 Welcome back, everyone. It's 2 p.m. on the east coast, top of the hour where almost everyone is, except for a few weird time zones elsewhere in the world that are on the half hour. I know it's been a long haul and NHRI has a tradition of working everyone hard at a workshop. I hope people got a chance to eat. We do want to slightly switch gears from gathering information from the outside world to presenting you with some information about NIH programs and projects in the area. So to that end, we have two speakers. They're going to go one after another and we'll try to save the addressing of the questions to the end. I'll be monitoring the chat. So save your questions for both speakers to the end. So each speaker will take about 10 minutes and that should leave us about 10 minutes for discussion time before we go into the final session. And so our first speaker today is going to represent the Unite program, which she will describe a bit about, and it's Leah Butler. Leah got her undergraduate degree from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, an amazing institution that I've gotten to watch produce really cool people over the last three, three decades almost two and a half decades. And then she has a law degree from the American University's Washington College of Law and she's been at NIH, been federal government for 14 years, and at NIH for most recently. And she's going to talk about the Unite initiative at the NIH and then afterwards I'm going to introduce Dr. Karim Watson. So Leah, you're on and I believe your slides already started. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for having me. It is my distinct honor to represent the Chief Office for Diversity, Workforce Diversity, led by Dr. Marie Bernard. I am currently on a detail assignment from my home office in OHR, and I am getting great satisfaction with being involved in contributing to the efforts of Unite. So it started here. So the Unite initiative got started was initiated and established and it was driven by the events of 2020, having to do with the disparage and morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 pandemic, the murder of George Floyd and the killing of Asian women in Atlanta in 2021. This brought into sharp relief the ongoing reality of racial and ethnic injustice in our country, of course, and the responsibility on all of us to address this issue. And by that means NIH could not remain silent and not address it in its own capacity. We developed a shared commitment to address structural racism and the biomedical research enterprise. So what is Unite? The NIH Unite initiative is made up of five committees. Each of the committees are tasked with their own respective charges. It's the U committee that addresses understanding stakeholder experiences through listening and learning. There's the N committee that has to do with new research on health disparities, minority health and health equity. There's the I committee that addresses improving the NIH culture and structure of equity, inclusion and excellence. There's the T committee having to do with transparency, communication and accountability with our internal and external stakeholders. And then there's the E committee. It addresses external research ecosystem, changing policy culture and structure to promote workforce diversity. The Unite committee consists of NIH employees across the ICs, the institutions and centers. Each committee has a charge and in their respective charges they consider initiatives both short term and long term, which further unites missions to address structural racism within the biomedical research enterprise. To do so, there are three focus areas established. First, there's the health disparities, minority health and health equity research area. There's internal workforce focus area. And then there's the external workforce focus area. I will give you a synopsis of the action items that have occurred in each of these focus areas. The NIH has committed up to $58 million for awards for research, to further research. There has been a total of 11 awards, six of these awards went towards transformative research to address health disparities and advanced health equity. And there were five awards having to do with transformative research to address health disparities, primarily and specifically having to do with the minority serving institution. I will go over next, the internal workforce and the accomplishments that we've addressed in the internal workforce. The NIH has examined and included in the performance elements of the executive level, included in one of their elements of their performance appraisal plans. The issue of HHSs and NIHs, that diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility efforts, that is included directly in their performance plans. This is what we're calling the racial and ethnic equity plans. It's a component again within the DEIA performance metrics and the executive level performance plan. The principles for the REAP success are include flexibility where each executive customized a plan according to their ICs culture and their circumstances. Another component of this is learning, analyzing the progress and applying new knowledge to their plan that they've established and share it with best practices with other ICs. And then there's a component with regards to the REAP success having to do with reporting out the progress on the long term and short term measures. The NIH's commitment is evident with regards to investing resources necessary to achieve and sustain the three overarching goals here having to do with the establishment and the maintaining of these REAPs. I've identified here the process and where we are in establishing an implementation just to give you a roadmap of where we've been and where we are now with establishing these REAPs. Back in November we received guidance through an independent contractor to help all of our IC executives, you know, establish and determine where they're going with establishing their REAPs. Between November and April 1, they've been given directly establishing guidance to establish, prepare and assess and design their REAPs. Right, those REAPs were due April 1 and right now we're in the process now of reviewing all of these REAPs to ensure compliance with criteria that was established to ensure accountability and maintenance. In order so that we can be on target for implementation on May 1. It is the expectation that these REAPs will be reported out on, on an annual basis and again best practices will be shared. Another initiative having to do with the internal workforce has to do with the power of inclusive is the workforce recognition project. Another project that was the brainchild of Sadana Jackson who currently serves on the T committee. From her perspective and from all of our perspectives, she, you know, walking the halls of NIH, she didn't find any, any one, any representative of the diverse workforce of NIH. And she came up with this initiative where we line the walls that great deal of funds to identify NIH diverse NIH workforce throughout the halls of the NIH throughout the entire campus. I'm giving you a few slides to show before and after, as far as you could see the change happening as it relates to this initiative. You would see in building one former in NIH, NIH directors. This is a before. But now with the implementation of this inclusive workplace recognition project. So the halls are now lined with representation of the diverse workforce of NIH. We went through great links with regards to identifying color schemes and pallets and patterns to, again, give the idea of diversity. Here are a couple of slides. Sadana here giving a walkthrough to executive level management. You could see these these these exhibits through at least three of the buildings on NIH's main campus. Again, this is another exhibit and an idea of this initiative incorporating throughout the halls and changing the look, the image, you know, the idea of who we are and how we are stronger together. This is a slide identifying in one of the hallways since, you know, a more diverse management executive level management that has been installed through the prior, the prior head of the NIH, Dr. Collins, and give our workforce an idea of the path of diversity that has occurred over time. And in the future, there's even future planning to to expand on this effort with online digital campaign and social media campaign in order to further and sustain this initiative. Right now, the committee is looking at ways in order to expand beyond the three buildings in which this initiative has started. So I'm coming now to the third focus area, the external workforce. And with this, we, there was the establishment of the first, the first project, the FALCITY institution, I have the FALCITY institutional recruitment for sustainable transformation. This is the first program. The overarching goal here is to create cultures of inclusive excellence. One objective here is FALCITY cohort model for hiring multi-level mentoring professional development. Another objective here is integrated institution-wide systems to address bias, FALCITY equity, mentoring, and work-life issues. And then there's a third objective, coordination and evaluation center, the CEC, which is an independent program evaluation for FALCITY and institutional level. And it's been an estimated $241 million that was, that was committed over a period of nine years. Another program includes the Inclusive Excellence Best Practices, the Distinguished Scholars Program, the DSP. And it's built upon a program in place, the Statement and LASCAR investigators program. And it's a self-reinforcing community of PIs devoted to diversity and inclusion. I'm having difficulty with my computer. You can see over time as evident with the establishment of this program and an increase in underrepresented minority PIs over time with the establishment of these two programs. Next, I'd like to highlight the institutional cultural change, the cohorts that were first included with this initiative. There's Cornell University, Drexel, Florida State University, San Diego State University, Tuskegee, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the Icon School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The Morehouse School of Medicine was awarded over $58,000 in order to investigate the disparities or the effects of COVID on African Americans. Going over some future or anticipated future opportunities here include the expansion of the Science Education Partnership Awards, the CEPA program, the NIHY. There's plans to strengthen diversity and mentoring language and parent training grant and fellowship FOAs, funding opportunity announcements, increase the use of diversity supplements for SBIR awards, launch programs to fund excellence and DEIA investigators grants, launch a program to provide support for institutions to conduct objective climate assessments and critical self studies, then develop action plans based on the results. Launch prize for institutional innovation and advancement in DEI. And in order to do this in order that you know the basis of all of these initiatives has been with getting information from where it counts. The NIH sought input on how it can advance DEI and advance health disparities to research with a request for information. And this was open, this RFI was open from the period of March 1 through April 23. These were the RFI categories that were examined. All aspects of the biomedical workforce, policies and partnerships, research areas, and further ideas. These were the areas of categories in which input was requested. The results of the RFI, there was a resounding response rate from the academia we received over 1100 responses in a wide range of respondents stand across sectors with the majority of the respondents came from academia. As you can see here that was 46% from academia. And there were three preliminary cross cutting, you know, topics or findings that emerge from this RFI. And they are, you know, actions beyond words. The responses included enhanced programs and activity. And then there's no way there's no easy button. A small number, it should be noted a small number of respondents proceed that there were no issues with racism or EDI at NIH, and the broader my biomedical community. I'm sorry, we should wrap up. I was just going over the next step. And then I'm at the end of the presentation if you need as only giving you a brief synopsis of all the initiatives that unite has accomplished and if for more, I refer you to our website. And that's it. Thank you very much. The presentation is we said we're going to combine the question session after Karim is done. So our next speaker is cream Watson he is the chief engagement officer at NIH is all of us research program and he was recently recruited to the NIH, just this fall. Karim holds up to two master's degrees one in public health one in math in science and a PhD in health sciences, and he has had long term experience in community involvement and community engagement and as he'll tell us the all of us program is an example that can be held up as soon as everyone says it's hard to recruit the folks to research. Because they've done it amazingly well and Karim is going to tell us about that now. Thank you so much. I'm really excited to be here today you you're absolutely right. One of us research program is made some may or may not be aware came out of the precision medicine initiative of 2015. And so we're right at the customer now or being able to talk about the advances that we've made in genomics research. And we're really excited because through intentional efforts of community engagement outreach, and through intentional efforts of ensuring that we include community partner community members, as well as our participants as partners, we've been able to achieve some of the things that we think is truly unprecedented in terms of diversity, equity and inclusion. So I'm just going to walk you through some brief achievements of the all of us research program, where we're going to date and then I love to engage in some questions with the audience. Next slide. So as noted, you'll see this slide here so today as of March 15 we have enrolled about 477,000 participants in the all of us research study, and of those 477,000 participants enrolled, we're actually have data full data on 329,000 participants. So of those 329,000 participants that puts us almost at that halfway mark of getting to our goal of 1 million participants. So unlike other research studies where they're asking a question about a particular intervention or looking at a specific disease entity. The all of us research program is setting out to be a one of the nation's most diverse data sets of 1 million or more people. And our hope is that in that 1 million or more people that we attract to enroll the all of us research program that we're able to represent the rich diversity of the US. So we've, we talk a lot in the program about what we call quadruple diversity. Of course we want diversity in terms of race and ethnicity, but we also want diversity in terms of geography, disease types, as well as age. And so we've been able to achieve in our participants to date over 80%, what we call underrepresented and biomedical research. When we say underrepresented biomedical research we mean populations that have historically been underrepresented in terms of race and ethnicity, but also including populations like sexual and gender minorities population that live in rural areas populations that are older than 65. And there was even discussions earlier on in today's breakout sessions from the report back about the need to include population disabilities. And because unlike some studies that have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, the all of us has been able to build this diverse data set because currently our only inclusion criteria is based on age and your ability to sign it informed consent form. But right, but we're soon going to be lodging our pediatric role which we're excited about as well. But I want to draw your attention to this slide where of the 477,000 participants enrolled, 80% are underrepresented biomedical research, but 50% are underrepresented racial ethnic minorities, which is a huge, huge accomplishment. 24% of our populations greater than 6511% have less than a GED 28% have annual incomes, less than 25,000 and 9% sectional gender minorities. And if you compare that to historical genomic studies where over almost 80% of participants are wider European ancestry, 10% Asian, 2% African 1% Hispanic and point 5% other minorities and 8.5% under reporting. You can see if the all of us is achieving unprecedented numbers in terms of diversity equity inclusion. Next slide. But we're also in really interested. Lawrence talked about the fact that I recently joined the NIH from coming from academia, and one of the things that we always talked about in academia and I'm excited to see some of my colleagues here and it's called today is the important that the messenger matters as well right. And what I mean by that is that while we've achieved these unprecedented numbers in terms of diversity equity inclusion, we want to make sure that our research workforce reflects this as well. And we do have a ways to go when it comes to our diversity and our research workforce. We've been, we've achieved some great diversity in terms of career level, lots of graduate students are not accessing our database and lots of research fellows and early career stage faculty, but we still have to make sure that we increase the number of African American researchers. Currently we have about 6.9% African American researchers and about in terms of our Hispanic researchers only about at 9%. So we are being very intentional in ensuring that we do outreach and engagement with the research community as well to ensure that we achieve the same level of diversity inclusion that we've achieved in our participant enrollment that we achieve in our research engagement. Next slide. So the enrollment and the intentionality that we've had around our participants has not been by happen chance. For example, I want to highlight here, two, two important types of community health centers that we include. So a lot of research studies include academic medical centers right, we know when you think about cancer clinical trials and genomic studies academic medical centers are typically where those studies are conducted studies typically aren't conducted in the community health centers where the majority of Americans receive their care, particularly those health studies are not conducted in federally qualified health centers and community health centers. At the onset, all of us has been committed to ensuring that we not only engage those major academic medical centers, which play a very pivotal role in genomics research, but we've also been committed to engaging those federally qualified health centers from the onset. And for example, I highlight here to FQHC is one of seven seed your health in California the others Jackson Hines in Mississippi area. These two health FQHCs are just examples of the many FQHCs that we have around the country that are helping us engage diverse participant populations. For example, my academic career was primarily done to implement community based participatory research in a group of federally qualified health centers in the Chicago land area. And it was at that time you're working in these local FQHCs that I really understood that FQHCs were often an afterthought when it came to research. Oftentimes the research studies were not designed to go along with our patient flow. And as a result, we often were excluded from participating in research studies. The fact that all of us is intentional in including community sites such as FQHCs, as well as the VA health centers and others is one of the reasons why we've been able to get to the level of diversity that we've been able to achieve. Next slide. But also the power of community engagement, I can't say enough about community engagement and it was really through the, the brainchild of our former our founding chief executive officer Eric Disman, and now are in the support of our current CEO, Josh Denney that we've been able to include community as partners. We have unprecedented way of supporting community members. For example, in our engagement office alone, we provide community engagement awards to over 100 community partners. These 100 community partners vary from organizations like the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the Black Greek letter consortium, several HBCU partners historically Black College universities, and the Asian Health Coalition. The partnerships with the Asian Health Coalition has allowed us to really make advances and including underrepresented Asian populations in our research, but then also thinking about the way that we do community engagement to build trust. For example, many some, we talked about the work that we're doing with the University of Alabama and Tuskegee University, that's really going to allow us to think about those populations in the south that have been historically underrepresented. And we hear just a snapshot of some of the national organizations that we're working with to truly engage communities and it's really been an amazing opportunity for us to center community engagement as the heart of the program. Next slide. And I talked earlier about our research engagement efforts so I'm really excited about the work that we're doing with historically black college universities HBCUs, as well as work that we're doing with organizations, like universities like Baylor College of Medicine. We're setting out to ensure that we partner with organizations that can provide the type of mentoring, the resources and support to institutions that have been historically underrepresented research. For example, that picture there on the left is me giving a Saturday morning lecture to researchers and graduate students at Xavier University. I mean, I'm really excited to partner with Xavier because currently in order to our data is accessible to three levels, three public three levels. First is a publicly available data that anyone can go on and get access to that data in even right now. Then there's the register tier, and then there's recently the control to not talk more about that control tier, but in our level of our public access to the register tier, researchers actually have to register and get access to our Python. One of the things we found out is that a lot of health disparities researcher do not code using our Python. And so we do intentional efforts and partnerships with Baylor University, our TI and others. We're now making sure that we have support for our and Python use so that that will not become an exclusionary factor for researchers getting access to our database. Next slide. So the another thing is that we also understand that the engagement of diverse populations just like when you think about engaging diverse communities in research. I always say that when you think about building addressing trust and building trust that those partnerships have to begin before you want to engage communities in research. I feel that same way about engaging students and research. You have to peak that interest early on I'm here because I was part of a pipeline program through our urban lead. Back when I was in high school and that pipeline program exposed me to stem researchers early on in my career, and then let me see people that looked like me that was doing this work. We're trying to do those similar efforts in the all of us research program. This is example of our minority student research program that we had for the second year in a row where we actually are launching a minority research program where my undergraduate from undergraduate to postdoc students can sign up to become an all of us scholar and they'll be given research through support, they'll be given a mentor, and they'll be given an opportunity to also understand how to engage in genomics to help disparities research. But this is also a way for us to ensure that those that are accessing the data from our research again are thinking about this commitment to diversity and inclusion. To date, we have over 1228 active projects on our research workbench, and I'll talk more about that. Next slide. This is an example of a study that was conducted in our research workbench by Dr. Paulette chamber at Boston in Boston area Dr. Chandler noted that through the demonstration project that they were able to conduct. We were able to validate the hypertension algorithm that was established by an emerged three study, improve the validity of the all of us data set as a tool for developing and testing other rule based algorithms. The reason that I highlight this is because Dr. Chandler said that it was the size and the diversity of the all of us research data set that allowed her to validate this algorithm. And we want to make sure that researchers know that the secondary data set, the secondary data set that we have that all of us research program can be an effective tool for for studies like that was conducted like by Dr. Chandler. Next slide. So the, I want to leave you with the actual what happened last month last month we did something unprecedented as well. We lost the release of our genomics data. The release data is currently available through our control tier and our control tier actually recently reported out Donnie 8600 whole genome sequences were 165,000 genome type arrays with over 500 million unique variants. And what this is going to allow us to do is going to, when you think about this data the of the 98,600 plus whole genome sequences, over 50% of these participants represent of this data is from racial ethnic minorities. Again, unprecedented diversity, equity and inclusion in our data set. And we've been able to do this through our intentional efforts with our community partners. And in the chat, I believe my colleagues are putting up information about how you can learn more about our researcher work bench. And now I think we got the point we can open it up to questions once you're muted. Sorry. God after two years you think we would be able to do this. I just wanted to mention that there are resources important resources in in being put in the chat and I believe you. There are some from unite that we will probably pop in there pretty soon. So for those of you that are just hearing about these programs for the first time, take a look at the chat and the links there. Importantly, there's an all of us research general page but if you, there's a lot of researchers here, and you may or may not know but you have access to certain level of this data today if you want to. It's going to be pretty amazing as it goes forward so I would encourage you to register to be a researcher and spread this information around because it is really democratic and available to anyone who wants to it at the at the open tier and very low bar to get into the data at the earlier tiers. I don't code in Python either. So there's a you want to learn so there's a link for learning Python. And so let me do a few questions that came from the, the chat. Sorry, I'm scrolling through to get back to it. I'm from the University of North Carolina, one to know she's very impressed by the recruitment strategies. How do you respond when people ask about the representativeness, representativeness of your participants and I believe what gales getting at is the goal of all of us to be reflective, but not trying to achieve perfect representativeness can say that we're in the epidemiologic sense. I have a question. For example, sometimes I get asked by people do we have a target for example do we have a are we trying to get our data set to be reflect like the things like the US census and other things the answer is no, we're simply simply trying to make sure that our data set is is reflective and that so when I get asked about do we have a benchmark that we're trying to get for the enrollment of for example African Americans in our in our data set I say no but we do want to make sure that we have a reflective population and we do say that those that participate in our study should be should equal that of what you what you've seen at least and of those populations represent the census so if we represent 13% of the demographics, we want to make sure that we're able to exceed that number in our representation in our studies. And in the chat was placed even another research all of us link about talking about this particular issue for those of you that have the same question that that Gail did. Barbara Canig asks, how does all of us describe ancestry of the genomic data said that was recently released, does it include social categories as well as genetic ancestry. When you mean by social categories you mean like the social construct of I'm not sure what they mean by the social category. I think knowing Barbara I think that's what she means and Barbara has been talking all through this workshop about getting nomenclature and classification down so I think she's maybe asking about social categories such as race as well as ancestral categories if they're if they're listed based on genome sequence. And also data by self report, as opposed to, you know, what what how do you get to that social category of race. Thank you for that question. The social category of race is self reported so participants self report their race and we another thing that I think it a chance to say is that we also have access to EHR data as well so participants who sign up for our study in addition to the biological data that we have access to the blood sample collection urine and or saliva. We're then able to report back out ancestry data so the racial information that we have is the self reported racial ethnic information and the information that we return back is ancestry data. A little bit over. Kevin mince let's do this is the last question. Kevin mince wanted to know how all of us is engaging with disability communities. Thank you so much for that question and this is a area that we have some growth to do but we are part one of our key partners is the American Association of Health and Disabilities. And they're working with us to ensure things like that we're doing outreach and engagement to ensure that there's access and availability for populations living with disability to access for for example we have a mobile unit that goes out. When we when that mobile unit goes out we're making sure that that mobile unit is available for persons living with certain types of disabilities but we also have the American Association of Health and Disability really assessing our database to assess it to ensure that there's access and equity issues there. So I'm going to with the organizers indulgence I want to sneak one question in for Leah Butler, and then one advertisement for the all of us program at the end so we had the question was, how are you, how is the Unite program going to assess and measure culture change it's always tough to know how to do that within an institution. We have established an evaluation committee in order to establish a baseline with regards to where we stand right now, identifying goals of where we're trying to get to, and so that we can be able to measure our success along along the way. So that is currently that has been taken into consideration, and there is an evaluation committee to address that. I want to end cream maybe didn't mention this but all of us is target size is much larger than it's at now pandemic took a bit of a slowing down of recruitment and someone asked how can I get involved. Both my institution and as an individual, the target sizes roughly double or maybe triple or quadruple what it is now depending on how funds hold out. And to be truly effective. All of us really needs to get bigger it's going to be amazing resource, as it is now, but it's only going to get better so I would direct people to the all of us website. And I'm sure somewhere team will put that in the chat. How to get involved. There's a they'll put both in there how you can get involved as organization and awful as a researcher, how you can get access to our data through the three levels of access to that day. Thanks to both speakers thank you for the explanation I'm going to turn it over to Dr show who I think is taking the next session and apologies for going a few minutes over. Thank you very much. Thank you. My pleasure. Thank you. And thanks everyone for participating in this final session. I'd like to thank all the participants for their active participation and great contributions together with Sandra Lee it's been an absolute honor to work with the NHG or our team to develop this agenda. This really has surpassed all of our expectations. I'd like to thank the speakers moderators and participants in the breakout rooms. On the events bottom, we heard about the critical importance of interweaving in all of genetics and genomics, the concept of equity and all of equity research, all through diversity, equity inclusion. I think everyone in this workshop understands the need for change. And we all recognize that change is hard, but against kind of that goal and aspiration. It's important for us to pause for a moment and understand how much substantial progress has been made, starting from hearing from investigators who have been here for many decades. It really does underline that substantial progress has been made, but that more progress is needed through policy changes through funding priority changes, evolving towards a more perfect union. At Hillgruth, we heard about a number of issues regarding factors that modulate SDOH, the importance of pharmacogenetics, the importance for capacity building, and he very excitingly summarized for us a tremendous transformational new initiative of together for change together between the Harry and Howard. And really I think what could be a theme for this is defining and establishing trusted partners to kind of recruit and 500,000 participants. From Jen Wojcik, we heard about very intriguingly about kind of what are the factors that we accept and what kind of factors are rewarded in terms of understanding and shaping research and science. It really puts an emphasis on epidemiology and prevalence. Dr. Wojcik underscored the complexity of Hispanic Latino populations, and really the need such as with all of us and unite for these long term investments to generate this very rich and very broad set of information. And ultimately, assuring accountability to the communities that we are all serving. And one structural features we heard about the importance of system designs, who's at the table who asked the questions, giving examples of gene environment interactions. We all here believe that education kind of is the answer but we have to make sure that the barriers that education never serves a barrier to this. And we heard about the importance of trust and honesty, and benefits to the community, and it's not like the researcher being separated from the community but actually being part of the community, and really breaking down these barriers between research and political care, and really making this all of one of a point to gather. So, with that, with the breakout rooms, kind of the task for each of the breakout groups was to establish 10 questions that we have now kind of combined a little bit tweaked a little bit. And so for these 10 questions. We're only going to give you two minutes to vote on one particular priority that you think is the most important priority so now hand this off to Lucia to review this for the group so Lucia. Okay, thank you, buddy. I'm going to launch this poll is one question. And the idea is that everyone will select the recommendation that they think is the most important for any story to consider when developing future research opportunities and genomics, and health equity so we're really just using this to take a pulse for where people send enthusiasm arm. We'll leave the poll open for about two minutes, can I just confirm, are people seeing the poll. Yes, Judy do you see it. Okay, great. Yes, so just just choose one, just choose one option. Okay I see a few brave souls voting numbers going up this is great. Okay I think the numbers and we're less stable Judy would you like me to go ahead and show the results. Okay let's see if I can do this share results. Are you all seeing this. It's not it's not exactly ordered from most to least but it looks like the most common was to diversify the genomics workforce by targeting HBC use MSI tribal colleges community colleges, etc. And then the second most common one was ensure sufficient time and equitable resource distribution and funding for community based research so. Any additional comments you would like to make on the survey. No, no I think this is a terrific I think it actually does reflect kind of thoughts is kind of the workforce issues starting early. I think does reflect kind of the conversations that I've heard throughout this. The numbers of kind of closing out. I think the plans that NHGRI is getting has been stated multiple times is that all of the comments from the chats have been captured from the breakout rooms and all the panels. One of the things that I think is truly unique about NHGRI among all the NIH institutes is the extent to which researcher and community engagement is not just encouraged but it's kind of central and primary. And I think a lot of the work of this workshop has been possible through this. In terms of kind of next steps, we are planning to write this up as a meeting reports to try to capture all of the comments from the community and write this up as a meeting report and disseminate the recordings to the community broadly. So Lucia, I don't know if you have last words. Sure. So, on behalf of my co-chair Ebony, Madden and myself, we wanted to thank everyone who's here and those who participated yesterday but are not here today for devoting your time and energy and expertise to this workshop. We've seen and heard throughout the importance of partnerships, cross-disciplinary partnerships, community partnerships, industry partnerships, institutional partnerships and we just want to say thanks for being our partners in getting this conversation going. It's been a real privilege to convene so many people with so much different experience and guidance for us going forward. As you mentioned, we have heard recommendations in a number of important areas. And so we're wanting to incorporate your perspectives and recommendations and a meeting summary also share online when we have that in addition to writing it up and hopefully submitting it to a journal. So at NHGRI, consider these recommendations for development of funding. As always, you can contact us at NHGRI with your suggestions at any time. We also want to note that NHGRI staff will be monitoring the chat. So if you have any final comments or questions, please go ahead and put those in there. And then finally, we want to give a special thank you to our fantastic, amazing co-chairs Sandra Sujin Lee and Judy Cho, as well as the rest of our NHGRI planning committee, the session speakers, moderators and panelists. And we want to give a special shout out to our NHGRI staff without whom none of this could really happen and they really help us out in some tight situations today. So special thanks to Makul Narukar and especially Gerald Simani for making this all happen. So I think we're ready to close out the workshop. So thank you all for coming. You really appreciate it.