 The first would be how biologists or genomicists, geneticists do science. It's the model of consortium and collaboration, which was a big change. Most of us at that time were working in small labs doing small individual projects. And the coordination of that activity of the human genome project brought all these expertise from sequence technology to computational to experimental to disease genetic variation all in one room. That was a big impact. The other two big issues for me, I think in terms of changing the field was this shift from focusing always on the gene to actually the entire genome. And to be fair, we're just at the point now that we're finally finishing the human genome project after all these years. But the emphasis outside of coding sequence is actually critical, I think, for understanding genetic variation. And then the last, I guess for me would be, and it's related, is this idea of the pattern or complexity of genetic variation. The fact that all the differences that exist between two humans isn't just a single base pair that involves structural changes, complex copy number, polymorphisms. And what's to me most exciting is those more complex variants, which have been sometimes the last to be characterized, are the ones that are not really playing a role in human disease, which many of us would have predicted a couple of decades ago, but they're also playing a role in what makes us specifically human. So in coding new genes, new duplicate genes that seem to be important in terms of the function of the brain. That to me is probably one of the most exciting legacies of the human genome project. And if we had focused just on the genes back in the 1980s and 90s and not on the full genome, none of this would have become transparent.