 Okay, moving right along, it's time for a council-initiated discussion, and again for the new council members, everything that's happened thus far has been determined by NHGRI. We've set the agenda. At this point, we're sort of turning the microphones back towards the council, asking you are there reports that you want to hear from us at future council meetings? Or since you are representatives of the research community, are there issues that you hear, maybe nascent issues, maybe things that are about to boil over or explode that you want to bring to our attention? So it could be a discussion right now, or it could be a request for us to do a little research, perhaps even bring in outside speakers to address the concern that you may have. Carol. So Eric, in your overview, you talked a little bit about the data science strategic plan and the fact that there are currently ongoing discussions across NIH about de-implementation. Is there a time frame for those discussions? Can you say a little bit more on where they are and what the plans are for rolling out potentially new mechanisms of funding based on that strategic plan? Yeah, I don't know all the details. I'm looking at others to see if they have. Here's what we do know is that Congress is asking us to regularly update them. So it's not even just us dealing with us. This is actually so this is a plan they requested and then they want regular types, I forgot the frequency of them, but I think it's fairly frequent. The there's you made a statement at the end as if there's going to be new funding and blah, blah, blah. I mean, that that might be an outcome out of this. But that's not an that's not a guarantee. All that's all that's when I this the implementation plan is very much geared towards making sure that this strategic plan is not just something that's out there that doesn't sort of carry much weight doesn't do much is just sort of a feel good document. And so the idea is and they're literally are meetings going on. Actually, I just missed one this morning because I'm here where they're trying to go literally component by component of the strategic plan. And sort of and detail what's already happening because a lot of stuff is already happening, but also to try to coordinate it and then try to find gaps and then try to come up with a plan of what how are we going to achieve that there's nothing I'm going now. So a lot of this is very much about just trying to get a better understanding about what's happening and better coordinating it as one broad framework. But I don't want to over promise to lead you to believe there's going to be a series of FOAs or anything and like that. I just think there's going to be a much better understanding about all the moving parts of data science at NIH. It was one of the main the grand ideas behind a strategic plan. I don't found anything you want to add to that. Yeah. So what is happening right now is that there are a number of working groups by this program officers across the NIH are coming together to try to handle every one of the objectives in the strategic plan and come up with some implementation concretes implementation steps to take with proposal for timelines and milestones and so on. So this is happening as we speak right now. I think the plan is the general plan is to bring back these proposals from across NIH back to the scientific data council sometime in the middle of October. I think that the SDC is supposed to deliver to Congress the concrete steps whatever they decide to do later in October. And then we'll take it from there. Great. Thank you. Can you remind me who's on the scientific data council? Besides me. So it's I don't know if I got to quickly put you a pickly poll. So John Lorge and Steve Katz co-chair it. It has people like Patty Brendan, the head of NLM, Jim Anderson, head of the Common Fund and other things. Myself, who else is on there? Oh, Andrea Norris who's the head of the Center for Information Technology. J.J. McGowan. J.J. McGowan is the executive director of NIAID. I think it's all I'm sure it's public. I mean, I should probably could Google it and find the roster. I think that's most of the people. I know I'm forgetting a couple. Somebody from NCI, is it Tony Karlovich? I think from NCI. Yeah. Who did I miss? Don't do it that way. Oh, yeah. Who else is on there? Yeah, who else is on there? I'm going to go down from the top. So co-chaired by John Lorge and Steve Katz, members, Jim Anderson, Patty Brennan, Eric Dishman. Dishman. All of us. Just got out of it. You said that better than I would. Etch-a-bara-garray? I don't know. Michael Goddisman, Jill Heems-Kirk from NIBIB, Alan Koretsky from NINDS, Anthony Kirlavage from NCI, Mike Lauer from Extramural, J.J. McGowan from NIAID, Andrea Norris from CIT, Jim Ostell from NCBI, and Belinda Sito. Right. Yeah, I did pretty well, but not perfect by any means. A few of those just got added recently, by the way. Not that I'm making an excuse, but that wasn't the purpose of saying that. There was a recognition that just about three or four months ago that there were some major blind spots on the committee. And so they got added, because we just kept talking about those programs or those areas. And so we added more people. Who was? Rafael. Oh, Rafael. So I have a suggestion for the data comments. And it's that you let us test it out as early as possible before making too many final decisions. The NIH data comments, the pilot. Have it be tested out before it is in effect? By decisions, what do you mean decisions? Decisions about how the computational infrastructure, how are you going to permit people to access data, what things are going to be permitted to be done on the comments. I mean, right now we have so few details that it really is hard to know. So we keep getting data questions we're going to make Valentina just stay at a microphone. Yes, you're absolutely right. So as I mentioned, we basically face one of this pilot is ending. And I can guarantee to you there is really not much to test yet. But the fact that, so basically one of the key deliverables of the data comments is to create best practices, standards that the community can use. We're fully aware that before we solidify anything that has to be a time for the rest of the community to test out many of the things that are being worked on. So absolutely. But just want to guarantee to you you're not missing anything for the moment. Yeah. Sharon and then Wendy. And I might have missed this because I didn't hear all of the May Council. But there obviously is an increasing emphasis on the functional variation, the supplements. And it might be good at a subsequent meeting to hear something about the results of some of, because some of that was short term funding. So maybe the May Council or even a year from now be nice to hear the outcomes of that. The supplements. We can do that. I don't know if we want to make a comment. Of course, leading into a more formalized program. So I mean. Right. I just wanted to get that topic on the agenda for a subsequent meeting since there's supplements now and then there is going to be a bigger program. I think it'll feed into all sorts of things that we're doing. For another council meeting, it would be helpful to have a wrap up in terms of insight, the sequencing of newborns. I think if I heard correctly, that's coming to a close and just understand lessons learned because it sounds like the recommendation from that is coming out not to sequence newborns. Just understanding, like I said, what we can learn from that and apply to future opportunities. Five-second rule. OK. Thank you very much. Let's move along. If something else comes to mind, you can shoot me an email. I think we're not going to come back to this. You sort of implied it, but let me just ask directly. Are there particular, for future council meetings, either February or May, are there particular speakers? You'd like to hear from, we have some ideas on what name them because we haven't invited them, but I mean, we have some ideas. But are there any folks at NIH or otherwise that you would like us to bring to a council meeting? You won't be here, but you can still suggest some. But you can come in by way. And you should ask, we're talking with that GRSS and that website. You should get SAKE to come down and explain what he's up to and where they're headed. Anybody at NIH in particular people are interested in hearing from or elsewhere in the government access? OK, we have some ideas. All right, thank you very much. All right, Dan, go ahead. I mean, if you're going to have people present their science who are sort of, as opposed to hearing from institute directors, which is sort of the usual, you could also have someone talk about the future for high throughput functional genomics. And there's at least one person sitting around this table who could do that. Jay. So I just, because I think that is something that the strategic plan will want to think about and something that is coming and the world needs. OK. So we're in the homestretch here for the open session. I'll draw your attention to, we don't have it posted yet, but we will soon, a report from the American Society of Human Genetics on their activities since the last council meeting. And if we receive any other reports from the liaison societies, we will post them on the council web page.