 Okay, we're going to get started on the SEGs presentation now. Jeff's going to give us a few introductory comments, and then we'll go to the presentations from our SEGs grantees, David Kingsley, and Dee Dee Meldrum. Jeff, thank you, Rudy. So this is purpose of today's discussion is that this is a program that's been active at NHGRI since 2000. Program announcements just as a rule at NIH have a three-year lifetime, and the program announcement that we've been operating under has expired. So if the program's going to continue, we need to put out a new program announcement. Formally, we're not required for program announcements to do concept clearances. I just want to make that administrative point clear. We bring in a concept clearance for an RFA that has dedicated funds. But since this is a large component of our program, dollar-wise, and I hope intellectually also we thought it's a good idea to discuss this with counsel. So I'm just going to give you a very quick review on the SEGs program. The great majority of you have been involved in SEGs either as counsel members or as grant reviewers or as grantees or as applicants. But for those of you who aren't in any of those categories, the scope of this program is to the purpose or scope is to develop new genomics concepts and technologies. And or to pilot what might become future cataloging studies, though in fact I don't think we've actually ever done one of the latter. The first bullet is where these projects have been. We want to use this mechanism to enable projects that can't get down, can't be achieved with standard grants, and particularly assembling the kinds of groups of people, the size of groups of people taking approaches that are really hard to do under an R01. Importantly for the Institute, these are bottom-up investigator-initiated topics. We have sort of a framework for the SEGs program, but the topics that people propose come from them, not from us. This question of big science and top-down science management or institute management, the selection of the topics for research are coming from the investigators. So characteristics of SEGs, they are required to be extremely innovative. They're to develop new concepts, methods, technologies, or ways to analyze data. We try to make this broad across genomics. These are to substantially advance the state-of-the-art and genomic approaches for the study of biomedical problems. If you're going to substantially advance the state-of-the-art, that means that you're a lot of what you're going to do in that project, you're not sure how to do it. You're not sure if it's going to work. That's the level of innovation that we're looking for, and that means that some of these projects are going to be risky. We are willing to accept that risk. We do want to balance the risk by potentially extremely high payoff if it works and by having an outstanding scientific and management plan. The work done under one of these grants is supposed to be very tightly focused. The work plan should be well integrated. So there should be multiple investigators, not just one person in their lab with their postdocs. Most of these projects require a lot of different expertise. We want that all to be put together with an extreme level of synergy, and I'll come back and talk about that some more later. Among the purposes of ASSIGs, in addition to generating the new methods, insights, analytical approaches, is to increase the pool of professional genomic scientists and engineers broadly at the institution by developing a creative training plan, and then also ameliorating the shortage of genomics professionals from underrepresented communities. And that's done particularly in our R25 program, the Diversity Action Plan program, which is a parallel application. So funding just broadly, these are awarded as P50 specialized centers. Each grant is a maximum of about $3 million a year. And because they're large, we've always said that we anticipate funding not more than about 10 of these at any one time. It's a big chunk of the portfolio. Applicants may request up to five years of support and the grants can be renewed once. So they're essentially 10 years up and out. We'll hear from, and so the grants end. And so what we're hearing today is talks from two of the grants that are wrapping up, one from David Kingsley, professor at HHMI in Stanford University School of Medicine, and Deirdre Melton, a senior scientist at Arizona State University. And so what we've asked them to do today after 10 years of research, this is probably harder than the research they did, but it's to summarize their research in 20 minutes. Can I ask a really quick question while we're switching off? So you said, NHGRI is willing to accept risk, but also in the hope that occasionally there will be high payoff. So what do you count exactly as high payoff? Well, we want to see, first of all, we had no problem with outstanding publications. But then the question is really have these projects changed the way people think about attacking some genomics problems, some genomics problem? Or have they rolled out new technology approaches?