 I mean it is a lot. I mean we just generated, our charge was to be generative and so we were and so that was fantastic. And so now it is the sorting part. So how do we make sense of this big list that we just got? And I do think, I mean, we all might have our favorite way of parsing the issues, you could parse them by what kind, even how we organized the meeting was in terms of the usual flow of a research project. So you could do, hi, I'm not, I'm connected over here. You could do issues by starting a project. Who defines the research question? How, what projects are getting funded? How those funding decisions get made? You could have a whole list of questions doing a project where you actually do it. What are the data collection methods? Data, who's gathering the data? How are we making sense of the data we get? And then you can do kind of the disseminating a project or closing a project. I'll just do closing, it's broader. So closing a project which has all those returning results getting findings out, getting findings out to whom, how do we make sense of what we have? Where's the stewardship and sustainability that happened? So I think we can, we won't do that, that would be too tedious for us all to do this together to try to sort by that for right now. But one, a different way, and then I think other themes that are ways I'm thinking about too is that we've got a whole set of kind of tools and methods. So this idea of people have talked about studying what works, that there's good projects that are going on right now. So how did the trust building happen? How did we get to a community-driven project? What kind of capacities were needed on all sides for everyone to help make that project happen? So those kind of studying what's working could help us get to some tools and methods that can become what we're calling good practices, and then we can evaluate them further and get to best practices. So that's one strategy I think we shouldn't, even while we're, I think why I was pushing a little bit on the definitional issues, is that while I realize we have a lot of conceptual clarity to get to, and some of these taxonomies to work on, we have a lot that is already currently ongoing, and so I wanna know what can we learn from what's already working so that we can have some of those tools and methods of people who want to engage in this work and who can engage more quickly. And just one very concrete example, I think the evaluation metrics manual that NEHS has developed that was mentioned earlier, it's a concrete eight chapter manual with some very specific tools that help give me as an academic researcher, it's like when I do partnership development as part of my grant activity, I actually, it's not just hand waving, I actually have language process tools to be able to describe and characterize and assess how I'm doing and make visible the work that I just invested that year to the funders and to other people. So that's just an example of a tool. Yeah. Another tool that came to mind as you were saying that is the CTSA community engagement group put a handbook together that's actually quite good too. Good, CTSA community engagement, I didn't see where that voice came from. Deb, okay, good. Yeah, that's been a very active group with some good publications. So we talked about there's some normative work here too, what are our responsibilities and then I think there's the sort of social science work of how do we enact justice and power and recognize the values that are working across all of us here. So I think these are just at least some domains of work. So are there other sort of big domains of sort of research either research areas or approaches that we can talk about of what you're seeing in our findings? Communication, I would list as one of those big issues. Kelly. That's kind of a cross-cutting issue, right? It's gotta be its own or it doesn't happen well. Okay. Kelly. Yeah. We talked about the regulatory, the legal. Oh yeah. And could I, this is Steve. Yeah. Make an observation about what you've written on the slide in the line with justice, power and values. Yeah. That I don't think we can necessarily get that from any particular disciplines. Yeah. Whether they're physical, biological or social sciences. Sure. And a lot of them are going to come from outside of science entirely. Like from grassroots movements and so on. And maybe from the legal sphere. So they, I would just suggest. Yeah. Thank you. I think structural, I was trying to find, I'm trying to do the lumping instead of the splitting. So I was trying to find what's the tag that I could use for that category but I hear you it's gonna, I think, because these are sort of the structural and cultural issues that we're gonna have to address if this work is gonna fly in a meaningful way. And some of that has to do with power, some of it has to do with the regulations and the policies. Kelly, I would also say at least at the university many and growing civic studies is where lots of that stuff exists. Great. And it's growing aggressively at a number of places. Thank you. I wanna put in another plug for this kind of civic science group that Eric and I participated in where our colleagues in community organizing and civic engagement have so many strategies and tools. I think this is my thin placeholder of tools and methods on this slide is saying that we have so much we can, but we don't have to invent it. It's out there and so well established and well functioning. We just, it might be in different areas than at least as an LC researcher. It's in a different bucket than I'm used to looking. So I have to expand the places where I'm looking for my tools and methods. Sorry, I just have to address that comment. Yeah. Because I, you know, being a non-LC person I don't understand that. I don't understand why research and scientists continue to wear different hats and act schizophrenic all the time. I don't understand it. And I deal with it all the time. Sorry, but this is one of my frustrations obviously. I'm dealing with the same people in the same meetings in that have different topics and they act like they don't know anything about that other topic. That's ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. It's, we should, why? I mean, LC work is important, but I think one of the messages some of us were trying to get across is LC has to integrate into all of research and you know, that's, so we can't think about just LC issues here. They're research issues. There's an LC component that you have to contribute to these research issues. And I would add, I'll tell on Dave that I, or at least this is what I already told Dave is I think the Venn diagram that was given to us at the beginning of today is drawn incorrectly. And it fits with what Deborah just said. Yes, is that it suggests that there's part of NIH research that doesn't involve LC and it suggests there's part of citizen science that doesn't involve LC, which is wrong. So LC, and I think this is what Deborah's saying in another way, is that LC circle needs to be bigger than the other two and LC involves things that are not citizen science and that are not NIH but everything that's involved in citizen science and NIH research is within LC and that brings it to be integrated rather than siloed and considered separately. What's the definition of your definition of LC? That seems much broader. So I think I'm gonna just put, I'm gonna capture these as what we'll call provocative statements that have come out of this meeting. Because I think, I really, after, I don't understand that. No, after like, I think it's this idea, I'm like a thousand percent behind. Basically, just a simple answer is that all questions about what hypotheses to address or what to describe in nature or whether or not to take action on what or how to avoid exploiting participants in research, those are LC issues that affect all science. And we could, and we could sit here, we could have a productive session saying let's list all of the assumptions. Like one thing we were talking about is, and federally funded research is federally funded. Therefore, it's congressional mandate. Therefore, it's kind of publicly accountable. Therefore, there's some sort of social contract. Therefore, what does it mean to be, have federally funded research be a benefit to the public? I mean, I think we could bring it all the way back to some of these basics. And that, we might just tag, we tagged it in our group as just one of the domains that is worth making really clear saying what is the, are we making good on the social contract currently for federally funded research? And if not, are there some citizen science, perhaps a method that helps us get closer to making good on that social contract. I know Carol had a comment and then I'll go to Eric. Can you, but you gotta still get it to a microphone other than the web people get upset. Yeah. Oh, anyway. Right, under issues, we talked a lot in my group about the hypothesis generating role for communities, citizen scientists. So I would add under issues before starting a project, an issue, conceiving of a project or yeah, I guess developing, right? Because it's not just the start of the project, it's the concept of what we should be studying and that's a huge area I think. I put that, I'm a lumper so I put that in that bucket but I'll make it visible for you. Okay. Eric. I'd like to amend the comment I just made before about civics studies is the place. It's knee jerk university siloing. In fact, what's happening at least at our university is that civics is outside of the colleges and departments and it's student driven and so much the same way that the LC issues are larger than all those other things. Civics at the university is growing as an issue outside of just the classroom, outside of research, outside of dorm life, it's larger than those and I think as a result, there's an equivalency between those things. So this sense of agency among students and agency and community building that's done in an ethical, legally thoughtful and socially thoughtful ways. So partly that makes me think too, Eric, an overarching question here is just who that's keep coming up is who's leading, not just who's at the table but who's leading and who, where are we going to listen? Well, I think at least at UMBC, it is facilitated by folks who are on the payroll but it's led by students, it is the purpose is to accelerate student engagement. The purpose isn't to lead students in direction. The purpose is to give students the tools from which they can develop their own initiative. Which that reminds me, that was another one of my big buckets was capacity, building capacity was another theme that came up and we were talking about bi-directional capacity building. So the capacities that need to be cultivated are all throughout this research ecosystem, not in one way or the other. And yeah, sure. Okay, this table's there, okay. Keep hitting my knee on the table. So just, I think that's really important and just to think about the assumptions, getting back to the point of assumptions that we, so I've started to use the term, instead of using empowerment with an E, I'm starting to use empowerment with an I. And the reason why I'm doing it is we're assuming that people do not have power. They may not be actualizing that power, they may not have access to that power, but it's a recognition that from my CCPH colleagues, people always start to come in and empower the community, we have power, helping us build capacity so we can use the power, that's different. And so I think that's part of bi-reactionality is understanding what our assumptions are and I think we'll see, that's part of the discussion, but so that's capacity building so communities can better access that power, the opportunity structures needed to access power, right? And then on the academic side, being an academic who's a one foot in, one foot out person, how can we build capacity to change institutional cultures that will allow this kind of work to be more valid, I mean not valid, more valued within the system? So others like me, because I'm gonna do the work regardless, it's who I am, it's my spirit. So if it's not valued or not, I'm gonna keep doing the work, I'm gonna keep having the impact, but there's other young folks, bi-alcoholic members who are not doing the work because they don't see that it's been valued in the 10-year promotion process. There's not enough grants to fund it and so they're not going into this work and they're leaving academia because of that. So I think that capacity building needs to happen as well. Elizabeth. So when I look at bi-directional and I do think that our capacity has to be built, we also think that we have to help you build your capacity and I think it has to be, we who help you build that capacity as opposed to a consultant or someone that you bring in to help you get to that point where you can integrate a lot of those things that are on that page, like the relationship and the structural and the cultural shift, right? So, and oftentimes we get bought in without resources, right, to talk about our communities, but there's funding to pay for consultants who don't have any experience actually operationalizing these things to do that. So I think that bi-directional is, that also is a power thing, a power relationship, where basically we know that we have to build in a relationship where we support each other in these meaningful ways. Thank you. Mildred and then Jason. I had something, I think it's on the next slide that you had and it has to do with the second bullet. I would feel better if that statement were actually a question. I think that's an assumption that needs to be tested. Yeah, it was a bold statement that was made earlier in the meeting, so I was putting it on our list of provocative statements to consider, but I think we can, does all, does, this kind of is our taxonomy, it's a version of our taxonomy question, are there kinds of research that fall outside of citizen science or that just wouldn't be amenable to it and why, if so why, but that's fine, good. We had Jason and then Jeff. Oh, microphone, Jason, sorry. I think just in terms of, for me, my overarching goal is to make participation in research or cultural activity. And I just keep feeling these tensions in all these different ways that, and this is just more of a comment, I don't know where to go with it, but it's really access to power, building capacity. And it's not necessarily, I feel really, I feel like that in many ways has to happen outside of the institutions where people live and work. If we wanna make science part of culture, then there should be a really strong focus on capacity building of not necessarily existing institutions to accommodate citizen science. I think that's important. And I'm struggling with, I'm struggling with the access to power and making sort of citizen science, something that everybody can participate in. And I'm just imagining, if you wanna sign up for citizen science, then you have to go to your local university or academic center to do that. And that's not what I'm hoping for. Can I maybe build on that as an example, is when we talk about crowdsourcing, for example, how many individuals who are a part of the crowdsourcing actually know what that's about from the scientific point of view? That what, how science is looking at their participation in that. Do they actually feel like they are actively participating in research? I think in some cases, yes, and in some cases, no. So that may be like one of the underlying themes is when we are doing these activities and engaging people into the process, are we also letting them know that they're actually being engaged into a research process and what that means? Okay, who did I miss over here? Oh, Jeff. So I wanna look at the next slide, your methods slide, I guess. To the point, though, about taxonomy. And this has been kind of bothering me throughout, and I've said this at our table. It feels to me like we were talking about citizen science as if it's one thing and everybody in the room knows it's not. And the taxonomy is gonna be very complicated. We can't, I think, understand even how to do that without something like ethnographic research. Sort of getting into the science and seeing how it's done and the issues will then be clear or surface as a part of that research. It's sort of more like the process through which Genome Canada funds some of their gels, so-called gels research. I don't know whether that lives on your list there, normative tools, methods, whether it is ethnography, effectively, or something like that, but I don't think we can do a lot of the work that we're talking about without having a better sense of what the it is. Yeah, and I think I might have apples and oranges on this list. But I, because I think if we picture, let's just picture a product where this is heading. So I'm not, this is not happening. This is an imaginary, this is a thought experiment. Let's just say that NIH issued an RFA that said, here's an RFA for LC issues in citizen science, and we're especially interested in exploring in proposals that will be responsive to these six kinds of domains and questions. I think the work that we're doing here today is trying to sort of kind of define what would those four to six priority areas that the NIH would decide to put on an RFA would say we really want some work done in this area. And then it's up to you all as a, all of you as a research community to say, the best methods I have available to me to be able to explore a question like that could be XYZ, could be ethnography, could be surveys, could be a community driven effort to do something else. So I wasn't trying to say what are the, what are the LC research tools we have available to us to solve some of these problems. I was trying to say, what are the kind of domains of investigation that we think will advance the field and practice right now. So maybe I'm using words that are not the ones I intend, but there needs to be on that list, I think, this kind of sense of understanding what the practice of citizen science is, whether that's called ethnographic work or something else. I didn't mean to imply the tool we ought to list. I think that actually kind of helps solve some of the problems I'm having. Cause for me, like I know I work in a variety of communities of practice already that are, some of them have academic affiliation, some of them live outside of academic world and sort of having sort of, for me, I would hope that there would be a partnership with existing communities of practice out there and sort of having that recognized of like who's already doing work in this and how do we work with them. Great, if I put descriptive work on this list, does that help you all to say like what, and I did, I lumped it too far under my tools and methods cause I meant that to say, we have work that's already going on, we need to understand how it's working so that we can share out those good practices and grow from there. But it's sort of a deep description to me when you, only because it's a bit of short shrift to call it descriptive work. So as long as we understand what we're talking about, shorthand is fine. Okay. Rich and then, Karen? As we begin to think a little bit about RFAs and those sorts of things, one thing I would put on the table is that in the spirit of citizen science, I think it would be a mistake for NIH to issue an RFA independent of some of the big players in the citizen science space and that's something that would be a collaborative release or call for applications that would involve some of the major citizen science players would be much more effective in my opinion. Okay. So there are a number of foundation, private foundations for example that we've alluded to in this context and thinking about NIH trying to set a research agenda for LC studies of citizen science as a unilateral activity, I think is again very antithetical to what we're talking about in the spirit of the meeting. I would much rather see some consortium of funders in this space as opposed to it being simply an NIH-led initiative. Right, so I think what I hear from that is you would like us to not do this in a vacuum, work with the other organizations out there that have supported research in this area that have already begun programs in this area and think about leveraging that, yeah. And can I also add that there, I would not delay investment and capacity building of citizen science in the United States, but doing the study first, but it would be really interesting to simultaneously and parallel for the NIH to look internationally at where, what other countries, governments are support, how they support citizen science. For example, you could look to Austria who has some federally, sort of federal support built in to their scientific funding that goes into community engagement that's very citizen science focused. And they're, you know, so it might actually be worthwhile to sort of compare on big national levels how people are doing this around the world. Elaine. I think the issue too is it gets back to what do we mean by citizen science and is this citizens being involved in research and we're talking about biomedical research here where there's not a long history of in these kinds of organizations. And so the question is we certainly need to deliver to that but are there new models or new things that we need to do in whatever our community defines as citizen science? Thank you. And can I take prerogative to ask one question that was raised at the very, very beginning that I haven't heard really explored? There was this assumption, somebody said stars aren't worried about their privacy so you can release stars, you know, information about stars and birds publicly and broadly but what is unique about doing citizen science in the biomedical space? And so privacy was mentioned. What else other than privacy makes biomedical research perhaps unique or different than ornithology and some of the astrological work? That birds and stars or galaxies are not trying to improve their conditions, their own conditions. So they're not like patients who need quality care. They're not like communities who need to be freed from the burdens of pollution or denial of basic amenities. And that is a fundamental difference with a model of non-scientists in quotes, serving to collect data for scientists as workers. Okay, what else, Karen? Sure. Also on that I think also you need to put this in historical context. I mean we have a tradition in biomedical research and in ethics that we have this concern for protection of humans that may be different than the history of involving citizens in counting birds and stars. I mean it's just a different kind of tradition. So it goes back to the earlier point about the descriptive work. Sure. I mean about it all goes back to your definition because I think we could do some great descriptive work or whatever we call it in defining models of citizen science that have worked or maybe how do we define work? And once it happened. I mean learning more about what the state of the art is really is there. Sure. But it's worth distinguishing that in the sense that in addition to a human subjects review board we have a vertebrate animals review board. So we do have a long tradition of scientists being responsible having ethical responsibilities for non-human animals but those non-human animals are not organizing to change the world. That's the key. I would argue. Well and I do think it's a chance. I think it's an important flag to say this is the current regular, we have a history here that has built up and as our current regulatory environment and as our current research ethics built around protection of people. I think remember a lot of there's a lot of people who'd want to kind of that revising that language and that assumption that people need to be protected but not losing those real vulnerabilities and harms. And it goes back to the paternalism word which is used yesterday. Exactly. CCPH actually which has been mentioned multiple times is working on a revision to the Belmont report from a community-based community driven research perspective and so you have that to look forward to in the next couple of months. Elizabeth had her hand up and then in the back you haven't had a chance to comment. I'm not sure the birds aren't organizing. They may be flying to safer spaces but what I will say is unique about this time that we're living in is that demographic is getting older so we have a huge population that's older. We've got also an increase in a population that has a history of public health disparities that's growing too. And so we sort of have to pay attention to the fact that the population in itself that is most at risk is growing and that that contributes to us looking at how we serve the public differently I think. Yes. I just wanted to suggest for your list the two obvious points. People have rights, people have lawyers. Okay. Duly noted, thank you. Eric. I would maybe like to offer, maybe I'll come up to the board in the spirit of the civic science workshop we were at. One of the participants offered a sort of a grid for trying to figure out maybe what the taxonomy should look like. And I'm kind of working on one and I'd like to draw it on the board just for folks to see if this, if maybe we can fit some of the various activities that are science onto the grid is maybe a way for us of conceiving how diverse the world of citizen science is. Sure and I think. Well, if you'd like to come up and draw while we keep talking. That's exactly. That would share, please. And I know, I mean even Andrea's work or the survey that she was cited on the first day, I think her survey of citizen science practices probably got to a lot of this mapping, some of this mapping. So I think we could say again if there was a working group on building a taxonomy of citizen science we'd have a lot of data and tools and studies and thinking and grids to draw on. So I think this will just be a little example, a little taster of what you might get. We want to take a few more questions. And then I do, I want to also, I'm going to, I get to hand this all over to Jeff which I'm very excited to do. But I, you know, and so Leah and. So I think there's a tendency to look at citizen science as a way for better data collection. But there are some projects that are emerging where community members, individuals are actually contributing to the problem solving, to addressing very difficult or complex scientific problems. And I think fold it is one example of that where a few members of the gaming community were able to manipulate proteins in a way that the computationally they had not been able to achieve. And we're seeing that in other fields as well. So I think looking forward that's a unique place where citizen scientists, volunteers are coming with fresh eyes. They don't come with as Jennifer couch and earlier we're talking about and we're talking about Steve Wing. They don't come with their blinders on of preconceptions of what's hot in the scientific community. They're able to discover new things like Zooniverse discovering a whole new form of galaxy. Whereas the astronomers just said, oh, that's an anomaly. Yeah, and I thank you, Leah. I think the comments been noted that this isn't just passive data collection not just sending your data in that what citizen science, the citizen science we're talking about is a more completely integrated participatory process. Gabe. All right, I think, can everyone hear me? Okay, I use this right. One thing that I was thinking about with the key questions that make and provocative ideas around how biomedical science is different is just the diversity of the data itself. When you start collecting all these different types of data I think that makes it more difficult to know what LC methods you need to use, which communities are gonna be using those methods, how people are gonna react to privacy, all of these issues. Just something that came to my mind. Thank you. And I think I've also heard some people mention it's more why we get so excited about the returning results issue is because of the sort of implication, there's sort of real, there's real life implications of the results that we're releasing. So if you release your preliminary study of your bird count, you're not yet creating any lasting, so potentially lasting effects of that. So I'm gonna take, yes, that way in the back there, Nancy. One other area that might have thought about some of these things too is that it also seems one thing that's happening in citizen science, it's bringing different ways of knowing or maybe cross-disciplinary. There is some work that's been done on team science, some of the ethics of team science, and then also like validation that one field knows something in one way versus and it devalues how another field knows or doesn't know, but then also then, all of a sudden you're creating new disciplines and so there might be some things that can be learned from, I know a lot of people are thinking about team science and some of the ethics and some of the roles and responsibilities and how you work together, et cetera. Absolutely. Yeah, that's another, it's an example of a very rich existing body of work that we can learn from for sure. I wanna start to bring us to a close, Andrea, oh, yes, please. If you could return to the unique slide for a moment, yes. So our table has been murmuring and Karen Cooper is also passionately tweeting the points that not all of these issues are necessarily unique to biomedical research, particularly privacy, location-based privacy is a really significant cross-cutting issue. Also the idea that people are at stake with real health impacts and disparities is a big issue in some of the environmental monitoring initiatives, but I think that what's really unique about this is that these are at the forefront of the cultural awareness of biomedical researchers and I don't know if that means that NIH might be best equipped to lead charges in these directions or what that might mean, but just a little perspective from parallel communities. Yeah, and thank you for that. And I think partly because I sit part-time in the environmental health world, for me the environmental research sciences are always sort of part, but I hear you there's a whole another, there's independent environmental research that isn't biomedical that has health impacts. But so this isn't, this is a candidate list, it's not a definitive list. And the other piece, I mean, why we're even bothering to do this at all is because if, I mean, I think there was a claim because there are existing successful models of citizen science in some of our other, our other sister organizations and disciplines, so why couldn't biomedical research just adopt wholesale some of those models over, and I think this claim that, well, biomedical research is different in important ways that would mean we couldn't wholesale adopt some of these existing models. And I think this is, that's an open question. I'm stating that as a, I would like to state that as a question, but that's how it's been framed, at least in the organ, in the evolution of this meeting. Seema and then. I think that this kind of coordination of sharing of practices that the federal community might play a role in that, Lee, in this coordination of what works from one field to another, that that might be a role that this federal community practice might. Yeah. That might be part of their role. Exactly. Jeff and David. On this list, there's also this, the sense that biomedical research, sorry, biomedical information is treated in very particular ways in regulation. We have really specific rules and laws about what you can and can't do with the kind of information that's generated by biomedical slash environmental research. I'm thinking of not just the human subjects stuff, but HIPAA and all of the things that we don't need to list, but that's part of what's going on here. That's part of the bullet list, frankly, of the things that are relevant for how we ought to be thinking about citizen science. Would this be fair that this is a regulated environment, so there are things, you know, like. Lots of things are regulated environments. It's a very particular kind of regulated environment, I guess is what I would say. Sure. And like it or not, this, what we're talking about the last few days is coming into this highly regulated area, right? And so maybe it's not what we would do from scratch, but it's the reality that we are inherited. And I think this, this pushes, this perhaps is another area, it's been certainly an area for discussion in this meeting, but it is, I mean, our existing regulatory structure came from somewhere, it didn't fall out of the sky. And so is it now that, you know, as technologies evolved, social expectations have evolved, cultures have evolved, do our existing regulatory structures still serve us in the ways that they were intended back when we built them? And I think Larry, is John Wilbanks still here? You quote, is it Larry Lessig quite often about kind of where's the locus of change? And if we're waiting for the regulations to change before we change, that's not gonna happen, and that's not how it happens either. I mean, that technology changes first, so it will, social and cultural communities change, practice change first, technologies change and drive that, and then our practices and our policies catch up with it, and then eventually the regs catch up with all of that. So I think some of us, we often talk about the regs being kind of giving us the floor of our behavior, but it's really up to us as communities of citizens and scientists and researchers to say, what is our, what's our standard of excellence? How do we wanna, what kind of work do I wanna do in this world, and what's important to me? And so I think we have to be conscious of the regulatory frames that are there without having those feel like they define us completely. And I've actually participated. Oh, sorry, am I jumping in on somebody? I think the, go ahead. So Kofi, go ahead and- Go ahead, go ahead, you started, go ahead. But on that regulatory framework, I participated in the biotechnology framework at an analysis of, you know, 35 years after the first sort of attempt to regulate after a Cillamar and genetic engineering technologies, how does the policy frameworks serve our new environment today? And that's sort of the time scale that a lot of policy works on is 30 years, you know, 40 years of going back revisiting, how is it doing? So I just wanna say that, you know, laws are here to serve us, and it is really worthwhile LC research to do those workshops and to say, what are the policy frameworks and do they serve us? And a lot of this already goes on, but for those who haven't ever participated in an evaluation of how, of what current law and recommendations on whether they should be updated, it's really important and interesting work. Which is the group that's leading that, Jason? Well, this was the JCBI, Sarah Carter. Cool, thank you. Yeah, so Rich and I were on the IOM NAS exposure science in the 21st century report. So we have a chapter in their own ethics. But the reason I mentioned that report, we talked a lot about these new tools. I know we had a sort of brief points about new tools, but we go into great detail about the type of exposure tools, ubiquitous monitoring, ubiquitous sensors. And I mean, so what does that mean when we wanna have this data as it relates to collecting all this pollution data, real-time spatial data, which we know all our cell phones, we're being tracked, you know, right now. And we're fine with that, but that's there's some tension with HIPAA because we have a lot of data, our own personal data is out there right now, right? Social marketing data, when I go online to Google, I always get my comic books and Marvel stuff comes up because I'm a comic book collector, you know? So they track where I go. And so that's happening all the time right now. So what does that mean when we're trying to do this kind of new kind of work? It's not new, but with HIPAA, with RRBs, we don't have community RRBs because a lot of this citizen science work and at least the work I do is more about the community. But the RRBs as they stand now, there's not really representative of the community needs and really being able to address those, the benefits for communities. It's the benefits for the individual, but it's not the benefits for communities. So I think that that's the major question that I think we need to figure out a way to raise as well with the data is there all the time and the data is very protected, like very regulated. But if you're a citizen scientist trying to address health disparities, how is that gonna work, right? How is that really gonna work? Yeah, thank you. I think I'm gonna take Leah as my last comment and then turn things over to Jeff. And I think we'll go ahead, Leah, and then I'll kind of wrap us up here. Oh, just quickly on Jason's point, how does the current regulatory and legal environment serve us? How does the citizen science and projects that we're doing inform the legal and policy environment? Don't necessarily mean advocacy, we're science, how do we inform? How does it inform the policies? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah, great. Okay, really, I think between, so between this morning, the real generation of ideas this morning and then just now this sort of deepening and extending, I think, again, coming back to our organizers' charge for us, I get that some of you might be like, well, thinking that ELSI is too narrow of a frame or NIH-funded research is too narrow of a frame, but frankly, that was the charge of this meeting. And we thought to get around this universe, which is so large, this kind of gave us one starting point. And so I think it is, our charge has been to map, and I think you all have done a remarkable piece of work to map what are some of the research areas and domains that are really gonna be critical for us if we're going to be able to work effectively, if the NIH-funded research enterprise is gonna be able to work effectively in this citizen science space. Sima. Kelly, I wanted to ask because like a lot of people here, a lot of us are getting tired. And I know I'll think of other things after the meeting. Could you share these slides that we could add to them after the meeting or cogitate on them some more without waiting for meeting summary to come out? Absolutely. Well, let me turn, let me ask Charlize and David and let's just have a pause to talk about what is being shared out out of this meeting. Some people have asked for slides. A lot of people have mentioned different reports and things that they're working on. There's all the small group report outs. I think some of us I know are interested in looking at all the details and not just the aggregate. So what will be shareable from the meeting and how would it be available? Oh, sorry, so maybe we can do some sort of Google driver someplace where people who are at this meeting can access like our individual notes from the different tables, things like that. Like any of the slides that might have been generated if people are comfortable sharing their slides, maybe we can ask them to send that to us. Cause I know people either decided not to use their slides or we're changing them. So the versions we have might not be applicable anymore. So anything you feel like sharing with the group if you send to us, we can create something and let everybody know we have the full invite list. Great. And I would say I think I know just from being part of, I should also, I think Charlize and David put an incredible amount of work into just thinking through this meeting who was going to be here and how to really approach it. And I think, and they had a whole planning committee that they actively worked with. But I think that I really want to thank them for the investment that you all made in this meeting. But I think to Sima's point, this meeting is convenient cause these are real questions. This wasn't a thought experiment. These are real questions and we really are trying to interested in shaping a research agenda here. And I think that's where Jeff's gonna take us into sort of next steps for what is this gonna look like? What could this look like? But these, so I think as you have ideas on your metro ride, airplane ride home, please send those thoughts forward because we want this to be as rich and meaningful as possible. Cause these are real questions. Yeah, Jennifer. Turn it back to you guys too just for a minute and say, what do you wanna do after this? So we are really eager to collect up all of the thoughts and inspirations and things that came during the discussion today. And also as Kelly was saying after you leave and you sort of get your thoughts together and you think, oh shoot, why didn't I bring it up? Or why didn't I say it that way or what have you? But you know, there is ample opportunity after this to keep this dialogue going in lots of different ways. If you all are interested in continuing this dialogue through, you know, we could have webinars, phone calls, whatever, we can do a Google doc, we can do whatever you like. We'll put together some kind of report but having that kind of more active dialogue with you all over time would be really helpful. But we're aware of everybody's lack of time and focus on other things and that sort of thing. So I think I would throw it back to the group and say, how would you like to proceed from here? Cause it seems like lots of good stuff arose. There's still a lot of sort of potential settling of it or, you know, discussing and sort of hashing out, you know, real goals out of some of this and how would you like to proceed with all of that? How about, I think Jeff was gonna take us into some next steps and I think talk about, but and take us into, talk about from, I think from your experience, Jeff, what there's been some active work kind of, how do we grow the LC research agenda within NIH? And I think, but I think certainly Jennifer, Jean, Charlize, David, Elaine, all of these folks, Sima, please I think contact any of them, you know, as we break here very shortly about how you'd want to stay involved. But these are some ideas.