 And let's try and squeeze in one more before we take our break. So Dan Gilchrist, Program Director in the Division of Genome Sciences, we'll talk about a renewal for PAR and Computational Genomics and Data Science. Go ahead, Dan. So thanks. Today I'm going to be presenting plans for renewing a funding opportunity for investigator-initiated research in Computational Genomics and Data Science. I want to say thanks to the NHGRI Computational Genomics Group and Extramural Research Program for their input and assistance with this. So this funding opportunity was originally issued in 2018 with the goal of stimulating research in these areas and letting investigators know that they're important areas for NHGRI support. We think that this has been a successful funding opportunity that has led to funding of about 15 RO1s and R21s over the first two years of its three-year period of activity. So we are asking for your approval to renew this for another three years with minor changes and updates. I'll briefly explain the purpose and scope of these funding opportunities, which would largely stay the same for the renewal. So Computational Genomics and Data Science funding opportunities were intense to support research efforts in Computational Genomics, Data Science, Statistics for Genomics, and Bioinformatics. The work supported needs to be research, so not strictly maintenance of a database or a web portal, and it needs to be computational or analytical in nature. So these funding opportunities allow for only a small amount of wet lab validation work where that is needed. The work supported needs to be relevant to basic or clinical genomics, pure data science or statistics are not in scope, and the research needs to be broadly applicable to human health and disease that is not focused on specific disease or family of diseases or on a specific biological system. And these funding opportunities were intended to support different stages in the development cycle, including analytical methods development, early stage development of tools and software, and refinement or hardening of tools that have been demonstrated to have high value to the research community. Most of the applications we receive to date fall into those first two categories. So for a renewal, we would like to make some updates to these funding opportunities. We want to update research topic examples to reflect the latest science and also to reflect the NHCRGRI strategic vision, which has been released since we first published these. We want to update the special review criteria, and I'm going to briefly highlight these since they make this PAR, which is a program announcement with special review criteria, distinct from the parent R01 and R21 announcements. So first, the review criteria allow for innovation to be defined very broadly. We recognize that innovation in early stage methods development could be quite different from what we see in terms of innovation to make an existing software tool robust and highly useful for the community. Innovation at both of those levels is important. So special review criteria should help reviewers score innovation of an application relative to other similar applications. And second, the special review criteria for these funding opportunities promotes sharing of methods, tools and software that are readily usable by the community and promote reproducible science. So we want the genomic community to benefit from the methods and tools developed as a result of these funding opportunities. The special review criteria have had a positive impact in our view. Applications that were not seen as extremely innovative have received fundable scores because reviewers noted the special review criteria and they noted the significance of funding work that was of high utility to the community. Also, applications scored better in terms of significance in study sections that were calling out the special review criteria compared to study sections that weren't. So in the renewal, we would like to include language, especially encouraging applications from investigators of diverse backgrounds, including groups underrepresented in the biomedical sciences. And importantly, we want to advertise these funding opportunities very broadly to ensure that they're visible to the entire research community. As is common for these types of PARs, our proposal is to reissue them for three years. And we would change to use three standard receipt dates to streamline the process for applicants. We would continue to use the R01 and R21 activity codes. So we think these updates will be helpful, but a lot of the substance of the R01 of the PARs would remain the same in the renewal. We think, again, these funding opportunities have been successful in drawing investigators into NHGRI and in allowing us to fund new and important investigator-initiated computational genomics research. So we want those activities to continue and potentially even expand. At this time, I would like to take comments from Council. I've asked Mark Craven, Trey Idyker, and Olga Troy and Skaya to open the discussion. Mark, perhaps we could start with you. Sure. I'll be brief. I wholeheartedly endorse renewing this. I think, obviously, genomics is a very data-rich science. And if we think about the three Vs, the volume, the velocity and variety, those are all just increasing in genomics. So I think that the need for computational methods to advance genomics and lend insight into the data just continues to grow rather than diminish. So I'm all for this. Thanks. And that's very hopeful to hear that the three Vs, as you pointed out, they were instrumental in us developing this concept in the initial round, and they've only continued to grow and expand since that time. So the focus will remain there. Dan, do you want to take down your slides so we can have the gallery view, please? Sure. Thank you. Trey, you're next. Sure. I also have very little to add, especially after Mark's nice, nice comments. To me, it's no brainer that this institute have a program, a program announcement standing in computational biology. I think many people on this virtual room probably agree with that. So really, I think the devils are in the details of how it's implemented, and I like the scope. I think it's an appropriately broad scope for methods development. Thanks, Trey. Olga. And I agree as well. There's not much to add. It's a really important program in data, especially considering all the constant progress in genomics. There's new questions to answer and methods to support that progress. And I think the scope and the changes that you propose make a lot of sense. So great job. Thanks. Thanks very much. Anyone else have a comment or question. When you said some, did you say statistics was excluded, but then statistics was on your included. I was just statistics for genomics is included. Absolutely. That's an important area we want to support. So, I think that's a good point. So, pure statistics sort of removed from the context of genomics would be out of scope. Got it. So going back to some of the comments on some of the earlier concept clearances, it might be interesting. Now that it's been out for almost three years and you're now going to, you know, hopefully we'll all vote to renew it. Yeah. I think that's a good follow up. I mean, is the software that's generated is it being used by a lot of people? I mean, how successful are these, are these, these grants and these programs and these ideas actually, you know, how successful are they? So it might be, might be interesting to, to get some idea of, you know, what's, what's the progress on this. Yeah. Thanks for that comment. I absolutely agree. I think that's a good point for a year or two. So it's a little bit early to see the products, but one of the things we are interested in doing is bringing together the investigators in a meeting where they can share results and progress and swap ideas. We've seen that be successful in our tech dev program. And so we're thinking about doing something very similar here where we have a yearly or even more often meeting of the investigators who are interested in the progress. Anyone else? Okay. Can I, can I get them? Can I have a motion to approve the concept? All in favor. Five, four, three, two, one. Anyone opposed or anyone abstaining? Thank you very much. We're due for a break. It's three 40 state. We'll come back at four 10 Eastern time again. Just leave the meeting open, mute your mics and close your cameras down. And we'll come back to the last concept.