under the training advisory committee for NHGRI. Yes, thanks. I don't have much to add to what Betty said actually. So I think that the stipend levels are set at a level much higher than NHGRI can establish but I do know that I can report that the training advisory committee which is the NIH wide committee of training extra rail program staff has been discussing this a lot. The other thing I would note is that this is an area where I think from being on the outside and now more on the inside progress isn't very incremental. I can say that the decision to add childcare stipends even though they're very modest was just a huge shift in the way that trainee support was viewed. So I think we should look into how to share more of that information with council but I do think that the actual ability to affect larger change is going to be limited. Okay, Laura, go ahead. I wanted to advocate for another institute director with NCATS and Joni Rutter taking on that new position and with the potential that this could help with clinical translation. I think that's a great suggestion. I'm sure Joni would love the opportunity. Judy, go ahead. Yes, I would endorse the Joni Rutter idea. I getting back to kind of trainee salaries, just something to put on people's radar is the increasing unionization of postdocs. The Mount Sinai postdocs voted to unionize or negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement. Columbia has already established that. So there is another stakeholder to consider in the future. Iftikar. Yeah, thanks, Judy. I think Eric mentioned this new policy the where any scientific reports papers coming out of federal funding have to be open access relatively quickly. So does that mean that application fees will may need to be budgeted in the grant applications? I am not the one to try to answer this. I don't know who is necessarily, but what I will say is this is certainly appreciated to be an equilibrium disturbing development that's gonna have to be sorted out, which is gonna involve a combination of how the publishers are gonna handle this and how NIH is gonna have to handle it. And there's a lot of, I think there's a lot of debate and maybe to some extent uncertainty exactly how this is gonna fall out. I know there's a lot of meetings taking place to try to figure this out a little further. Anybody have more insightful answers than that? I don't know how insightful and Deanna may wanna comment, but publication costs have been appropriate in grants in grant budgets in the past. This is just another form of a publication cost, albeit a much higher one. So I would think they could be up. Are you getting up Deanna or? Sorry, say again. We provide what's asked, we don't question the cost. Right. She was saying you provide what's asked. Provide what's asked. What's asked, but of course what's gonna, what's happening now in the ecosystem of journals is huge disparities as to what the costs are, what's involved. And it's really creating this incredibly intense debate around the value of journals, the role of journals and who should be, and should peer reviewers get paid. I mean, it is just getting an incredible discussion at every nook and cranny of the publishing ecosystem. And to me, this is just one more perturbation. This has been going on starting with, you know, PLOS and everything. I mean, this is just a continuation and pre-prints and everything else. And I don't know where it's gonna all land. But, you know, at the end of the day, I mean, I guess my own opinion, but at the end of the day, it does make sense that we have public money going for public research, the results of which should be publicly available. And we have to figure out how to pay for it. I'm gonna bring this to a close. I don't see anyone racing for their mute button. So thank you very much. We will digest this and at least bring some of this back to you at May Council. And beyond.