 Landy asked me if I would briefly discuss this topic, 100 years of transplant contributions from the University of Chicago. And I was delighted to do that. I show you five names that I will touch upon as I go through my list. The first is Alexis Carell, who came born in Lyon, trained in France, spent a year in Montreal, and then came down to Chicago for two and a half very productive years, 1904 through late 1906. It was Carell writing in JAMA in 1905, who made the claim that the problem of organ transplantation in man has been solved. He worked at Hull Court, some of you who know the campus know that that's where Botany Pond is. Indeed, as the crow flies from where we are now to where Carell was working, is probably less than a quarter of a mile. His achievements at Chicago, particularly for someone for whom English was a second or third language, were quite extraordinary. In the two and a half years, he published 33 papers. Some co-authored, but working in models of dogs and cats and mice and rats, some of his achievements during those two and a half years were to perfect the concept of vascular and astemosis. He did vein to vein grafts, artery to artery grafts, and vein to artery grafts. He did a lot of organ transplantation, what he called HOMO transplants, which were actually in the same animal. He'd take a kidney out of a cat or a mouse and then re-transplant it back into the same animal. He also did hetero transplants, which were between litter mates, and then he did transplants across species. His results, of course, in the HOMO transplant, of transplanting back into the same animal were quite extraordinary. Of course, litter mates, not nearly as good, and of course total failure in transplanting across species. He succeeded in reattaching severed limbs, often again to the same animal from which the limb had been severed, and he could preserve organs, thyroids and uteruses and kidneys, all of which he was practicing transplanting outside of the animal for four to six hours. For his, he said, again in the JAMA article, I think this is also in 1905, he said, from a clinical standpoint, the transplantation of organs may become important and may open new fields in therapy and biology. For his work at Chicago, when he left Chicago, he went to the Rockefeller, where he spent most of his career, but in 1912 he got the Nobel Prize, he was the second surgeon to get the prize, and it was awarded for his work on vascular suture, work that he had largely completed at Chicago, and for the transplantation of blood vessels and organs, again work that he'd largely done while at Chicago. Of course, this thing about the transplantation of organs may become important, turned out not to be the case until we had a much better understanding of immunology and immunosuppression, but he did establish the experimental foundation in animals for the human transplants that was started essentially 40 years later by David Hume, working at the Brigham under Dr. Francis Moore. Hume graduated from the University of Chicago, those of you who know our class pictures can find Hume in the class of 43, and when he graduated from the University in 43, he went to the Brigham to work with Dr. Moore, who was not yet working on transplants. This is Dr. Francis Moore, who for 30 years was chair of the Department of Surgery at the Brigham. Hume was a surgical resident, and the first successful kidney transplant, successful probably should be in quotes, was in 1947 during his surgical residency at the Brigham, Hume and a fellow resident over the objections, the strong objections of Dr. Moore, who felt that it was premature to do transplants, took a 29-year-old postpartum patient who was dying of acute renal failure, she was about four or five days postpartum, and taking a cadaveric organ from a patient who had just died in the operating theater, implanted it in the forearm of this 29-year-old woman. The transplant made urine quite immediately, and it was collected in a glass beaker that simply the ureter was draining into this glass beaker, and four or five days later, the woman recovered her own renal function, the transplant was taken out, and she was sent home. That was in 47, as I say here, this primitive transplant lasted about five days, and the woman's own kidneys were covered. It was thought that she might not have survived had it not been for the temporary use of that kidney transplant. Hume conducted for Dr. Moore at the Brigham the first series of kidney transplants, and that was between 1951 and 1953. He did 11 transplants using cadaveric kidneys, one of which nobody understands how or why, but one of which lasted for 175 days. Most of them failed within a month. But he was clearly Dr. Moore's transplant surgeon, unfortunately he was called back to the Air Force for the Korean War and was in military service at the time that the decision was made by Dr. Moore and his team to try the twin transplant that Laney referred to, and they had another person in the group, Joe Murray, who was called upon, Murray, a plastic surgeon, was called upon to do the actual transplant since Hume was not there, and you heard that that was, in fact, the first successful kidney transplant ever done. Hume is sometimes referred to as the father of renal transplantation. I've pointed this out to you. I skip ahead to Chris Broles, whom many of you in the audience know. Chris was here from about 83 to 91, dick around there, about seven or eight years. During that time we worked on, he worked on with his team on reduced liver transplants to fit adult livers into babies and children on split livers giving the smaller left lobe to children and larger right lobe to adults, and from that moving towards doing living donor liver transplants. This paper that we published, Dick Thistle Thwaites on it and John Lanters is in the audience. Peter Singer was the lead author and Chris was a senior author, Chris Broles, was published in 1989, three or four months before we did our first transplant here as part of a protocol series of 20. The paper had many interesting aspects to it, one of which was that it was published before the actual operation was conducted, but it offered what has come to be regarded as an ethical model for surgical innovation in transplantation or for that matter in innovative surgery. Some even refer to it as the Chicago model. You have to show a proven need for the procedure, approval by institutional leaders, scientific and administrative, strong preclinical and clinical scientific data, acknowledged field strength of the entire team, not just the quality of the surgeons, but of the team, the anesthesiologists and the nurses and the infectious disease people and immunologists and the like. Maximum protection of living donors, risk benefits informed consent. We were among the earliest people to use donor advocates of a process that we've continued since the late 1980s. We even believed in number six, public disclosure review and approval before the first operation and it was this paper that introduced the concept of research ethics consultations, which I won't go into today, but it was quite an interesting paper to write. There had been at that point three living donor, liver transplants in the world. Rodney Strong had done a successful one in Australia and two in Brazil had not worked out particularly well. I'll show you, somewhere in there, I'll bet we could find Dick Thistle Dwayne, the surgical team removing left lobe transplant into daughter Alyssa. Alyssa is shown in that front picture with her mom and dad. Terry, the mom, what was the donor? And then we see the little girl down the lower right, a year after surgery. Here we see her graduating from a high school with her mom, Terry, and picture of her as a little girl. Since then she's graduated from college, she's got married, and I've heard that she's had a child, long off of immunosuppression. That last thing is a little bit unsettled. And this was the original paper that came out of that protocol series of 20 kids, liver transplant in children from living related donors. It was a protocol series that was completed rather quickly from December of 89. The paper appears in October of 91 so that the series probably was done in 18 months. Lady Ross, who gave the opening lecture and is the organizer and moderator of this symposium and is the Carolyn Matthew Bucksbaum Professor of Medicine, Surgery, Pediatrics, and of Medical Ethics, and Associate Director of the McLean Ethics Center. Lainey wrote a very provocative article as lead author in 1997 called Paired Kidney Exchange. This idea had been floating around since who knows when the 30s or the 50s, but had never been implemented. And Lainey took the lead in writing this article suggesting that the people who were not able to donate immediately to a relative, there might be the possibility, I'll just show you some of the other people on that paper, the Paired Kidney Exchange paper, Dr. Thistle Thwait and Michelle Josephson from Nephrology, Steve Whittle, who's now at Cincinnati, and David Rubin, who's here, but that there would be this possibility of an exchange that the first donor who was denied a possibility of giving to recipient one might give to recipient two in return for which recipient two potential donor would donate to recipient one. That's the simplest model. And it was one that people began to implement in the wake of the publication of Dr. Ross's paper. As the paper said, it analyzed the ethical issues associated with the idea of this Paired Kidney Exchange, a notion that since 1986 had been around, but had not been implemented. And it gave rise through that simple exchange that I showed you of two donors and two recipients to this concept of extended altruistic donor change chains. This is one particular chain studied by Al Roth in 2014. Roth got the Nobel Prize for the residency match program and for his work on kidney donation and kidney transplants. So he was particularly interested in chains like this. And such chains have been going on now as a consequence or as a benefit of Lainey's paper. Lainey and Bob Beach recently completed the second edition of this book, Transplantation Ethics. And Lainey and Dick Thistle Thwaid are currently working on a book, Living Donor, Transplantation Ethics. Finally, I'll come to Mike Millis and I'll be very brief because I know Mike follows me immediately. But Mike has been working for the better part of 10 years with Jay Fu Wang, who under three administrations, was vice minister of health. He's not currently vice minister under this administration. And the Chinese system was under vigorous attack on an ethical basis, particularly for its use of executed prisoners as donors. And Jay Fu Wang wrote this very brave paper in the Western literature in 2007, in which he acknowledged for the first time in print that many, not the majority of Chinese transplants were getting their organs from executing prisoners. And of course that opened up the door to possibility of transplant tourism and the like, you could schedule your transplant for enough money. The clinical outcomes that were being sought in this relationship between Chicago and China were to improve the training of transplant surgeons, to decrease the number of transplant programs. I'm sure Mike will talk about this to see if they could establish a national registry and even develop a national system of organ sharing. The hope for ethical outcomes from this Chicago-China partnership was to stop the use of executed prisoners as donors. I'll let Mike talk further about that. To establish brain death as a standard rather than just cardiac death. To increase the use of deceased donors, to encourage the use of living donors and at the same time to prohibit the buying and selling of organs and transplant tourism. J. Fu Wang and Mike wrote this paper, it's 2015, on voluntary organ donation systems adapted to Chinese cultural values and social reality. So I think Chicago has played an important role over the past 100 years in advancing the field of transplantation from basic or animal models to human models, now even in the international stage. Thank you very much for listening. I'll be happy to take a question or two and then turn it over to Mike. Thanks. There are no questions, Lainey?