 Comparative and evolutionary genomics, this program would encourage investigator initiated applications for comparative and evolutionary genomics projects. We have in mind that they be of wide scope and high general interest to the NIH community and in doing so they need to address fundamental questions about genome biology, evolution and or function. And that's very vague. I want to give some examples of the kind of thing we mean. I'll start with the kind of thing we don't mean. Some organism may be a critically important experimental model system and not have a sequence yet. We don't mean that. We mean investigator initiated hypothesis-driven research, comparative and evolutionary genomics research that requires a lot of sequencing, so characterizing basic comparative features of genome structure, duplications, repeats, etc., resolving conserved regulatory sequences in human compared to other genomes and making inferences about functions, another whole area. Discovering either genomic innovations or the genomic basis of phenotypic innovations, whether that's the origins of multicellularity or the origins of the adaptive immune system, although there are questions that are addressed over a shorter evolutionary time scale, differences between closely related species or even among individuals in the same species. So that's this kind of scope that we're looking for. We think, we anticipate that most of these proposals would involve animal genomes. Some may involve fungal, some may involve protist, but probably not others. Again, most of these we expect, in fact, all of them we expect to be multi-species or multiple individuals within a population. We would deprioritize those with a narrow focus, more appropriate to another institute, some other institutes do have an area of interest in very specific parts of this. And we would prioritize those with some relevance to human biomedical research. There are no direct overlaps with other programs. We have no announced mechanism to consider programs for organismal sequencing. We had sent a big signal that we were no longer going to be doing that for a couple of reasons we needed to focus on disease, and we also thought that a lot of comparative genomics would be picked up by others. And some has, you saw in the Eric's, in the director's presentation, for example, that a whole bunch of birds have been sequenced. We wouldn't have done all of those because it's a different kind of question than we're interested in. The problem is going on, but not a lot of the kind that I talked about within NIH. And there's tremendous opportunity for synergy with the functional genomics program. The mechanism we're proposing is a PAR, which just means we're going to announce that we're interested in investigator R01 applications. It allows for a written FOA. We can put some definition on what we want. It allows for a single review date. It allows for applications to be reviewed together and by a study section convened by NHGRI. We would consider a second release a year on, depending on what kind of response we get. Although we don't propose to set aside any funds. We could set aside funds, but we're not proposing to set aside funds. We estimate that the activity will require about $2 million a year, and that would cover one or two awards and be sufficient for, this would be three year awards. So are there any comments on this idea, Joe? Yeah, so you're really talking about, are you really talking about whole genome sequencing or could proposals can go beyond that? So, well, I want to have all the regulatory, I want to also look at the conserved regulatory elements by capturing, you know, I don't know, ATEC-seq reads or something, across those to complement the genome sequencing. As long as it was all of a piece with the fundamental driving question, I don't see why not. Any other comments, questions? So, Adam, David here. A question which sort of connects back to the clearance that we just approved, which is sort of the question of the anticipated quality of the products. I mean, my sense is that the community that relies upon genome reference sequences sort of outside of primates is everybody is interested in quality, as is the community that's focused on non-human primates. And I think the notion of quality in, you know, as genomes get sequenced these days, I think the notions of quality have really largely fallen by the wayside. And I think what this proposal is about, you know, that piece of it I think could use some clarification. Yeah, and that's an important point. And sort of related to that point is we would not ask these grantees to do early deposit. Certainly they would have to deposit their data with the recognition that the data would need to be used as a resource if the constraints would be less than they would be for a top-down managed program at NHGRI. But, David, I don't, I think that the spirit of this doesn't make very high quality reference genomes the first, I think it's important where people are aiming to produce high quality genomes in service of the questions that they ask. But if they're just, if they're just proposing some lower coverage, I think that would be okay. So it would be hesitant to, it would be a factor, but it would be hesitant to make it a primary driver. Yeah, Carlos? So is there a reason that, let's imagine you want to allocate $2 million to this and you're going to do it through investigator-initiated RO-1s. Why not just open that up and if there are eight good RO-1s, I get funded at the $400,000 or $500,000 level, right? Because you can imagine lots of different groups may come in with different sets of samples, different groups that they want to, this is such an important area that I think the notion that you're going to get economies of scale by giving two awards each of a million dollars may actually be incorrect given that what you really may want to do is fund a couple of different groups or five, six groups that are focusing on different critters for different reasons and then organize them as a sort of loose consortia or something like that. I might be, just keep that in the back of your head that unlike what you would normally get from economies of scale, this might be one where throwing out and having a bunch of different funded projects might actually, you know, get more done and energize the community more than producing a sort of single resource that's going to get used by everybody, right? Sort of like when we did the low coverage mammalian genomes, it was like this very specific, you know, if what you want to do is figure out the ancestral state of the base, then 2x genome sequencing is the optimal amount, but it's only for that problem, right? If you actually want to, you know, do good mammalian genomics, you want much better set of genomes and you may want to, you know, spread it out in different ways. And so I would make this more open so that the community can really respond and maybe come in with, you know, things that might surprise us. Just to put it out there, I don't know how others feel about it. I think that's an excellent point and I would concur. Yeah, I agree. I think this is one of those that you're not sure what the scale is going to give you and you could get a bunch of good proposals and say, wow, this is, you know, this is what we should have cut these into a quarter of the size and given it to, you know. I mean, David Page here, I think it's worth recognizing this is an area, you know, as the concept clearance discussed, where NHGRI used to make investments but has not made investments for some time. And where, you know, in all honesty, I think that the extramural community who's interested in this set of questions has turned their attention elsewhere. And so I think that actually having this pretty clearly articulated and in fact being prepared for the possibility of, if properly advertised, preparing yourself for the possibility of an overwhelming number of applications might bear consideration at this point. Lisa? Adam, do you want to explain what the funding is for this? I'm not sure. I'm not sure what you mean. What I mean is that there's no dedicated funding for this. Yeah, yeah, there's no. It would come from the unsolicited pools for the 15 million a year we were talking about. This would come out of that. So obviously, you know, the current plan would be that we compare these against all the competing research. But if we get a lot of good ones, then that squeezes all the rest of the programs. That's a, some way it's a good problem. So David, did you hear that comment? Well, the comment, yeah, yes, I did. Thank you. Okay. He's had trouble hearing that microphone. That's why I asked him. Anything else, Adam? Yeah, sounds like it. Thank you. No other comments from Adam? Again, we're not taking a vote on this. I don't think it's necessary unless there are, unless there are larger summarizing thoughts. Anybody wants to? Okay. Next up is the biennial report on inclusion of women and minorities. The open session agenda identifies Rong Ling and Jackie Odgis. But Jackie's going to be the sole presenter today. This is why are we doing this? This is a mandate from Congress that says that we have to report. Actually, the legislation says that the council is supposed to prepare the report. We do it for you as a courtesy, which is why we're going to ask you at the end of this to accept the report in the form of a vote. So it comes to you every two years, and Jackie.