 Okay, we're in the home stretch here for the open session. Next up is the Council-initiated discussion, and again for the new Council members, this is an opportunity for you to tell us important issues that are coming to the fore. If you want reports in future Council meetings, you can suggest them at this time. You are also representatives of the community. So if you hear grumblings or problems that you feel we should be aware of, this is an opportunity to bring that to our attention as well. Well, we also take compliments, right, doesn't have to just be grumblings or problems. If you hear things in the community that are positive, you can share those with us. I think we know what's the old saw that a satisfied customer tells one person but a disgruntled customer tells five or something like that, so we're used to that treatment. It relates to grumblings. This is not specific to genome, but it is something I'm hearing a lot is the complaints that NIH isn't acting as they should when it comes to the, and this is all, I don't know the details. This is what I hear. Oh, it relates to global warming, and there's some talk about that it's no longer can be mentioned in some webpages. I haven't seen any strong evidence, but I see people complaining about that. Wow, okay. I'll try to answer this and just remember this is why they pay me the big bucks. It's sensitive, right? I mean, I think you could imagine a series of topics that in light of the new administration's views that we should probably be very careful to make sure that the broader NIH's research agenda is not viewed to play into positions that would, that the administration, current administration would find unacceptable, and we are part of the executive branch, so we are fully accountable to the current administration, and so there are a number of things that we have to, you know, respect their views about and have to abide by, and mostly what we're, I think that we're trying to do is to not let things on the edges in any way inflame circumstances that would harm NIH's, you know, broader mission and being very concerned about budget and policies and so forth. So I think there are examples some of them are, have been written about in the scientific press, which is probably a better place to at least get some of the facts, or at least a representation of the facts, because they are, they do involve, you know, certain decisions that have been made, or certain things that may or may not be up on webpages and so forth, but it's the practical reality that we are living in now with the new administration who's voted in. They have their positions and attitudes about certain topics, you've named one, there's others. Carol, a compliment. I really like your tie, Eric. Oh, thank you very much. No, so I was wondering how much discussion there is between NHGRI and, say, ORIP in terms of possible projects that have, so the Office of Research Infrastructure, right? So there are some efforts within, there are some efforts within ORIP that seem to complement or synergize with NHGRI. And the component in particular, this is a previous component event of the National Center for Research Resources, you know. So that sort of became into a bunch of fragments and landed in various places as a particular ORIP. Right. So there's a lot of informatics components to what ORIP is currently supporting that links model organisms to disease relevance. And I'm wondering if there's been any discussion with how to, if there's possibilities for synergism, this all goes back in part to the bench, to bedside and back again in the infrastructure that's needed to really advance basic science for clinical impact. And so I'm just wondering if there has been any discussion, it sounds like maybe there hasn't. Well, I'm not sure there's anything, I don't think there's been any direct discussion with ORIP, I can't even remember where it landed. And did it land in GMS or, I mean, you don't even know what institute. I don't know if anybody in the back knows. Oh, it's now, so it's now being administered out of the Common Fund, is that one of these pieces? About a Deep Poughkepsi. So I don't know specifically, Carol. So I mean, if you give us some details, if you think, it's almost sounded like you were describing sort of a data resource. And if true, if so, that could, it may already be getting discussed within broader meetings and strategic planning around data science, but I've not heard anything specific about ORIP. So I, maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'm not seeing anybody in my staff jumping up as if they knew. So maybe you could inform us offline and maybe we could try to dig a little and make sure we're not missing an opportunity, because you're raising that might be an opportunity. So tell us more details offline and we will follow up. Yeah, Trey? Yeah, so given the nice presentation by Larry Tabak this morning about the Next Generation Researchers Initiative, I think it's called, I thought it might be worth having just a little bit of NHGRI-specific discussion. So I think the point at which he said that that analysis that he provided was really for RO1s caused some pause, because in fact this institute has some RO1s, it's my understanding, but mostly not RO1s. And so the broad question would be have you guys done your own analysis along those lines, because it could be really quite insightful. I wonder whether is the problem exacerbated by U01s and U24s, for instance, or anecdotally know quite a few young PIs of U01s at this institute. So ironically it could even go the other way and I would be very interested to know and I'm sure others would do. So let me try to answer your, I don't have an answer to your question. Let me try to respond to what you said. First of all, I think bringing this back to council is sort of maybe what I heard as an action. We're not ready to do this now, but I think maybe as a follow-up. And that would make sense anyway, because what's going to happen is that as this is getting rolled out, it's already happened even for this year, where they said we really hope you can, this is the target we'd love for you to have for our scorecard. And then we had to go look to see how many of those we had already were going to fund and how many we might have to reach for, blah, blah, blah. And so that's going to continue even next fiscal year and beyond. And so we started looking at this and there were even some, I'm just looking at any staff want to jump up to microphones if I don't represent this as well as, there's a lot of work that went on by staff, even dealing with definitions and how they were, because they're doing bulk analysis and all of a sudden there's always a million little exceptions along the way. So just reconciling their data and ours, and so maybe it speaks to your point, is they may do an analysis in a certain way and it may misrepresent some of the unique nuances of our portfolio. So we might even be achieving what they want, even though we may not be getting credit for it. Maybe we're achieving it in a different way, we need to broaden or change their definitions. And maybe that's what you're getting at is to use an NHGRI lens to what they're trying to achieve. Very well said, Aaron. Thank you. So I don't know, Chris, if you want to add to it. I mean, Chris did a lot of work in doing this and we've learned a lot. And we've learned a lot when it was a moving target because recall, it was even had a different three letter abbreviation and then it morphed to something else and we're like trying to play catch up. So we're getting used to this and we're gonna actually have to get more sophisticated because there's gonna be reporting and scrutiny and justification going on. But at the same time, I like what you said is we want to be able to look at this and say maybe we have for our community of researchers ways to achieve the same goals that might, maybe we can influence abroad. Yeah, it would be great to hear that report either in an open or a closed session even and just have a chance to look at the figures as they apply to this institute only. So, Chris, do you want to take a? So we have looked at it for the NHGRI specific data. As you said, our distribution of grant activity types is not exactly typical of NHGRI NIH in general and it's a moving target. So as we learn more, we'll find that. But it's gonna be really important to understand if those criteria are R01 specific and contact PI specific because if we have to start giving out a lot of R01 contact PI grants, that will completely shift the portfolio. I mean, there are a lot of junior faculty who are multi-PI on U01s and we were talking at the break. It's totally unclear to us if those are counting, you know, or even like just take. But it seems clear to us they're not being counted right now, but what's not clear is what they would do if you were to count them. Well, just for example, we just heard about one of the newborn C-wins and grants. Jonathan Berg is a junior faculty member. He was a multi-PI on one of those U01s. And I don't know if that's gonna count or not. There was a guide notice released that went into a little bit of detail on that. They, in brief, they said they would use the same principles that are used for early stage investigators. So all investigators have to qualify for the grant at large to qualify. That is what is in the guide notice. I believe it was limited to RPG grants, which include R01s, but it's a little bit broader than that. So then you wouldn't, those grants would not count. So we will, this would be a good follow-up topic. We continue. It'll be continued at a corporate level. So no matter what, we're gonna have to be tracking this just to find it, thinking about it, so forth. Yeah, Carolyn. But on that same note, and one of the things that came up in what Chris was looking at that I think will be important for us to include with counsel is also to look within NHGRI at who is it that we potentially are leaving on the table, because we actually do relatively well. One of the things that we looked at for FY17 is who were the people, if this policy were more strictly involved. We do already, for R01s, look at early stage investigators and have some of these considerations. So I think that's another aspect to it, is we can't fund an applicant who doesn't fit the definition if we don't have someone there to fund. So I think we're gonna wanna look at that in our portfolio as well. So we can do the analysis. I'll also point out, I think Tabak had cited an increase of 200 investigators with another number, with our budget being 1.7% of the NIH budget. If we pick up three people, I think we'll meet the challenge. Yeah, but I may be to trace point, which I think is really where you're heading is, and we've already seen this, I don't think we're gonna have trouble meeting the numerical goals that building one puts out, the OD puts out, cuz you're right, it's gonna be two or three. We almost made it this year with almost no effort and blindly we made. But with that said, the overall intention is probably one that's worth us thinking about. And then we should look at our community with our suite of grants, our style of doing science and just making sure we're leaving no one behind. All the curves are going the right way, the best we can. Because I think we're sufficiently anomalous that our curves might be a little different than the main NIH curves, which are swamped out, especially by the big institutes. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, and just related to that, maybe there isn't ESI in problem in NHGRI. So maybe, shouldn't it be that each institute should have a certain fraction of total ESI investigators being funded? So, I mean, some institutes may be particularly low, whereas others may be high, and so there may be no need to add anymore. The kind of thing we're gonna want to put right. But again, I'm not against funding ESI, so I'm just saying. And Jay, do you have, Jay's been in more of these conversations because of the ACD involvement. It seems like, I mean, it's just echoing maybe things that were just said, but NHGRI is small enough that, I mean, some kind of hardcore mathematical analysis isn't really gonna bear fruit, just because it's so small, and the number of investigators is small enough that you can, I can imagine a more subjective analysis that's really just focused on looking like, I think people have been saying, for people who are getting left on the table with fundable good science, but not, you know, not getting funded, and who are those people, and do they include young investigators and finding ways to fund them, right? Yeah, I mean, back to something, Eric, I think just underscored. I think the concern isn't so much for this particular mechanism where I think we'd agree it's gonna have a minor impact regardless. But it's the broader spirit of just, I think, you know, council taking stock of, you know, are we making good by junior investigators or are we not making good by junior investigators? And either, you know, looking at trends and whether those trends are stable or not, we'll have to see, but regardless, anecdotally, looking at averages, you know, assess that and decide whether we should do something, or maybe feel good about ourselves. Yeah, exactly. I mean, this topic, I mean, earlier today, much earlier today, we had a brief conversation about the, some of the experiments being done at other institutes, funding investigators more than projects, and we're gonna talk about, I mean, these, these topics actually do intersect. I mean, the question is, is there a population of genomics researchers that we could be helping get on their feet, maintain their feet, et cetera, et cetera, and so these are all, you know, in other experiments we should uniquely do because of the configuration of our portfolio or the uniqueness of the science we do. So I think these are probably joint topics in some ways. Yeah, I wanna, no, we second that, that, I don't think we should, I would prefer not to talk about helping junior faculty, although that sounds nice, what we wanna do is fund the best science and, and if, if funding junior people is, is what gets us there, then that's what we do. But in general, you wanna avoid missing potential groundbreaking research, et cetera. Well, no, no question. The, the, the problem is sort of at the, at the margins. And then, and then sort of a whole set of issues, oh boy, we've talked about this a lot at Institute Directorate, and just sort of these circumstances where probably the review process cannot discriminate between, you know, three or four, but somehow you're about to end somebody's research, academic research career if you're not careful and the scores are right at the edge of fundability. Well, and you can discourage the future generation from entering. I do just think it's very important to think of the law of unintended consequences. No question. And so if, for example, all the investigators have to be early stage, then that will influence how people apply. And so, I mean, these are just the kinds of things I think we should make sure we understand. And because of the size of the Institute, it may not influence us very much, but I can see NIH wide that could have a big influence. And maybe what Raphael is reacting to is I think there is, there is negative and positive measures one can take. Setting a line and saying you have to fund this number of people is unquestionably a negative because you're kicking out excellent proposals. You're leapfrogging excellent proposals to do that. But of course, and we can debate the merits of doing that. But of course, there's positive strategic changes one could make if there is indeed a problem even and we just don't even know. Our second rule. No, we have a 10-second rule. I'm 10 seconds off for talk. I'll finish here. Ah, okay. But he makes up these rules as he goes along. It's pretty random. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.