 Okay, I will gavel us back in session. Turn this over to Rudy for introducing the next speaker. Right, thank you, Eric. So we're back in open session now. Welcome back, everybody. The next presentation we're gonna get is from Laura Jetta Schools. She is a program analyst in the, sorry, a program specialist in the training diversity and health equity office. And she's giving a presentation titled, Outstanding Award for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Genomics Workforce. Laura Jetta. Thank you, Rudy. Hi, so as Rudy said, my name is Laura Jetta Schools and I am a scientific policy analyst in the training diversity and health equity office, also known as TAG. And I'm gonna be presenting to you today NHGRI's award for enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, also known as DEIA in the Genomics Workforce. So the purpose of the Outstanding Award for DEIA in the Genomics Workforce was established as an honorary awards program to highlight the accomplishments of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, also known as DEIA. And as I go through the presentation, I'm gonna refer to it as DEIA in the Human Genetics and Genomics Workforce. Awards will be given annually to recognize NHGRI extramural investigators and staff for their successes in DEIA and genomics. So there are four categories that are gonna be given annually for these award nominations, which can be given by trainees, mentors, or self. The first category is for extramural program recognition, and we're gonna be giving out two awards annually, one for an established investigator and another for early career investigators. There is a second award, also given to NHGRI staff for recognition in DEIA. So one category is for sustained and substantial contribution to DEIA, and the second is for DEIA innovation contribution. So please visit our website at genome.gov in the news and events section to view our feature on the 2022 DEIA award recipients and also hear a little bit about their backgrounds. Okay, so now I'm gonna go through who our 2022 awardees are. So our first awardee is for outstanding award for DEIA in the Genomics Workforce as an extramural established investigator, Dr. Party Sabedi. So a quote from Dr. Sabedi, is I view diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility as imperative for meaningful advancement of genomics in science. And just to go through some of Dr. Sabedi's accomplishments, she's co-founded the African Center of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases, which has trained over 1,000 researchers in genetics, genomic sequencing, and bioinformatics. She's also supported scientists in Africa to enable the first diagnosis of Ebola in Sierra Leone and Nigeria, and has generated the first genome sequence for COVID-19 in Africa. She's also co-founded Operation Outbreak, which is an educational platform that teaches outbreak preparedness with the help of a Bluetooth-based simulation. She's also created an Outbreak Science textbook for high school students, and hosted a Crash Course Outbreak Science, which is a textbook and series focused on DEIA themes, also with stories about little-known work of black scientists. Next, I'm very honored to announce our second awardee, and this category is for Outstanding NHGRI Staff Award for DEIA in the Genomics Workforce, and it goes to Dr. Betty Graham. So a quote from Dr. Graham. I always make the points that number one, implementation of DEIA principles is everyone's responsibility, regardless of one's position in the Institute, and two, diversity is an integral part of science. These are not two separate initiatives. And now to move on to some of Dr. Graham's accomplishments. She's developed the first minority action plan for NHGRI, which then was known as the National Center for Human Genome Research. She's involved in the INITE Initiative, which is a TRAN-NIH activity that identifies and addresses structural racism that may exist within NIH and the Biomedical and Behavioral Workforce. She's also involved in the expansion of eligibility of the Loan Repayment Program to include master's level genetic counselors involved in research. And lastly, she was also involved in the review of pay increases for NHGRI and NCAT's Title 42 recipients. And our last awardee for 2022. This award goes to NHGRI Staff Award for DEIA Innovation in the Genomics Workforce. And our 2022 awardee is Dr. Ian McCartney. So a quote from Dr. McCartney. I am thrilled that I have the opportunity to play a very small part of re-imaging and creating this future for genomics research, a future where all views are voiced and recognized as co-equal, where diverse perspectives are viewed as a resource and not an obstacle. So some of Dr. McCartney's accomplishments, she's taught an intro to genomic session for the summer internship for Indigenous people in genomics, also known as CING. She's a faculty organizer of the first Indigidae workshop. She mentors a tribal undergraduate student at DNA College in the NHGRI Summer Mentorship Program. She's chaired a working group for Indigenous people and local communities for data sharing and management through the Earth Biogenome Project. She's a co-investigator on a U24 application to create a tribal data repository for COVID-19 data for ethics and data sharing management. And she's also chair of the European Reference Genome Atlas Project, which included 102 species from 30 European countries and negotiated free sequencing for under-resourced countries. So with that, I wanna say a very strong thank you to the nominators of the award, both for our extramarital external award and also for our NHGRI staff, also NHGRI reviewers, NHGRI staff collaborators, and lastly, the Tide Office. So again, I just wanna give a special congratulations to all our 2022 DEIA awards recipients. So just looking ahead... Oh. So looking ahead, NHGRI will continue this honorary awards program with our next nominations due September 1st, 2023. So with that, now we're gonna have a fireside chat with our Institute Director, Dr. Green, who have a conversation with the three 2022 DEIA recipients to detail their accomplishments in DEIA and the genomics workforce. And with that, I'd like to introduce Dr. Party Sabeti, Dr. Betty Graham, and Dr. Anne McCartney. So while we wait for our virtual two award recipients to come up on the screen, Lord General, let me start by thanking you for your leadership in getting this award off the ground. And we're delighted to have this awards program, but we need a champion and you've been that champion. So thank you very much for everything you've contributed. So what we thought we would do is to not just hand out awards without having a chance to learn a little bit more from these individuals and unpack some of the highlights that you heard in the introductory remarks. And so we have in virtual format, parties and Anne, although I don't see Anne yet, I see parties, I assume my technical crew are trying to bring up Anne as well. Or Anne, if you're on and you have, ah, there's Anne, terrific. So I had the pleasure of being with you last week in Florida and hearing you give a fantastic presentation on the plenary stage. So I know what some of the things are that Lord Jetta mentioned that you've been involved with absolutely make you an appropriate recipient of this award, but you get a lot of awards, you're very well recognized, but when we sat and chatted Friday night, you were telling me that this really means a lot to you, that getting this award in particular is very meaningful. Maybe just tell us a little bit more about why is this award particularly special to you? Yeah, Eric, thank you so much. I'm super honored to be here. And it is, I honestly was, it's the, this is the kind of award that means so, so much. Oftentimes we get awards in science for doing things that are done by a team. You know, you get recognized by, you know, one person or a couple of people get recognized for what takes a village. And so, you know, frankly, a lot of those types of awards fuel me with a lot of mixed emotions and makes me want to be able to give back. And so to have an award that recognizes that you recognize other people and are trying to bring out the best of other people, like that's where, that's where it's at. I really do believe that's, you know, where science is at, where everything that we do on this earth is about. So I am just honestly really, really grateful to be here and just think this kind of work is so important. And so to be recognized as somebody who's contributing in that space is a great honor. So thank you. So Betty, we're up now. I can see that they're videoing, capturing us sitting next to each other. So I want to turn to you and we're just going to go around all these folks. I have questions for everyone. And then there'll also be time for council to ask questions. So council members, you could be thinking of things you want to ask our three awardees. So Betty, I don't know if it's all, everybody knows that you recently surpassed 50 years of federal service. Most of those with NHGRI, but you also had other federal, so I mean 50, I just can't even comprehend. I'm so in admiration of you for that. You know, how have you seen sort of the scientific in general, the genomics workforce more specifically significantly change in terms of diversity over that time? Well, as you said, most of my time has been spent at NIH and looking back, I think in the past 10 years, there have been major changes at NIH. If you look at the IC directors, the group is very different from what you would see, would have seen 30 or 40 years ago, very different. There are a lot of women and there are also people of color who are IC directors. That is also true for senior leadership and many institutions, and I'll come to NHGRI later. About maybe 10 years ago, in NIH stood up their office for workforce diversity. I thought that was very, very important. It's a commitment. The other thing is that the BRAIN Initiative has instituted what they call every application that is submitted to the BRAIN Initiative must have what's called a perspective for enhancing diversity plan. And I think by now they have had 15 or 20 funding opportunity announcements with that in it. And then we had in the past couple of years the stand up of the UNITE, whose purpose is to try and figure out all the places where structural racism exists within NIH and within our extramural program. And I would also like to give a shout out to NHGRI. I mean, if you look at NHGRI, we have a lot of women in senior leadership positions in intramural and extramural. We have a scientific director who is a person of color, and we do have some very high level senior scientists in the intramural program. There's a tide office that was stood up, which again is a statement because you're putting money and people into something you are speaking about. But I also wanna say that I believe this is something that's not only for senior leaders, but everybody at NIH at NHGRI, they have a responsibility to make this a project for all of us because until that happens, we're still going to be fighting the whole issue. So it has to start at the top, but it also has to trickle down, and that is what I hope for. So, Ann, you have really put a lot of effort in thinking about and tackling issues of indigenous communities. I'm curious what were sort of either the educational experiences or life experiences that inspired you to wanna sort of tackle that niche in this very complicated landscape? Yeah, so during my first post-doctoral research fellowship, I actually had the opportunity to travel to Aotearoa, New Zealand, and there I got to work for a project called Genomics Aotearoa. And as part of the mission for that project was to sequence and assemble the treasured species of Maori, which are the indigenous peoples of New Zealand. And so my role as a bioinformatician was creating the genomics infrastructure to support that supported the production of their traditional knowledge, which is Mataranga Maori in alignment with their tikanga, which is their best practices or guidance in that area. And so having that experience, I always thought about how to integrate indigenous peoples and local communities into that process. And I suppose one of the things that continued to inspire me was when one of the first genome assembly I ever did was for the New Zealand honeysuckle. And that was my first reference genome I ever did. And it was a treasured species of Maori and it's of really high commercial importance to Maori. It's an industry run by Maori. If you've ever heard of Manuka honey, it's a similar category of honey class. And I had the wonderful opportunity to travel around native bushland with my Maori partner who was working with me on this project. And he took me for four days around his homeland and showed me the reirerewa, which is the honeysuckle plant that I had sequenced. And I had this fundamental shift in my thought processes behind what the data I was that I had just produced and what was the meaning of it. As he told me about the rituals and the practices that they had utilized with the leaves of the reirerewa, it was actually used for a birthing ritual. And so at that time, it just, I realized that I could never answer the questions. I don't know the questions that need to be asked from this data and I was not in the position to answer them. So I had this awareness that I as an expert in the room for genomics, I did not have, I had the limited situated knowledge to be able to answer these questions. And so I would, doing this work, I could not do this work with a partnership from indigenous peoples and it would make my science wouldn't be as good for it either. So it's interesting what Anne just relayed sounds. It reminds me part of some things you mentioned in your talk that last week's media really became clear how connected you become with the groups that you're working with. And in your case, these are groups not just here in the United States, but globally. And that's just been something you've embraced for many years now. Why do you just explain to folks why you have personally decided it's important for genome scientists to think about workforce diversity and inclusion not just in the US, but on a global level as well. Well, yeah, Eric, the problems that we're trying to solve are global problems. And it's not something that you can sit here in the United States and pontificate them far away. And also, and fundamentally, the people who are there with the insights on the ground are the ones, as Anne said, that have the true insights that we need. There's so many insights that you only get on the ground, only through a life. And fundamentally, the one thing I sort of say within the context of this is that the workforce around the world is amazing. It's just amazing. And I think you have to think ambitiously and boldly. A lot of the things that we've done in Africa, people might not think it was possible, which is, you know, it's wild. Like, honestly, even in seeing in COVID-19, Africans were at the forefront. So the meetings that I'd have with my colleagues in Nigeria and in Sierra Leone and Senegal were some of the best meetings I attended, the most thoughtful, the most nuanced. And we really need those insights. We need people around the world. We need to support like the DEIA concepts around the world. The best of everyone everywhere. But fundamentally, the problems that we're trying to solve today are global problems that transcend all boundaries. And I think that we want to look everywhere. And what we'll find is just incredible talent everywhere that we want to support. Partis, let me ask you a follow-up question because I think some people are sometimes maybe a little intimidated to think they could sort of move into an international setting and have an impact. And I think the activation energy intimidates some people just because it's more foreign to them. So what advice would you give to others who are interested in working internationally to enhance diversity? What's the piece of advice you think it would get people to take that first step? Yeah, I mean, I think it's just that to take that first step. I mean, you know, just like anywhere, you have to find the right colleagues. You have to find the right collaborators. And I was very grateful and privileged to do my post-doc under the mentorship of Eric Lander and Diane Worth. And Diane, her experience was really, having trained many individuals from around the world. And through that, I came to know Christian happy. And so you just, you forge those relationships. You find the person who's your ride or die. And Christian has been my ride or die in this for decades now. And you go in with them. And I think, fundamentally, the one thing I would say also is a piece of advice is, don't set boundaries for yourself with what's possible. I mean, I think that so often we sort of set, a lot of the research that's done in international settings have a bit of a colonialistic view to them. It's a little bit of, well, we'll do this. And I mean, I see sometimes, you know, what we expect to happen there is, I don't know to say the word. It's a little bit infantilizing or something. It's not, we're not expecting much. And ultimately, these are the best scientists in the world. They're the best people in the world and they can do anything that we set our minds to. The African Center for Excellence in Genomics and Infectious Cities is not just a continental superstar hub. It's a global superstar hub. And we see that all around the world, real centers of absolute excellence. So I would say, I guess my two pieces of advice is find that person, put your toe in. And if you don't know individuals and work with people who do and begin to get those relationships built, find the person that you want to ride with this for a long time and then set no boundaries on where you can go. And I do believe that what I'm most excited about is it's through cutting edge technologies and advancing the state-of-the-art workforce that we're really gonna transform continents. It's by really investing in the human capital in those places. So on the advice theme, Betty, you have done a lot over the years and you've seen things that have worked and seen things that have not worked as well. What advice do you have for people who are now, as you heard in earlier presentation from Vince, who are now really trying to make the genomics workforce more representative of the diversity of the United States? Well, I think it starts with the recruitment. And I think we all have been taught to, when you look at candidates, you just take the top one. I think we need to do some of the things we do when we are funding applications and that's the zone of consideration. There you would be looking at several people and you're looking for who can best bring their knowledge, experiences, and whatever to the program. So it's not always, the best can be a band. It doesn't have to be a person. The other thing is, I think once you recruit somebody, it's important to train them, give them the resources they need, and also to integrate them into your program so that they become an integral part of what you do, that they feel that they belong. Then you empower them. You have to give people an opportunity to grow and spread their wings and sometimes they're going to fail. Failure is not a bad thing if it's a learning situation. And then I think it's also important to promote individuals. Once you get them and you see that they're working out, which most of them do, then I think you have to allow them to participate in trance institute activities or trance NIH activities. So they get an opportunity to show their skills to a larger group of people. And I think, again, you're then sort of embedding a lot of their principles into what you're already doing and especially come from different perspectives, different backgrounds. The best scientist ends up being the best type of science that you can do. So that would be my advice. So, Betty, while I have you warmed up, now I'm gonna ask you a question I know you don't like talking about yourself or your accomplishments because you're so modest, but as you look back on your career, what are the accomplishments around diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility that you have had a hand and that you're the most proud of? When the career highlights, what's the one you put, the one or two or three you put highest that you think you've made the most impact? So I'm going to take a different approach to that. I had a feeling you weren't gonna like that. You're way too modest. First of all, I find it hard for anyone to say that they, by themselves, have done something that's very critical because we all work in an environment and we get ideas from other people or they participate in the process. Where I think my strengths are is that, one, I try to be a voice for those people who think they do not have a voice. And two, I think my greatest strength is how I approach a situation. I like to look at a situation and if I see a gap or if someone lets me know that they think there's a gap, I take that seriously and I do a couple of things. First, I wanna be sure that it's something that can be legally done because I think I've been around NIH for a long time and I know that our weakest point is that how we implement programs. So it's in the implementation that usually is the issue. So as an example, I'll give you the pathway we took for the genetic counselors being able to participate in the Loan Repayment Program. For years, NIH, for the extramural side, their Loan Repayment Program was only for MD or PhD scientists whom they wanted to keep in the workforce. Now the Loan Repayment Program is throughout the federal government and it's each organization implements it how it wants to. So when the comment was made that we would like genetic counselors to be part of that, I sort of looked at the regulation and there's nothing that says you must have a PhD. Then we brought in a lot of people from the communications group, from the training group and we had a meeting with the group at OD that implements the program and I don't call names. So we didn't get anywhere with that. So I then took it up to the next level, to the next level, to the next level and now we have a program that's called REACH which is the research for emerging programs for health. So I think what is important is that when you see something that needs a change, you try to do all you can. You can't always change things. Some things you just can't change and you have to know when to stop beating your head and just let it rest. Well, that was a tenacious example. You were tenacious and you didn't take no for an answer and then you got made significant progress on that. And I think that's the way I function and I'm sure there are others who do the same way. So and I want to go back to you and learn a little bit more about your interactions with indigenous communities and hear from you what lessons you've learned from your work and collaborations around genetics and genomics, what would sort of be some of the key lessons that you think would be really instructive for others to hear about? Yeah, thanks for that question. I guess working alongside indigenous peoples and local communities really has gotten me to be at the forefront of genomics, infrastructure and data management and sharing issues, which although I address them from an indigenous peoples and local communities context, they have ramifications for many other sectors of genomics research. When you think about open data access and use or what that could look like in the future in terms of federated models or blockchain, whether you start to think about security and privacy and really what does de-identification mean in the new age, new genomics era. Things like broad consenting, could we shift to being more thinking through what could dynamic consent mean? Thinking through moving away from extractive practices and toward more sustained and meaningful partnerships and then thinking through, well, what does communication look like in this space when historically and we continue to perhaps misinterpret genomics research or not attribute research appropriately to people. So thinking through what does co-development and co-design mean and what do multiple evidence-based approaches mean. So I guess it's, you know, I come at it from an indigenous peoples and local communities perspective but what I'm trying to, the message I'm trying to put across is that the ramifications of this addressing these issues are multi-sector, right? They were facing these challenges in multiple spaces and I think indigenous peoples and indigenous scholars in this place are really moving the future for genomics in this space and, you know, we have to support resources and thinking through how do we do this moving forward and creating a more inclusive future for genomics research. So, Pardas, I wanna go back to something you said earlier and we were talking about sort of the international emphasis of some of your effort and I thought I almost heard you say that you almost don't even see a distinction between what you do abroad and what you do in the US but let me just press you on that. Is that really the case? I mean, do you sort of see efforts domestically and international with respect to diversifying the workforce as sort of similar do you see significant differences or you're just relying to that and just say it's important everywhere? I would say I think that, I mean, the fundamentals are obviously going into work with a country you have to understand that culture and so it really does matter that you and the people, you know, you and or the people that work with you who are working there are really embedded and spend time with the people at least really think through their frame. So definitely there are nuanced differences in how you interact with different countries and cultures but I mean, the humanity is the same and the potential is the same. I think a lot of the way we think about are like if you saw like a lot of my work in DEI is around education and it's around, you know, building programs to get people in the funnel as early as possible starting in the work we've done from middle school and up and so I think those things are fundamental. I think in the kind of work that I do to infectious disease every single person on this planet needs to have a certain level of education and we're kind of ambitiously aiming to train, really start middle school to train everybody to understand what is an infectious disease and how it might affect them and to essentially I think a lot of it comes broadly and the things that are universal that comes with a sense of respect, respect for the individuals, respect for their intelligence, respect for what they have to offer. No matter, you know, in this country obviously we have some things that are like the divides are bigger than nation states, the political divisions that we have, the ideological divisions that we have but it really comes from respect that you can educate and support everybody. You can come from different perspectives and see where they're coming from. And so when I talk about DEI kind of concepts we're talking about like across the board, you know, it's not just women, not just minorities really supporting inclusivity across the board and I think it really does come from just very, very fundamental basics of shared humanity and an understanding that you do your best work when you take perspectives from everybody. So I would say those things, Eric, I mean, again, everything is within the cultures that you work with you think about where they're coming. I think that the idea of what, when you think about the different cultures where they're starting from is important to understand of how to get to where you wanna go. And different places are starting from different places but I think that the fundamentals of human beings is pretty similar wherever you go. And I would imagine you would think the barriers that you encounter are different at different stages perhaps. I mean, maybe you eventually see similar barriers but at any given moment in time in two different places in the world the barriers immediately in front of making progress might be very different. That's right. They changed within different countries as well. I feel like the barriers that we saw come up during COVID were, you know, some of them were there presently but some of them were really intensified and they go in different directions. So you have to, you have to move with it constantly and see where is that culture at where that at every point and how to work from there. So Betty, people at NSHR I know a lot about your story but people watching this and maybe council members may not be as familiar with your career but I should immediately point out you have had many firsts including being the first African American to receive a PhD from Baylor College of Medicine but there's other firsts as well but those sorts of experiences have clearly shaped your career journey and I suspect they've shaped your passion for diversity, equity and inclusion but I guess, are there any sort of pivotal moments where you said this is gonna be part of who I'm gonna be professionally? That's sort of one question and the second question is would you have done anything differently? Well, regarding the first question I think I've been very fortunate and all the way from graduate school to where I am now I have been very fortunate to have people who control my destiny to respect me, to listen to my opinions and I have tried to do my best to give them the best that I could for the organization that I'm working for and the mission. I know that this is not the same experience that others have had and I think there's nothing I can do about it except try to see that it doesn't happen over the things that I'm involved with but I've just been very lucky. For example, this has nothing to do with the genome program but it does have something to do with an IH. As a program director in the I Institute which is my first position I noticed that come count, well first of all, summary statements were written for council members not for the PI. Those PIs who were knowledgeable would write and ask for their summary statements so that they could send letters to council rebutting some of the things that they were saying. So I went to my EPMC person, Ron Geller and asked him if we couldn't send out summary statements to our PIs letting them know that it was available. Well we couldn't do that so we had to send letters to them saying you can write us and ask us for your summary statement. So for two or three rounds we did this and then we finally said let's go to what was then called the division of research grants and we asked them if they could send the summary statement directly to PIs. Well that did work so they did that. Then that wasn't the end of the story. There were PIs who then would look at their summary statement and say but I don't see anybody on here who reviewed my application. Well in those days ad hocs were not added to the roster so I wrote a letter again and said a memo rather could we please have the ad hocs on the summary statements and eventually that happened. But again it's all for fairness. That's really what it's all about, leveling the playing field and I think that's where I think my strengths really are but would I have done anything different? I think the answer is no because first of all I like where I am now I'm very comfortable but you don't know what's going to happen so something is either going better or worse if your chances are 50-50 those are not good betting chances so I'm happy right where I am now so I don't go down that rabbit hole. And so in your opinion what's the best way to encourage junior or early stage investigators to get involved in these DEIA efforts as they're setting up their laboratories or as they're sort of getting their early career moving along? Yeah, yeah and just to recognize first that all of this work that everybody produce and better you're speaking about it is incredibly uncomfortable work to get involved in it's incredibly challenging and it's uncomfortable to get involved with and that might be intimidating for many early career researchers because it's uncomfortable to dedicate time to these kind of initiatives when it's time taken away from your own research so you're not publishing in nature when you're building data sharing and management infrastructures for indigenous peoples and local communities because that's not your priority. And then it's uncomfortable because as well you're taking the time to reflect upon the structures and the systems that you've been trained in that you're an expert in and to reflect upon them and to really start to think through your own thoughts as well your own biases and that's uncomfortable and that's challenging in and of itself. So I suppose my recommendation here if this is a new field for you to get into as an early career research researcher is look toward projects that are already doing something that you are interested in and have a mission that aligns with your values and ideologies and I guess I see that as a means to get comfortable with getting uncomfortable and to be around those where you can gain confidence and gain your own voice in this space. But I also did wanna say that I think that institutions have a huge role for supporting early career researchers in these fields by awarding this type of work so that when we're not publishing in nature we're still moving toward our career trajectory and moving forward as well. So I suppose it's two sides. So by the way council members I'm gonna ask two more questions and then I'm gonna give you a shot at asking questions. So you may wanna be thinking about that or getting ready but parties my question for you I'm gonna go slightly off script here. So you're a very thoughtful person and you have a lot of really great ideas and here you are talking to NHGRI but also importantly you're talking to our advisory council. What's the one thing that you're frustrated by or you just wish was different about NIH or about something that would be in our control that you think we should be pushing harder on or putting more effort in or trying to change the rules something along the lines of what Betty was saying. Is there a saying that you could immediately think of that boy if only I had a magic wand that could change the way NIH or NHGRI does something this would be how I would use my magic wand. Oh guys, that's a hard one. Big question, let me think about that. Well, I mean, this isn't gonna be the this is just off the cuff. So it's not and it's literally because we just had this conversation not necessarily it's the most important thing but I just, Eric and I were just at AGBT together and AGBT did a lot of things that helped me kind of come to the meeting and it made me think more broadly about just how we think about engaging individuals. It's sort of a little bit of what Betty talked about that the idea that you don't just diversity, increasing, being inclusive is not just about bringing people to the table it's recognizing what's stopping them from being to the table. So for example, for a lot of like working mothers and particularly single working mothers is an example like they, you can invite them to as many meetings as you want. Frankly, people keep inviting them to too many meetings because they think it's not helping them to show up at meetings and they don't have the support for the work that they're doing and particularly as single mothers if they don't have the resources to take care of their kids when they're gone. So that's just one example but I would say in all of this it's recognizing, same thing with the simple things like for the individuals who in my group don't assign to either male or female gender making sure that there are bathrooms that work for them and that are right for them. Basically, I would say in everything you do that empathy is so important of just stopping and saying what would it be like to go through this space? So I think in general we should be asking more questions of people and saying what is stopping you from coming to these meetings? What is making work difficult for you? And then really addressing those things at the base. So I just feel as if too much of this is done at that high level of just sort of saying oh, if we just get the numbers up that will solve it and it's like it won't solve it if you're not actually addressing the real systemic issues that are facing these individuals. So I guess, and I'd say actually the NIH is doing really well in that space so I'm not, as far as I really do appreciate a lot of the efforts that you all have but I'd just say more of that, more of that really diving in deep and really understanding what are the barriers? So I wasn't an off the cuff that was an excellent answer. I mean, and it's so relevant because I think another way to phrase what you were just talking about that does come in front of council and certainly does get discussed is we are constantly looking for what are the barriers for people, I'm just gonna say all people whether they're single moms or individuals with other circumstances that are preventing their progression throughout their career from very early on. And so there's constantly considering policy changes or ways of helping them facilitate. But part of it is just recognizing what the barriers are. You're right, we're probably sometimes insensitive to when we invite people whether we're gonna be aware whether they're gonna have childcare issues or if they're a single parent, et cetera, et cetera. And you brought that to our attention at the meeting but we could also be thinking about that more broadly in everyday life as we think about supporting the early careers of individuals. And having extramural staff hearing these things and hearing advisory council members hearing these things are really, really important. So thanks for that answer. So, Betty, the last question for you and I know I've heard you talk about this before so I know it's easy is career advice. You have students and early stage investigators talking to you and asking you what's the gem of advice that you should give individuals in general at these early stages? What are sort of some of the things you always like to tell those trainees and early stage investigators? So when I think of the question, I think of the development of the COVID vaccine in which you had people from academia, from big pharma, from biotechs, from small businesses all coming together, which kind of like a symphony when you have all the instruments making beautiful music. And if you look at what's happening, how in general, how trainees and awardees, K awardees are trained, it's mostly academia. The jobs in academia are not increasing. And I think part of the reason why so many individuals are in their forties when they get their first award is because they're in this incubator waiting for a position to open up. But all of these entities, big pharma, biotech, small businesses, most of the people who are working there as scientists I am sure have been trained either on fellowships, traineeships or career development awards that have been supported by NIH. So I think they have to start looking beyond academia to deploy their skills. But that also requires the training programs to give them those research experiences in different research environments so that this is nothing foreign to them because working in these environments are very, very different. And so if you have those skills, it makes it easier for you to transition. So my advice would be, you need to be looking beyond academia to really deploy your skills because all of them working together that results in improving the health of people. So I think NIH has to sort of be a little more open about this, but I think another issue for a longer-term discussion is there should be private public partnership and training because we are feeding these groups and yet they don't have any skin in the game. So we can't solve that problem now, but... Maybe you should tackle that problem in retirement. Yeah. Well, it is serious because if you look at what's going on in the papers, postdocs, graduate students, they're not being supported financially to do the work. And so we will be losing a lot of people because of that. Okay, well, I have dominated the conversation or dominated the ability to ask questions. I want to turn this over to see if any members of council wish to ask any questions of these three remarkable awardees. Iftikar, I see you first, so... Well, first of all, my congratulations to Drs. Graham and Sabeti and incredible and inspirational. I followed this work over the years and it's really amazing how she's been able to deliver her scientific gains into something really impactful. So congratulations. My question was for Dr. McCartney and the question was related to when you approach indigenous communities. Do you think about when you're trying to introduce genomics into those communities, going back to their culture or the concepts about family, about their faith, about heredity, rather than going and saying, oh, we have this technology. But there may be elements of concepts of genomics that are inherent in each culture and perhaps to tease that out and then merge that with what you're trying to do. I wonder whether you could comment on your experience with Amari in that regard. Absolutely. That's a really, really thoughtful and wonderful question. I suppose it leads to thinking about as a scientist, you come in with a panoptical view as you think about, oh, you are presenting. Genomics has this world view into what could be going on in this population or with these peoples. And then I think it's expanding out to a more oligo-optical viewpoint where there's situated knowledge. So everybody has their own certain knowledge, whether it be cultural knowledge, whether it be religious knowledge, whether it be, and they all, I think recognizing that they're all valid firstly is the first point to get across that we can look at concepts of kinship, we can look at concepts of heredity in different ways. And that's okay if sometimes that if they're inconsistent, but it's acknowledging that they're all valid and co-equal as equal knowledge systems. And I think entering into partnerships where you are open and transparent about, this is my methodology, this is what I'm doing, and what's there comfortable and have space and a seat to voice their methodologies and their approaches, and once that they're seen as equally valid and even if they do not, or sometimes you cannot find a consensus, giving both of those, elevating both of those knowledge systems is very, very important. From my experience working with Maori and Native American communities specifically, but a really, really wonderful question and something I think deeply about how to do a better job of. Thank you. I'm looking if there's any other council members. I don't see any hands. Okay, so with that we want to now just let our awardees know what they are getting. I don't know if we can, there we go. There's a nice view. Those are the glass, by the way these are simply tokens of our appreciation. The work you have done is a Herculean and Laudatory, but we wanted to somehow give you a memento of our appreciation. And so for Anne and for Partis, we will be mailing you yours and maybe Lord Jetta, could you bring, since Betty's sitting right next to me, we can at least have the chance for me to physically hand this beautiful design piece to Betty. So there we go, you can see it on camera. And we'll see you Betty, congratulations. And thank you for everything. Lots of applause in the room and Partis and Anne, thanks for joining us, congratulations. Look for a FedEx package in the next week or so. We'll make sure this gets in your hands and I look forward to seeing you both in person some point in the near future. All the best and congratulations again and thanks for everything. Okay. And with that, I think I'm turning this back over to Rudy.