 Thank you, Chris. Thank you for your time. Next up is the concept that's actually a set of highly related funding opportunities. And there'll be a single presentation and a single vote that will encompass all of them. And Lucia Hendorf is the lead extramural training program director and she'll present the concept titled genomics and health equity initiatives. This is an RFA request for applications. Thank you for the opportunity to present this concept in investigator initiated research in genomics and health equity. The guiding principle for this concept is described in NHGRI's 2020 strategic vision for genomics. And that's to maximize the usability of genomics for all members of the public, including the ability to access genomics and health care. As highlighted in orange, this is important to ensure that all members of society can benefit equitably from genomic advances and also to stress the equitable use of genomics and health care that avoids exacerbating and strives towards reducing health disparities. Reducing health disparities leads to health equity, which is defined as when every person has the opportunity to attain their full health potential and no one is disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of social position or other socially determined circumstances. What does health disparities or health equity look like through a genomic lens? We want to think about this broadly beyond merely looking at the outcomes at the individual or population level. It's really more broadly about improving health disparities and health equity at all levels of genomics. This would include access to high quality and a comprehensive genomic information, development of accessible technology and methods, access to genomic testing, quality of treatment and management of genomic findings, and acceptability of genomic approaches and interventions as examples. To further guide us in this direction, we hosted a virtual workshop called Future Directions in Genomics and Health Equity. The goal was to identify research gaps and opportunities to address health disparities and improve health equity in genomics. This workshop was held in April and had over 300 participants representing a diverse group of institutions, individuals and career stages. The two co-chairs were Judy Cho from Mount Sinai and Sandra Lee at Columbia. Let's try in. So we heard several themes from the workshop that suggested examples of research areas to pursue as well as recommendations for how to do the research. For example, in terms of research questions, to understand how lack of diversity in populations and communities comprising genomic research cohorts impacts health disparities. To distinguish race and other social descriptors from genomic information in determining lab and clinical algorithms. We also heard broader recommendations about how to conduct the research. For example, to include, to nurture long-standing relationships with diverse communities, to build trust and conduct research equitably. To develop metrics of health equity, such as measures of access to genomic testing and apply them across genomic studies. To diversify the genomic workforce and landscape. And to address the lack of diverse genomic data. This then brings us to the purpose of the initiative, which is to support investigator initiated research in genomics and health equity. This would include developing approaches, generating and disseminating data and implementing metrics or interventions. The ultimate goal being to advance the equitable use of genomics to improve health in all U.S. populations. An important area for NHGRI here is to fund research that would span across NHGRI scientific areas. So let me talk you through some possible selected research topics. And I want to stress that these are just examples. And that we are thinking about health equity very broadly. So the first example is improving prediction of molecular variation. Or molecular phenotyping from genetic variation and admix populations. Accounting for biological and social determinants of health. And here I would point out that I think the last two talks ago by Malia Fullerton highlighted a really nice opportunity for NHGRI to think broadly about social determinants of health as well. Expanding beyond race and ethnicity to include structural factors in social inequities. Second example, maximizing the utility of genomic, social and environmental data in underrepresented populations. For example, developing computational tools to predict functional information in small sample sizes. Addressing challenges to genomic data sharing or data science that impact health equity. For example, addressing the sources of data or the data governance or the access to genomic data. And the fourth example is developing and applying metrics of health equity and genomic research that are acceptable and useful to communities, participants and researchers. And again, we would consider this very broadly including both qualitative and quantitative research. For example, we also have an opportunity to raise expectations for how the research design can include and build in robust strategies for including diverse perspectives. As part of this initiative, we're proposing that investigators include a plan for doing so. This plan would advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through inclusivity. It would be integrated with a specific research objective or objectives. And it would be integrated into the review criteria. Examples of possible strategies include enhancing engagement of diverse communities as a central component of their research, enhancing workforce diversity and career development in research teams, developing transdisciplinary collaborations requiring unique expertise or perspectives, and strengthening team science to promote equitable contributions to research and publication. The proposed program organization is a set of four RFAs. So there would be one set for R01 and R21 research, recognizing that we both need R01 skill research and smaller higher risk R21 research in this area. Within the R01 and R21s, we would also propose two RFAs, one for general investigators that anybody could apply for and the one for new and early stage investigators from diverse backgrounds. This would build on NHGRI's commitment to helping foster independent research careers for investigators from diverse backgrounds by allowing them to lead their own research teams as well as meet with other grantees to share lessons learned. And on that note, we would propose an annual meeting to convene grantees as well to help foster collaborations and learn from each other in this space. The proposed budget is shown here, and just to break it down a little bit for you, so the per award limits in terms of direct costs would be up to 500K per year for R01s, up to 250K for R21s. We're proposing one receipt date for three years, and the way this table is set up is that everything is all together. So it starts in fiscal 24 with the first cohort, and then there's another receipt date in 25 and another receipt date in 26, and it goes all the way until FY30 when the potential fifth year of the R21s that were funded in fiscal 26 have their final year. So that's how the budget flows. We're proposing up to four R01 applications or two R21 applications each year. This could be somewhat fungible depending on how many applications that are scored well and are received each year. But I think in terms of the new investigator RFA, we would propose that half of the awards go to this RFA, and the other half go to the general RFA. So before we open our discussion, I would like to acknowledge the host of people that contributed to our genomics and health equity workshop shown here, and then the multitude of NHGRI staff who contributed to the development and refinement of this concept. So I will end there, and then we have two discussions to kick off the conversation, Dr. Brothers and Dr. Cho, so we can start with Dr. Brothers. Great. Thank you so much for that presentation, Lucia. I'm just going to say straight out I'm really, really, really support this idea, this concept. NHGRI over the last several years has been building a portfolio of funding instruments to develop careers in this area, and I really feel like this RFA, the set of RFA's really creates the opportunity to build that sort of career development effort into an ongoing thing that researchers who develop these skills will have the ability to continue that work past like a K type of phase. So I think this is a really critical move for NHGRI to take that ongoing effort and really move it to its next phase. Yeah, I don't have any major concerns. I think that the variety of different possibilities at going across all of NHGRI's research areas really makes this particularly strong because I think there, you know, I'll see folks are very interested in health equity, but there are folks throughout every part of NHGRI that are interested in equity and really equity needs those sets of expertise in order to work on them. So yeah, big supporter and yeah. Thank you. I would just echo that no concerns at all, great enthusiasm. It's not just for social justice, it's for improved science as well. I think that's going to be critical. And I think the integration to set aside for the early stage investigators is going to be particularly productive and kind of bringing the investigators together, senior or more early stage. I think it's structurally very sound. Thank you. Should we go ahead and open it up to the rest of the council for comment? Sure. And I see Nancy Cox's hand is up. Thanks. Excellent presentation. And of course, I'm very supportive as well. I attended that meeting, which was really fascinating. And there was a lot of really a lot of useful information presented. I in pre-saged some comments. I'm going to make another one of these proposals to note that I think this is one where it would be great to be collecting more information on on some outcomes. And in particular, for example, I suspect that I mean, I think there's a huge number of young investigators from diverse communities coming up in genetics. And the opera, you know, I think it'd be great to know, you know, how many how how many of those of really good applications and, you know, you plan a certain number for funding, how much how many more applications you're getting. I'd love to see some statistics collected, long term statistics on them, the outcomes for these individuals. So that going forward, these programs can be shaped in a way that really makes them optimally useful for the purposes they're being developed for. So I think when we talk about improving health equity, thinking about ways that we can track outcomes that that show we are making an impact. I it's complicated. I totally get that. But I think I think it's really important not just to show we're trying, but that we are making an impact. And that means collecting data and and really looking at the impact of these programs over time. So this is this is going to be a broader comment. I think for it's really for all of NIH, for for all of us that that want to see an impact in health equity about the right kind of data to be collecting and the right ways of collecting that data so that we can really impact. Thank you, Nancy, point taken, completely agree. See, I should know this and I don't. Has there been any outreach to other institutes to see if they're interested in this? Yes, there there has. We have started sharing the idea for the concept and hopefully after this discussion, we can go a little bit farther in sharing these opportunities. And we have had a couple of institutes who are interested. I think one of them is maybe even watching the webcast today. So yes, we have. Thank you. Other questions or comments? OK, can I have a motion to approve in a second? All in favor? Anyone opposed? Anyone abstaining? Thank you very much. Thank you, Lucia. Thank you. Renee, you want to come forward, please?