 We're in the home stretch here in terms of wrapping up the open session. Next in line is a council-initiated discussion. I'll just point out we have a couple of announcements to make. I have to go over the MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding, and then read the chant of the Conflict of Interest document to you. So bear in mind we have the few other things left to do. The council-initiated discussion will be led by Eric. Generally when we ask of the council, what are the items that you're thinking about? We've been driving this agenda so far. What are the items that are hot in your mind? We sometimes ask the council if they want to hear reports from us at May or September or subsequent council rounds. So we're as open. And either topics you want to talk about now or you want to plant seeds of things that we didn't cover at this open session you'd like to hear about at future council meetings. I'll just say as a new member that I'm very impressed with the spectrum and the breadth of the kinds of applications that you are looking for and your funding. I mean, you really are covering the gamut of the reorganization pieces that you've described. And I just find it very impressive. At the risk of sounding like, what do you call it, a plant or a sycophant or something? I'm not sure what it is. Happy camper. Happy camper. Comments, questions, requests, thoughts. You can also sleep on it and give us something tomorrow morning if you'd rather. Do you want to say if we're, I mean, one thing really anticipated in May council, going to be a particularly busy one or not as busy? I mean, partially it helps to frame how many things we can squeeze in to a council meeting. I forgot. We have maybe four RFAs coming, so there'll be more to do. But it really is very helpful for us to hear from you of things you want updates about because especially months in advance, because it's time to prepare for it and think it through. So, yeah, Howard. This might be heresy, but it seems like the list of... Seems like the list of approved clearances is greater than can ever be actually put out there to be funded. So things we've cleared in the past, there's too many of them. Is there just program handle that, or does something that comes back to us to unclear some... First of all, but give us a little more detail. What do you mean by that? There's documents we've looked at before that looked at the past council meetings and concepts that have been cleared, but are not yet RFAs out on the street. It seems like there are more cleared concepts than can hope to be funded in the current environment. I just unclear how... I used the word clear to me at times, but how does one deal with that? What is our responsibility to help you have fewer of those on the books? Let me take a first pass at that, and I'm I'm I'm Terri and Jeff, who are the program division directors of... They're sort of often in these conversations about these priorities, especially their new roles as division directors. First thing to remind you that this council's advice previously when there were healthy discussions around things that we should or should not be doing, came to the conclusion that it probably was better to err on the side of approving some concepts. As long as we wouldn't be angry with council at the other end of it when they actually saw what came... If there was debate around whether the time was right for something or not, as long as we were comfortable getting the feedback by the time you actually looked at the grants to say, you know what, you originally penciled in $3 million of stuff for this RFA, but we only think there's $2 million worth funding it. And so our collective decision was to err on the side of having you approve it, having us go for it, and giving you the ability to make recommendations to us that were pruning at the end. So by definition, that might mean that we will let more out theoretically out of the gates than we actually could fund. I think the second thing playing into your question may also reflect some of our budget projections, which have, because of the current circumstance we find ourselves in, are extremely conservative. So while you think that all these things can't be funded, those are based on big assumptions, based on possibilities that may or may not come to pass. And if they don't come to pass, actually we will be very comfortable. But it's all based on assumptions not only for this year, but for next year. So I don't think it's as bad as you think it might be, but there will be some challenges. I mean, there will be challenges. I wasn't necessarily thinking, it was, I wasn't trying to quantitate badness, but rather, just wasn't sure about the process. I think we would all be delighted to not have to declare whatever the word is concept. So I just wasn't sure what it was. No, we don't see you having to declare anything, but we do see the, and again, and I think there's going to be some things that'll be coming up that you'll, where we will want your feedback about the set of grants that come in on RFA. And just because we've penciled in X number of dollars, if you don't think there's X number of dollars worth of good stuff to fund, we will want to hear that from you because we all decide collectively it was better to do that than to be too conservative up front. Terry and Jeff, do you want to add anything to that? I'll add one thing. Because I think last year there was a case where there had been an approved concept clearance, but the RFA had never been issued. So it's the opposite of the problem you're suggesting where we're not sure how good the things that'll come in, but we'll take a look. In that case, there was interest in a concept clearance, but there was a decision made at the program level or internally that we don't have the funds to request proposals in that area. And I think that it would be useful to hear if there's any things in that situation right now where it's come up by council. Council has been enthusiastic, but program feels like there's not funds to support an actual RFA. And so I'm just going to say we are working out the processes to do this internally. We were really making it up as we were going a year and a half ago. That was the first time we went through that kind of exercise. I think we have the process improved a little bit now. And that's among the information that we plan to bring to you every council round. Are there any things like that right now? Approved clearances that have not made it to RFA? There's one example that I think you're thinking of. But that just meant we didn't have money last fiscal year. But it's back, but it's on the list and it's in draft and it's going to go out. And it's on the list potentially for next year. And I think that that example was one of the reasons that in discussions with you the decision was made to delay the final decision until you really see what the, so the decision at that point we were more working under the lines of if we clear something for $5 million, we basically got to keep $5 million on the books. Instead of being willing to put more on the books and then make the decision at the time of the applications. Okay, are there questions, comments, thoughts, requests? Okay, seeing none. Okay, so back to the agenda. Under announcements, an item of interest. There are two reports that were sent to NHGRI. They're available on our website for the council open session. Versus from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, it's their report to the council. There are several items of interest. I'll draw your attention to their position statement on public disclosure of clinically relevant genome variants. And the second is the quarterly report from the National Society of Genetic Counselors. So it's time to go through the Memorandum of Understanding. And Monica, you wanna come up and have a seat on the side? No, she can be on the, you can be at that chair in case you need to use the microphone. So the Memorandum of Understanding for those new members of the council in the simplest terms, and I probably do a disservice to what the document really represents. But it's basically a description of how we're gonna conduct business with you. What things we are required to report to you, what actions we can take with your consent and without your consent or your knowledge. It's all spelled out in the MOU. I'm not gonna sit here and read it to you. There are two changes that have been made to the MOU and those I will draw to your attention. Again, I don't think you'll be surprised by these because you've already seen an example of the first. The first change is the requirement to conduct special counsel review of any application where the principal investigator, if he or she receives that award, would then have more than $1 million a year in direct costs from any number of active current grants. So that's been added to the MOU that we are now obligated to bring those to council and to have that review be conducted. The second issue is the matter of the expedited council concurrence. This is an NIH wide, or ECC, we're now calling it. This is an NIH wide phenomenon. It allows the institute to bring certain application types to a subset of the council, members of the council. In the case of NHGRI, it's SBIR and STTR applications. The current members of the ECC committee, I guess we'll informally call them that, are Didi and Jim, and we will conscript someone from the new incoming class. So there'll be three council members. So we will bring these applications to this subcommittee about one month before each council meeting, and they essentially perform the same process that's done in a full and open council meeting. We give a report to you. There is a report in the ECB that shows you the list of applications. Fundamentally, what ECC does is it allows us, if we want to make an accelerated award, we can basically get started early on those applications. Any questions about the ECC process or any other aspect of the MOU? Great. I think we're down then to the conflict of interest statement, which I am obligated to read to you. There is a document in your, did you get folders? Or just, yes, okay. There is a conflict of interest document in your folder. You might want to do it at this time, or as we break between the open and closed session, please sign it. Comfort will come around and collect it from you. This will certify that in the review of applications conducted by the National Advisory Council for the Human Genome Research on February 11, 12, 2013, I absented myself and did not participate in the discussion of nor vote on any application in which I, or to my knowledge, my spouse, minor child, or close professional associate has a financial interest, nor on any application from an organization or institution where I am an employee, consultant, officer, director, or trustee, or am negotiating for employment or otherwise have a financial interest. In council actions in which we voted on a block of applications without discussing any individual one, the so-called unblock vote, me an example. My vote did not apply to any application from any institution fulfilling the criteria in the preceding paragraph, or that which I just read to you. So, at this point, I think we're ready to close the open session of council and we'll turn off the cameras. You can run to the bathroom for five or ten minutes and then let's re-adjourn to deal with a couple of applications before we quit for the day, okay?