 So we're moving on now. We're on to council initiated discussion Again for the new council members. This is where we we've been driving the agenda here And now we're going to turn the microphones over to you and ask you are there presentations over reports that you would like to see at future council meetings Are there concerns that you're hearing from other investigators? We regard you as the representatives of the extramural community Are there issues that you'd like to bring to our attention? In other words, this is an open mic to the open session, but it's an open mic in the open session We want to hear from you. We do want to hear Particularly if there are things you'd like us to bring to a future council meeting It's pretty obvious we will want to continue to bring through time permitting the new Institute directors obviously You know how soon to get them here depends upon their arrival. We have a new cancer Institute director clearly here You know, there'll be others I am sure Once ARPA H gets its leader in place every council will want to have ARPA H represent You know, either the leader or somebody so I mean, I know the obvious ones to be thinking about But we want to know others that either we're not thinking of or that you really think is a high priority Nancy Cox so This is something that came up during some of the NHGRI strategic planning The need to educate Medical Center lawyers and leadership on Not just the the risks of data sharing but the risks of not data sharing and A few of us Could really use some additional talking points with the new plans on data sharing There's just there's a lot of education to do Of the people most concerned about the legal consequences of large-scale data sharing and I I'm you know, I'm not We have our own plans for trying to educate more of the lawyers and the leadership in some of these spaces, but I do think that It wouldn't it wouldn't be a bad thing for NHGRI to to put together some simple talking points for for the non-scientists to Understand why it is so critical to be sharing More of the data more of the time Then we have been even with what have been pretty aggressive data sharing Plans within in genomics for for some time now It's a it's such a risk is such a big deal to To medical centers and And the truth is that a lot of the secure the real security issues at hospitals It all comes back to financial concerns and a lot of the attacks on Hospital computing security is to get at the financial information that is how it's not the health information that is housed in these places but But making sure that they're weighing the modest risks associated with sharing data from the privacy perspective against the the huge loss to science for failing to share and Not just to science and therefore to our patients long-term well-being We We have to fight that battle and it's um, I don't know I've had a few people ask whether there's gonna be anything forthcoming from NIH Not targeting the scientists, but rather the legal entities and the the leadership who are Not by a large geneticist So so Nancy, thank you for that comment Which I think is a very good one and it's the kind of input I really like to get but let me press you on what you're really asking and I'll just be really frank with you that we're at an interesting inflection point You know for a long time the focus about data or the heavy focus about data sharing Was genomic data because with the genomic data sharing policy. Yes, there was stuff with clinical trials That was sort of on a different trajectory But for a while therefore since it was the NIH's genomic data sharing policy all eyes went to us because we were the intellectual leaders And it was all our fault in a good way Okay, but now with the new data sharing and management plan and everything has been a much broader discussion around data sharing and data management which Takes the focus away from genomics But even though genomics remains a bit of a poster child, but it What you're asking for I'm going to press you now is do and I know your answer is going to be both But I'm going to press you that we can't do it You know do these lawyers and hospital leaders and medical center leaders need to know about the value of genomic data They need to know really about the value of all data sharing including electronic health record area any kind of data And if that's the and then so you're gonna say of course fourth is important But I actually think a broader we don't want to pick the battle just for genomic data And then find barriers with any other type of data in which case I think we should be helping and maybe that's what we could do But I don't I'm not sure we should be leading because I also don't want Folks to think that what we're mostly talking about is genomic data. I would rather just it be data And so maybe what I'm asked maybe what I'm hearing from me I see if I can do some friendly amendments is maybe what you're asking is We should be pushing harder at the NIH level to develop sort of a trans NIH effort to educate the lawyers and the leadership and I mean take this feedback and try to generalize it around Just data in general. Is that a fair way to approach it? Yes, the issue is so the problem is that the scientists who deal with this Are generally not the ones opposed to data sharing. It is the people who manage risk for large medical centers see only risk in This sharing activity, they don't recognize the risk in failing to share the way that that we do and and and so materials that generically Help to explain the value of data sharing and the risk of not sharing the absolute risk to Improved health long-term for not sharing. That's that's that's the that's the part of it They don't see they they absolutely see the risk to the sharing part for the the Potential loss of privacy to patients who use these hospitals, but they they don't have any idea of The magnitude of risks incurred by failing to share these data long-term in terms of the science that could be done If it were shared that won't be done if it's not shared Nancy are you convinced that it should be the government talking to these folks along or you sort of envision a coalition of Government leaders may be coupled with a few Folks from progressive institutions or medical centers or health systems where they've Embraced this and realize that the sky is not falling and have them help us as a coalition to go around and try to You know spread the word I think so I think leadership from places that have embraced sharing and Why why they've embraced sharing those kinds of talking points would be probably the most effective Okay, so I've got Joe and Olga and then Peter go ahead Joe Yeah, I I think I Eric I think this concept and I've brought it up since I've been on the The committee I think I brought it up every time which is this concept of data privacy and what is NIH's role and I Sit on the boards of hospitals and I know what Nancy I understand your perspective on who manages the risk but I think the world has changed and We've been asked Eric to speak to various members at the NIH in counseling on the issue of data privacy global data privacy GDPR CCPA and all that kind of stuff and I think to I Think it would be helpful if we took a balanced approach and the NIH could be to your point Maybe a mediator in the middle because the risk is real of What Nancy said both ways I think and we have discovered this in our research That you will find a lot of the underserved populations are not going to contribute their data because they don't trust Researchers and I hate to say that to a group of researchers, but it as absolutely true So the risk isn't just that a hospital loses data or is financial Well, a lot of populations in underserved areas that we support and we see are unwilling to give their data because they don't trust research because research shares their data inappropriately without their permission Across the global we have instances of this so I'm not saying that the NIH can solve it But I think there's a biased balanced approach to being able to share data ethically legally with people and data privacy and I think the NIH could take a role in Educating people as to what those are so I love the topic I think it's a huge topic and I think we have the curve have to have the courage to take it on But it is a very much a gray area. It's not just hospitals trying to mitigate risk to save money It's people's lives people's data and our ability to support Undiagnosed populations diverse populations is absolutely based on trust and Trust is not held in many of these populations because of the sins of the past and that's something you have to correct And I think the NIH could play a huge role in that because you can take a little ground in Being an educator on both sides of the equation So, you know me, I've said this every time and I'll keep on saying it. I think it's a major topic That is going to slow us down, but I think it has to be done well into your point Nancy We need people to share data We want people to accelerate science, but we can't do it the way we've done it in the past and I think the general population and people Individuals globally are saying they just don't want that to be the case anymore. So that's my Am my hope and my approach for something that we take on in the future Okay, we've got Olga then Peter then Howard I guess my comment is somewhat related, but a little bit different So I really enjoyed the presentations related to the human genome and the reference and really thinking about it in much More diverse and careful way and related. So I think that's incredibly powerful because obviously currently our reference References and pretty much all of or the vast majority of the studies are really not well balanced to our Cases and it's just an incredible question just even practically for essentially anything we do with the human population genetics and clinical genetics The question that I have is Do we have or should NIH or especially really NHGRI think about some way of enabling A way to have a single resource Where reprocessing of these variants could be done in a way to match the case how the cases were Processed in particular studies. It seems like a very technical point, but it's an important one right because essentially You could end up with actually pretty major biases Even if you have a wonderful genomic reference, that's For example, even ethnically balanced to your cases, but if your calls are done separately and differently Does that make sense Maybe say a few more sentences to make sure I'm following you this this sounds like a very it does sound very specific to me It's very specific, but it's something that I've heard from so many people that really basically and it's really Preventing a lot of groups who are not as big computational movers and shakers from being able to really do these genetic analyses, right because they don't really have a way to run their analyses because they don't have a good control and all of these studies essentially we're producing these whole genome controls that are going to be wonderful but then actually We're putting a huge burden and repetitive burden on investigators to be able to reprocess this to actually or else They don't reprocess and they don't realize that that's important and then you end up with subpar analysis Basically, I think we're we could use a lot more thinking about how Uh, all of these data are stored and shared and provided Where you know, the details will actually matter a lot in terms of how much impact it will have I'm just trying to get a sense on whether that's a research project. Is that a Research project a resource augmentation of what we currently have or is it more about policy and logistics? I don't think it's a research project. I think it's a combination of resource and policy and logistics There's a policy aspect to it to make sure that everything is actually shared But I think it's largely really doing it right with the resource. I don't think there's a Research component and is it the kind of thing that could be grafted on to the current reference program? Or is this so large that it would need to be a whole separate program in and of itself I don't have to answer it. I mean our program staff who are responsible for that I mean, I think that that's something that the program staff can think I mean my guess is it will require morning money And I think it requires some thinking of how to because it's computational, you know, it's a lot of cycles. It's non-trivial Like, you know, it's not non-trivial research wise It's not a research question, right? Because there are research projects that develop all these software, right? Like then the question is how do you enable it? And I think it's the programmatic question versus research question Okay, peter Um, so I completely support what what Nancy was proposing But um, I'd like to maybe go into a little bit more depth So I mean it seems like there are things that would be easy to improve and things that would be very hard to improve And I'm not sure that NHGRI or even NIH has really done a good survey of all of the things that are wrong about the data landscape As an example of something that might be easy to fix Uh, I'll I'll mention SRA And so if you're doing a bioinformatics research project You might want to get all of the samples that have something to do with lung cancer or with with covet or whatever from SRA. This is actually pretty challenging the so that that's something where I imagine if NIH were to pay Curators and and software engineers to improve that interface that researchers all all over the country would be able to get better data Do more relevant and higher quality studies. So I think that would almost certainly pay for itself The question of whether we can get hospitals to share data that to me that sounds like that's more on the level of congress That at than at NIH I don't know, but I mean, I'm wondering if it would just be good to have a workshop or some Way of just gathering all of the things where the where people think that data Is now hard to use and it would become easier to use if we made it fairer So that's implementation and then there's policy that that and I don't I don't really know I think I think it's it basically includes almost everything that we do on a daily basis in Bioinformatics and and I personally believe that NIH should be spending about 10 percent more of its budget on on data than it is now because this this would just have an accelerator effect I'm just thinking out loud. I don't know if anybody's going to know the answer I know that when the data management and sharing policy was being contemplated we put out an rfi And got a lot of community feedback. I just don't know if we asked questions that would directly answer You know, we didn't say what were the big challenge? I mean it was more like What were the challenges of sharing data as opposed to what were the big challenges? That we're sort of now talking about with data being shared. I mean that was I answered Or sent some responses did many people but that that was very general and just so I don't think we have a catalog of Things are sort of ranked according to how easy they would be To solve and if we had we could ask the question say, okay Well, how much money do we have for this and what are the what are the low-hanging fruits? Yeah, I mean we could ask the questions very different now because we're in a different place. So, okay Howard go ahead Thank you. I want to bring up the issue that there might be some sort of dynamics happening in our research workforce Because at some recent meetings at the end of nearly every talk, there's like an advertisement really a plea For postdoc applicants and this is especially it be afflicting junior faculties. And so This might need to a situation where grants are funded But there's nobody to do the research and or other kinds of issues. So just want to bring bring that issue to the attention to the NHGRI for discussion So the question is is there a national postdoc shortage? Is that Or is it just postdoc or postdocs and junior faculty? Or both I think it's really a postdoc issue Which they might be people can do actually instead of thinking about trainees hire staff scientists to actually carry out their research or Yeah, that's right. And or maybe then maybe grants or not, you know the level of funding levels not competitive that postdoc salary scale It's not competitive with other options And Howard is it broad or is it computational biology or informatics? Is it limited to certain sectors or areas? Well, so you used to hear that issue more with computational scientists But I see that now spreading into even other Really by launch them, you know, molecular biology a lot more by a lot of biological scientists. Okay. Thank you Anybody who can make antibodies doesn't even have to finish their phd Have others heard similar things or want to comment on postdoc Everybody's saying yes Any any hypotheses why that's the campaign are we not letting people defend their theses and they're not getting out with their Phds or they're going off and doing other things. We're competing with industry. So it's the industry Yeah, it's industry salaries and the perceived industry lifestyle So it's the weekend getting the weekends back thing They they think they'll have their weekends and a high salary if they go into industry and that they'll have neither if they stay in academia Tim you're gonna speak to this point. Yeah, I think I think we should let them tell us But the issues are we should have the public the people of postdocs. Yeah, but do we hear I mean do we You who are training postdoc or training graduate students and putting them out in the real world What are you hearing about the their decision making? You know, I have my own I'm hearing that students are Older when they're starting graduate school. They're starting families during graduate school more often And so they have much stronger financial constraints than there used to be I'm hearing competition for industry. I'm hearing I'm hearing a myriad things, but but I you know, I only hear A couple squeaks of what comes out and I have a feeling there's a lot more that that we could potentially dig into and learn If we opened up some avenues for voices to come through I mean, I mean, I will also say you say you you hear a small fraction of what's out there and even if we took My entire genomics community. That's a teeny fraction of the NIH I mean every once in a while we hear summaries at the at the NIH level about these sorts of Of things it's very interesting. So it's it's useful to hear what we're hearing here See if that parallels what we hear at the NIH level Because it may or may not and there could be different forces and it could be specific to what we need in our field It definitely goes beyond just genetics. It's postdocs across all fields And new york medical schools are all getting they're voting to unionize In overwhelming numbers the ua w is kind of hitting Unionize the postdocs. Yeah, and the rationale is to get higher salaries and It also speaks to job dissatisfaction that we have to think a lot about Yeah You know what industry is doing what we're doing because I am in that process is Pay is escalating. So it's you know, double digit kind of 10 12 15 percent increases But the other pivot that is being made is Almost all the jobs can be done remote now unless it's a wet lab And now wet labs are growing everywhere where you have companies building these micro wet labs In small cities and across the board. So it's a it's a combination of double digit salary increases, which we have to pay to get them now And enabling almost all jobs that are posted now are remote And that's another pivot post cobit that we're starting to take it For us industry is taking advantage of and I think that's creating a gap in the workforce in other places Boy, we thought the genome was a complicated place. This is a workforce ecosystem is going to get us really complicated quick post pandemic Yeah, Lynn. I think another factor is Funding insecurity Uh People think about okay doing a post off for three to five years Then perhaps getting a faculty position scrambling for grants one Question I have in that in in in that regard is how does the average length of an NHGRI? R01 compared to that of other institutes Because that's a complaint I've heard from some of our faculty who wants to stand up and who has the data or Wants to summarize the discussion. I think it has historically been shorter We've been having more and more discussions about making it. Oh betty. Please come to a microphone. You want to come to mine betty? You're welcome to or to gales We just developed our funding plan. Yeah, it's on just talk louder with the mask We just developed our funding plan for this fiscal year And we went with the option of the normal would be four years In the past it's been three With very few exceptions of five but this is not in stone There are some grants that will be for five years and we particularly look at new investigators We try not to reduce them to four years if they have asked for five years Because we want to give them That opportunity to really be able to Get their preliminary data so that they will be in a good position for their renewal so That was very clear The word is out that it's four years normal And five years with some exceptions Thanks Steve On a slightly different topic well totally different topic Um You know ncbi is supposedly an institute that has something to do with data and SRA and various things But I have no clue where they're going or what they're doing So if we're thinking about You know bringing in another institute director, maybe Folks at ncbi would be a good one that could present and Help us understand a bit more where they're going. I think they were supporting db cap And of course, they're historically understaffed and well behind in getting things done so And um, they're hopefully at the I was on the search committee They're hopefully at the Tail end of a search for a new director So I don't I don't think it would be productive to have Folks come until we have a new director, but hopefully in the coming months They'll be it should be pretty soon. Oh, yes. So then I would hope I don't know the details So I don't know anything yet, but I would certainly say when there's a new ncbi or when when ncbi gets a permanent director Or you know the next full-time director not acting director. I would absolutely want that person to come here. Okay Good good idea So this is my first meeting so you may have had this already but gene therapy This is becoming a real reality. Um, so like Kind of having some presentations in the future on that. Um, I'm sure would be of great interest I mean sickle cell anemia the data are looking fantastic. I mean, it's just these are the victories of genetics And um, judy, you'd want this to sort of get a feel. I mean, so there are gene There's lots of gene therapy going on across nih, but truly across nih multiple places there is Except we have essentially no gene therapy support from our extramural program except now we've been putting our we're putting our Our toes in the water just through this trans nih to spoke gene therapy that we heard about earlier Although in our intramural program, we have some very active gene therapy activities Is your interest in getting sort of a survey across what's going on at nih Or are you thinking something that might be more what nhri would potentially get? I'm just trying to understand Just we're nh. I mean, I'm not an expert in this. So maybe that's why I'm so fascinated by it So like how can you use genomic technologies? So it's easy to knock down so ttr. You can knock down ttr. It's easy. You know what to do exactly But all kinds of what are the critical variables That nhgi can lead on or that so you want to know things that we might be able to lead on Which would lead to a discussion about is this something we should be leading right because it's the moment It hasn't been anything we've invested in heavily yet Externally Right fair. I mean, it's it's a huge topic. It is a huge topic. I mean, but yeah, there's some victories coming out Yeah, I'm trying to imagine who we get but we could we'll we'll ponder We'll we'll strategize a who it might be who could help set that up for us Yeah, knock down of laid-onset autosomal dominant gain of function mutations we can do Like what are the roles for this and you know nhgi maybe can lead on this okay mark there's a comment on the the ostp guidance recently about public access to publications and Just given that the nyh has been such a leader in that And from what I've read each institute is supposed to craft their own policy And from the perspective of of a researcher I would hope that these policies will be as uniform as possible Right just I know a lot of us are involved in in projects and have publications where you have funding from the nyh and nsf and darbert, etc and I guess my hope is that you know down the line there will be just one manuscript submissions manuscript submissions system that we could use across Research no matter who funded it So I don't know if other agencies are looking to the nyh or the nyh has thought about Trying to give guidance to others about how to do this So um, is anybody in the back want to stand up and help me with this one if there is anybody one But I mean, this is all new to something. I mean the exact details of the latest guidance You know historically. Oh, Elena. You're welcome to come you can start. I mean one thing I'd point out is I First getting harmony across the nyh institutes will be a challenge But I'm more optimistic about that compared to other agencies I I mean, I would think we will be looked to as leaders For that it's but it's you know, whether they truly follow our lead is to be determined But I know there's a lot of discussion activity So the um nyh is doing this nyh wide will have one agency plan for all of nyh and um because this is a broader Um Scope of who the new memo applies to I have heard I mean again like he said it's early days, but I have heard that nyh will reach out to the smaller agencies for which this will now apply to help them in developing their policies so Hopefully more coordination across like you mentioned, but I you know, I You know, I want to be optimistic, but I think we should appreciate You know, especially when these things come out from ostp Across all the government. I mean the the cultural differences between some of these different agencies Sometimes things are very hard to get everybody walking and locked up. We love the Folks who will just listen to lead, you know, we'll listen to what nyh is doing this All right, we'll do that too, but that won't always be the case So you're optimistic that there'll be one nyh kind of okay, that's good to hear Because I knew they were going to be some flexibilities, but maybe they're going to reign in those flexibilities more good Yeah, peter One sort of this is the law of unintended consequences But I'm wondering if nyh is considering just evaluating the effects of sort of open access And there's two things that are happening and it did and I mean it's great to have access to papers, but um First of all journals are turning Predatory so I just got an invitation from a journal that is at least 70 years old that I I studied Intensively in medical school and they at they sent me a you know a form email to To submit an article about a topic that I've never had anything to do with and just like oh, okay They've gone predatory. Well, they're Elsevier I guess um the other thing is that the costs are going up and so I think you can apply get two thousand dollars or something a paper from the nyh But now some of the good journals wants five thousand. What do we do then? and So it'll be interesting just to hear You know also about the downside of open access publishing and and how the nyh intends to to Help us deal with that I think your points are are good ones and i'm going to be very curious how this shakes out because I these are things we Clearly recognize under hearing and The devil's going to be in the details no question Laura by root. Did you have a question or a comment? I think all good I was sorry I was going to comment earlier just about It was difficult to hire all research staff not just postdocs. Okay, and so but you know, I think we're going to live with this for a while Okay, thank you. Oh god. Go ahead Very lord just a minor addition to the last point I think the The open access while it's a really great thing It we do need to figure out how to do it on the other end in addition to The researchers also a lot of the societies are going to be majorly impacted So we should think of what to do and whether it's worth Having some way of helping some of the key societies who whose revenues used to come from journals so Following up on on the comments from from peter and ogha. I mean, who is it that we should talk to About this. I mean would it be useful to talk to like a editor of a journal or editors of journals or you know in terms of this open access policy and you know Things because it's I have a question. You know, I'm wondering well It's something we can complain about but who do we talk to to try to figure out who listened what was going on I mean, I can can think of you know people at you know editors of journals, you know like Thoroughly because is someone that has been involved in You know nature and genetics and nature now was it cell genomics But maybe you know gail. Did you have a comment? Yes, I can say shg has looked at this very hard because a lot of revenue does come From the journal and that supports a lot of programs You know fundamentally someone has to pay for the system, right? And so we're shifting from a users medical centers and libraries paying for access to the submitters paying to publish Or giving up a very expensive peer review system and an editing system, right? So we're going to either you know, we're going to shift costs We might cut corners depending on the journal I'm not speaking on behalf of my society at all But I these are the problems that are being discussed, right to sustain a high quality publication is expensive Who's who pays for it? You have an access problem now for people who don't have a medical center to access these publications But under resourced institutions Don't have the money to pay for their authors to publish a five thousand dollar fee So, you know, it's just moving around who's underserved to some extent and I think it really needs to be Thought about more broadly, you know, it's a great philosophy. Everything should be available to everyone The question is who pays For that and that's not clear right now in my opinion And I also think that part of it is I mean as on the editorial associate editors for journals One of the questions that comes up is that the cost oftentimes is in the paper copy And so, you know, is that going to print or not print right? Is that all going to go away? Yeah, I I can't speak to that level of detail I think Bruce Corf would be a great person if you wanted someone to come talk about this He's really spent a lot of time and energy from the standpoint of a couple societies. I think By the way, I mean, I'd also point out While I completely share Your concerns about These unintended consequences. This is not totally new, right? I mean, this is just a an additional tightening of these requirements These same discussions have been going At least 10 years I mean when you know with the whole thing about open access started that, you know Thou shall put papers in various places that you must do. I mean, I I've been many of you know I I've been very involved with cold spring harbour press for many decades now And I mean that's a whole other model where, you know, they're not trying to make a lot of money But it's not a professional society, but it's a big service and they've been just Scrambling trying to figure out all and but of course and they also created bio archive Which hauls a whole other dynamic associated with so it's professional societies. It's for-profit publishers It's not for-profit publishers. So but this has been discussed. This is just a Additional tweaking of the equilibrium, but it's not brand new. I mean these same issues have been bubbling along for over a decade And and I think they're going to continue to have to sort of Settle with this new requirement Yeah, and one thing which is just from my own personal experience of running a research group the papers I'm paying the most money for open access for are for my trainees Because they're not the highest impact papers that are going to the highest journals. They're you know the incremental papers as they learn And you know, I've been lucky. I've been able to sustain that but not every lab can do that and so You know, I think trainees may end up getting squeezed For publications if Those fees have to come from somewhere because they're they're not really doing funded research a lot of the time Yeah Wait at a microphone I just sent Rudy and Eric the NHGRI funding policy for 2022 So if you could share that with council that Rudy will send that around Speaks to the length of awards Great, that's very useful. Betty. Thank you and one related question. I know we're just about at closing time but I don't think NHGRI has an r35 type Funding mechanism. Do they uh similar to GM? We have used it. Usually we have used it usually as program. Correct me. Usually he's like a one-year bridge Oh, okay No, wait somebody step up and okay Challenge flag just went up. All right. That's not baseball. That's football. I know that but that's right red flag Wait, let's make sure we get the facts, right Oh Yeah, maybe maybe Lisa you're in the best No, no, he said r35 r35 Since they're five years typically Yeah, the r35 can actually go to eight years We did have an r35 program. We used it for early stage investigators. It was called the genomic innovator But you're right most other institutes use it for more established investigators For longer term funding with like a upper limit of like $750,000 direct costs per year Up to eight years But we've now chosen not to use that mechanism and not for that not for that career stage But we are continuing to use this mechanism for in other ways or no, we don't actually have so at the moment We don't have an r35 Opportunity. Yes. Yeah, just just one thing about the r35 That is an activity code that can be used in a variety of ways so Yeah, we there used to be the old merit award And so a lot of institutes are using that and n h g r i did at one time participating the merit award but those are Grants that will really eat away at your base If you keep adding people to it So you look up and you have very little new new money to make awards. So we Bowled out of that Yeah, no, I understand and I should have been more specific. I was referring to the r35 murals Other mirrors so But I understand it's kind of a zero-sum game Take money from one place. It disappears from another So it's the 56 that's used as the bridge. Okay, my apologies This is certainly a long list. So Are there last comments? Okay Until tomorrow morning, right? We'll come back tomorrow morning. Okay, so we've got just a little bit of administrative stuff To get through At the break comfort passed around the conflict of interest form Please sign it. You just leave it at your table and we'll collect them up at the end of the day today And the last order of the business is the Exciting conflict of interest statement that I'm going to read this refers to the applications that you'll review tomorrow We're required to read it out loud You must leave the meeting room when applications submitted by your own organization are being individually discussed In the case of state higher education or other systems with multiple campuses that are geographically separated Own organization is intended to mean the entire system Except where determination has been made that the components are separate organizations for the purpose of determining conflict of interest You should avoid situations that could give rise to charges of conflict of interest whether real or apparent For example, you should not participate in the deliberations and actions On any application from or involving your spouse Child recent student recent teacher Professional collaborator with whom you have worked closely A close personal friend or a scientist with whom you have had long standing Scientific or personal differences The nhtri staff will determine the appropriate action based on recency frequency and strength of such associations or interests Either positive or negative and will instruct you accordingly In council actions in which you vote on a block of applications without discussing any individual one, for example the on-block vote Your vote will not apply to any application from any institution Fulfilling the criteria noted above So you want to gavel us to closure and we will see you tomorrow morning here at 11 o'clock eastern time start For the second closed session There should be a shuttle bus waiting to take you back But you can get here